|
The beehive
factor in Kenya's politics
SUNDAY NATION
Story by WYCLIFFE MUGA
Publication Date: 10/29/2005
Not too long ago, I had the
difficult task of explaining to a group of foreigners a small news
item appearing in one of the local newspapers.
The news was that a group of men
had been arrested by police on their way to a political rally.
What puzzled the visitors was the reason for the arrest – the
men were found carrying a beehive to a referendum campaign meeting
that was being held in a nearby centre.
The obvious answer, that these men
were determined to disrupt the rally, had not occurred to the
visitors. Even after I explained, they still had questions: Why
prevent your political opponents from addressing their supporters?
Why disrupt a peaceful gathering by tossing a hive full of angry
bees into the crowd? And, above all, why a beehive of all things?
It was hard to explain that what
they had read actually reflected a substantial advancement for
Kenya. That the level of violence over the referendum has actually
been low compared to that of previous political battles.
It is always difficult to explain
to outsiders that a certain degree of brutality is actually
considered "normal" in the politics of this country, and
that we only worry if things begin to get out of control.
But, leaving the foreigners aside,
let me do my bit for "civic education" and point out a
few things that have not been given emphasis thus far in the
referendum debate.
First, I would emphasise that for
all the lofty words and phrases so often heard, a constitution in
a democratic country is not primarily about unity or development
or the welfare of generations yet unborn.
It is simply a device for the
distribution of power. It essentially attempts to balance this
distribution between the Executive, the Judiciary and the
Legislature; or between national and regional interests; or
between individual rights and the demands of citizenship in a
modern state.
The most insightful comment about
constitution-making that I have read in recent weeks was not made
in Kenya, but actually came from an online report on the Iraqi
referendum which ended recently. The writer expressed the view
that "a democratic constitution should be hostile to the
accumulation of power at any one centre." That is the
essential thing, and the rest is detail. It serves to remind us
that although what we in Kenya have learnt to fear most is an
all-powerful president, the evils we associate with excessive
powers of the presidency, can actually be brought about by judges,
MPs, or the media.
It was parliamentary tyranny that
led to the huge salary increases and other incredible perks for
MPs, at a time when most Kenyans are striving to survive on less
than a dollar a day. Media tyranny played a big role in the Rwanda
genocide.
So if constitution-making and
politics are about distribution of power, it is no wonder that the
people-driven constitution (codified as "the Bomas Draft")
was doomed to be a non-starter.
That draft is nothing more than the
unrestrained effort by different sectors of society to grab for
themselves all sorts of powers without any thought of balancing
their desires against the claims of others. It promised everything
to just about everybody.
This explains why the Orange group
that is opposing the proposed Constitution has had a upper hand in
the campaign, while the Banana group has had their work cut out
for them – selling the new Constitution.
But if the lessons of the 1992 and
1997 general elections are anything to go by, then the Orange
group may be in for a surprise. For what the results of those two
elections revealed, was that if those who hold the instruments of
government are willing to utilise them well, they can easily turn
the tide of public sentiment in their favour.
In this respect, we may say that at
least some good has come of this referendum process; it has
somehow compelled the Government to heed the cries of various
minorities which have hitherto been ignored.
It is not really clear why the
Government suddenly finds that it has ears for the longstanding
pleas of the Ogiek, or the Maasai. In a crude mathematical
reckoning, these are not the key voting blocks that will determine
the outcome of the referendum.
But perhaps the reasons behind
these recent moves are not as important as the fact that they are
happening at all. And despite the pretences of various foreigners
(including some diplomats) that this exercise in political
patronage is shocking, the practice is as old as democracy itself.
In one of his books, (based on
events that actually took place) the British 19th century
political novelist Anthony Trollope had a passage which aptly
explains how it all works.
An opponent of the Government of
the day, seeking to justify a change of position, starts by
declaring that he did not particularly like the prime minister of
the time, but that "the thing now offered was too good to be
rejected, let it come from what quarter it would. Indeed, might it
not be said of all the good things obtained for the people, of all
really serviceable reforms, that they were gathered and garnered
home in consequence of the squabbles of ministers? When men wanted
power, either to grasp it or to retain it, they offered bribes to
the people. But in the taking of such bribes there was no
dishonesty, and he would willingly take this bribe."
This passage might just as well
have been written in reference to what is going on in Kenya right
now. And before any foreigners turn red in the face claiming that
the Government is bribing voters, let them consider the political
traditions of their own countries.
Apart from the occasional beehive
tossed at a crowd attending a political rally, we are really not
that different from the rest of the world in our politics.
|
