Connect with us

Politics

TOGO: 50 years is enough

Published

on

Révolution Togo
Download PDFPrint Article

Political violence has been inherent to the political evolution of Togo since its inception. Although it never erupted in the all-out war and large-scale tragedies that I have often seen across Africa, the West African country has a complicated political story.

A short 3 years after Togo’s independence, Sylvanus Olympio, the founding father of Togo, was gunned down at by former soldiers from the colonial army in the first coup ever in sub-Saharan Africa. The author of this assassination eventually seized power in 1967 in what would become, at the time of his death in 2005, the longest reign in Africa.

On August 19th 2017, peaceful demonstrators took to the streets to demand political reforms namely the reinstatement of the 1992 version of the country’s constitution. The government responded with tears gas and bullets leaving at least 2 demonstrators dead. By the next day, calm had returned. But many observers have noted that the fragile quietude may just be a precursor to a violent storm.

Repressions

To understand the current political crisis in Togo, one must go back to the origins of the military regime of Gnassingbé Eyadéma. A soldier in the French colonial army, Eyadema spent time in Indochina and Algeria fighting nationalists in these countries and did not return to Togo until after independence. Finding themselves out of a job following the demise of the French colonial empire, Eyadema and his army mates demanded to be part of the newly formed Togolese army.

Togo’s accession to independence had been a victory for nationalist forces led by President Olympio. His party, the Committee for the Unity of Togo (CUT) had struggled hard for the country’s freedom from the French colonial empire. Unlike other independence movements across the continent that saw confrontation between the Africans and their colonial masters, Togo’s independence contention was mainly between rival groups of Togolese.

On April 27, 1960, Sylvanus Olympio officially declared the independence of the republic of Togo after 80 years of successive German, British and French domination.

In 1956, Togo had become an autonomous republic within the French Union. The pro-French, led by Prime Minister Nicolas Grunitzky, favored a model that would grant the country greater autonomy as a French territory as they deemed Togo not ready for full statehood. The nationalists, in opposition insisted on nothing less than immediate independence and full statehood. The nationalists won the general elections in 1958, compelling the French to sign an agreement for full independence. On April 27, 1960, Sylvanus Olympio officially declared the independence of the republic of Togo after 80 years of successive German, British and French domination.

It was therefore no surprise that Olympio regarded the demobilized colonial soldiers with contempt and dismissed their request. He saw in their demand, the conniving hands of his former pro-French opponents that were attempting to destabilize his government. It was true at the time that Olympio’s government was working to totally break free from France’s influence by seeking partners to mint the country’s own currency. For him, mercenaries who had fought against freedom fighters had no place in a respectable army. This disagreement led to the coup in 1963 that left Olympio dead and a civilian pro-French government in place.

Eyadema initially moved to place Olympio’s rival, Grunitzky, in power. Through political maneuvering, made easier by a climate of social unrest between 1963 and 1967, he managed to seize the power for himself and to grow in strength by clenching an iron fist around the country. He abolished political parties and instituted a single party system, drawing inspiration from North Korea to popularize a personality cult, and looted the country’s resources.

He gained praise from the West for stabilizing the country and bringing peace while the reality was that he jailed most of his opponents, kept thousands in exile and simply eliminated dozens of dissidents. Absolute master aboard the ship, Eyadema saw no serious challenge to his power for decades.

After neutralizing all opposition, Eyadema managed the country through a period of relative stability. In the 1970’s the country’s main export, phosphate, saw a huge surge in price that enabled the government to silence critics and to pass the boom off for economic success. However, by the end of the decade, falling phosphate prices, coupled with poor economic stewardship and the pressures from lenders forced the country down the austerity path of Structural Adjustment Programs.

The imposition of restrictive measures led to cracks within the political apparatus of the single party and dissenting voices, thought to be long-silenced, started to become audible.

He gained praise from the West for stabilizing the country and bringing peace while the reality was that he jailed most of his opponents, kept thousands in exile and simply eliminated dozens of dissidents. Absolute master aboard the ship, Eyadema saw no serious challenge to his power for decades.

By the late 1980s, Togolese in exile and local dissidents had started to organize. The end of the cold war also created new possibilities as western powers started to be less tolerant of strongmen in Africa. Internal opposition became increasingly bold and defiance started to become common, especially among university students and intellectuals.

The First Uprising

In October 1990, a group of students protested the arrest of a few of their peers for allegedly defaming the president. Such exercise of free speech was a serious offence in the country of Eyadema.

General protests, fueled by the shock and anger caused by the violent response of the military, plunged the country into turmoil. The popularity of the movement that was also flaring up in many African countries resulted in many wins for the opposition.

The student’s movement piled pressure on the government, which released the prisoners. It was too late, however as the movement grew in strength, joined by all strata of society, pushing Eyadema to make political overtures including a multi-party system and the holding of a national conference.

Many Togolese came back from exile to participate in the national conference. They formed an alliance of democratic forces working together to keep the momentum through street protests and strikes that were so popular they would bring the country to a standstill. Cornered, and under the watchful eye of his western allies who were now insisting on human rights, Eyadema reluctantly launched the national conference in June 1991.

However, a day later, he and his army walked away from the conference, stating that they were offended by the blatant disrespect by the civilian members of the conference. A few weeks later the president ordered sent in tanks to stop the conference. Intransigent participants refused to leave. They had the support of the western diplomats who also insisted that the move was excessive. The conference concluded under sequester and talks brokered by German, France and US diplomats led to the acceptance of the outcome by Eyadema. The national conference laid the ground for democratic institutions and elected a prime minister to lead a transition to democracy.

The national conference laid the ground for democratic institutions and elected a prime minister to lead a transition to democracy.

Relations between the transitional bodies and Eyadema were tensed. The army ultimately launched and assault on the prime minister’s office, killing dozens and arresting the remaining including the prime minister. Amid the adversity however, one of the key accomplishments of the transition was a referendum on a new constitution that was upheld by 99 percent of voters.

The constitution of 1992 was supposed to be the last stop before the transition of power through a fair a democratic election. It featured a reduction of presidential terms to 5 years (under a previous single party constitution the term was 7 years), the novelty of limiting presidential terms to two consecutive periods, a two-round ballot system, a minimum age of 45 for presidential candidates and the creation of an independent electoral commission,

Eyadema continued taunt the democratic institutions by stirring conflicts with the new institution. In October 1992, the transitional legislative body, the High Council of the Republic, was held hostage for days by the army who assaulted its members. Afterwards, many fled into exile. The upset opposition called for a unlimited general strike until Eyadema resigned from power. The strike lasted 9 months. Eyadema and the army launched a campaign of terror resulting in massive fleeing of the population, countless arrests and political murders. All foreign partners of Togo including the European Union, France and Germany placed economic sanctions on the country. In 1993, Eyadema organized a presidential election that was boycotted by the opposition. He won unchallenged.

Eyadema used his new “first” term to undo the democratic progress. In 1998, he used the same terror approach to claim victory in an election that most observers deemed unfair. The head of the electoral commission had refused to call the official results and the ministry of the interior, a high ranking member of Eyadema’s party, went on public media to declare Eyadema as a winner. The sanctions in place since 1998 were maintained. Many reports placed the opposition flag bearer, Gilcrist Olympio (a son of the first president) as the actual winner.

In 2002, Eyadema and his ruling party, the Rally of the People of Togo (RPT) put the final touches to the dialing back of democracy by revising the constitution to remove term limits, reduce the number of rounds in presidential elections and lower the minimum age for candidates from 45 to 35.

Eyadema used his new “first” term to undo the democratic progress. In 1998, he used the same terror approach to claim victory in an election that most observers deemed unfair.

The Togolese opposition has weakened quickly after starting off as a unified front. The advent of the multiparty system awoke personal ambitions. The Coordination of the Democratic Opposition (COD) that led the charge through the National Conference imploded. Without a clear leader, there was little opportunity for a coherent response. The campaign of terror also took a toll on individual commitment as many resettled in foreign countries, slowing down the momentum.

The Prime Minister of the transition eventually joined Eyadema and started to cooperate with him to move his agenda, As did many of Eyadema’s opponents. and the individual reversals had a demoralizing effect. Althoygh very commited, many of the remaining opposition leaders lacked charisma and the single most significant personality, Gilcrist olympio went to stay in exile in Great Britain after being the target of an attack in 1992, that left many of this staffers dead. Consequently, the first uprising failed to carry through the democratic hopes of Togo.

Death of a dinosaur

Hopes of political change reappeared unexpectedly in 2005 when Eyadema died suddenly. But, hours within the official announcement, the army generals appointed Faure Gnassingbe, one of Eyadema’s sons as the new president in total violation of the constitution. Local and international pressures compelled Faure to resign a few days later.

Hopes of political change reappeared unexpectedly in 2005 when Eyadema died suddenly. But, hours within the official announcement, the army generals appointed Faure Gnassingbe, one of Eyadema’s sons as the new president in total violation of the constitution.

He was declared winner of the election held a couple of months later, causing violent protests around the country. The repression caused at least 500 deaths among civilians according to independent investigations.

The father, and the son

Like his father, Faure used all political tools to clinch his power. He promised reforms and a new way of governing, pitching himself as a bridge between a divided country. In 2006, he signed a comprehensive political agreement with the opposition parties and vowed to implement changes to ensure social peace. Some of the 22 key provisions of the agreement included presidential term limits and a two-round ballot. But the most important gain for the agreement was a rapprochement between Faure Gnassingbe and Gilcrist Olympio, the sons of the two former presidents. Faure Gnassingbe showed this off as a political trophy and seems less interested in any other provision of the agreement. He had succeeded in neutralizing his father’s biggest foe, the man who had vowed revenge against his own father’s assassin, now seems less committed to the fight for real change.

Renegades

It is important to note the broker of the Togolese Comprehensive Political Agreement was no one other than the president of Burkina Faso who was himself ousted from power by a popular uprising in 2014 as he attempted to remove term limits to remain in power. The early skeptics grew confident as years went by and Faure Gnassingbe went on to start a third controversial term as a president with no sign of political reform. The fragmented opposition was unable to effective rally around the issue and the population had grown weary of the repression. Democracy has become a dream once more under the rule of the son.

Talks of revolution

During the 2010, election the main political party led by Gilcrist Olympio imploded over personal conflicts. The party split as Gilcrist took an awkward decision not to be involved in the campaign. This led to a weak mobilization that made Faure’s re-election fairly easy. Former members of Gilcrist’s party went on to create the National Alliance for Change (ANC). They collaborated with other minor opposition parties but their new leader, Jean Pierre Fabre, lacks the charisma of his former mentor, Gilcrist.

Instead of asking for the current texts to be reformed, the PNP is simply demanding the reinstatement of the constitution of 1992 that had been adopted by the people and that included all the necessary guardrails for a free and fair election.

With a second term that was less controversial than the initial one, Faure now feels like a legitimate president. Before him, there were only fragments of the opposition, enough for him to testify that he allows opposition, but too fragmented and ineffective to be any real threat. In 2015, he was elected to a third term in an election that could be qualified as free but not fair, the fairness having to do with the fact that the constitution and the rules are rigged in favor the president’s party. Without political reforms and in the absence of term limits, no one else would ever be able to win an election in Togo.

Instead of fighting at the poll, the opposition turned its strategy towards the implementation of political reforms. This issue had been put on hold, as the opposition first believed they could simply win the elections and then make the reforms. Even after this moment of reckoning, there was still no consensus or clear strategy to move toward the reforms. Faure Gnassingbe continues to delay the implementation of the agreement and even the recommendations of groups that he himself commissioned to study the issue.

The lack of a clear strategy resulted in more division within the opposition. A group led by Tikpi Atchadam, a relatively unknown figure until a few months ago, went on to create the radical Pan African National Party (PNP). Instead of asking for the current texts to be reformed, the PNP is simply demanding the reinstatement of the constitution of 1992 that had been adopted by the people and that included all the necessary guardrails for a free and fair election.

It was largely unexpected that the PNP would be able to gather enough steam to shake the status quo. After calling for its militants to go out and protest on the streets on August 19th, 2017, thousands of red wearing sympathizers flooded the streets in several cities in Togo. The event spread to the Togolese diaspora in Ghana and Germany with hundreds of people demonstrating peacefully in these countries.

The events in Togo took a tragic turn when police fired real bullets into the demonstrators causing human casualties. Unlike in recent years when shots fired and tear gases were enough to disperse the protesters, the marchers faced off with the police in violent clashes. This was amplified by social media with live streaming, videos and updates on WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter.

This could be the end of what many call the Togolese exceptionality. Since the 1990s, all countries in West African have seen a transition in government and have put term limits to ensure the peaceful transition of power.

After Saturday’s protest, the mainstream opposition parties who have been watching the PNP from a safe distance decided to heed the call of Tikpi Atchadam. Suddenly a once fragmented movement marred with personal conflict and a complacent relationship with the ruling authorities has found a renewed sense of unity.

This was hailed around the world by the Togolese diaspora that is now generously offering support and organizing the lobbying abroad. The country seems to be racing toward a long overdue change and the parties are insisting that the movement will not stop until all conditions are met.

This could be the end of what many call the Togolese exceptionality. Since the 1990s, all countries in West African have seen a transition in government and have put term limits to ensure the peaceful transition of power. With the recent demise of Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, Togo remains an anomaly in this part of Africa where the seeds of democracy are resiliently growing. The people of Togo appear resolute to correct that anomaly and sow freedom after 50 painful years of oppression.

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

By

By Wolali Koffi Ahlijah Wolali Koffi Ahlijah is a US-based Togolese political analyst working closely with the major political groups in the Togolese Diaspora. He runs the Togolese Civil League aimed at promoting a peaceful political transition in Togo. Wolali consistently analyzes political trends to provide insights and strategy tools for Togolese activists.

Politics

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning

Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.

Published

on

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Download PDFPrint Article

The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.

Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.

According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.

The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.

What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.

Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.

Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.

Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.

As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.

While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.

Continue Reading

Politics

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement

The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.

Published

on

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
Download PDFPrint Article

“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.

Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.

Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.

Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.

The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.

Labour migration as climate mitigation

you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed

Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.

It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.

Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.

The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.

Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.

Reparations include No Borders

“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman

Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”

Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debtunfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheidlabour exploitation, and border securitisation.

It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.

Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.

The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Murang’a Factor in the Upcoming Presidential Elections

The Murang’a people are really yet to decide who they are going to vote for as a president. If they have, they are keeping the secret to themselves. Are the Murang’a people prepping themselves this time to vote for one of their own? Can Jimi Wanjigi re-ignite the Murang’a/Matiba popular passion among the GEMA community and re-influence it to vote in a different direction?

Published

on

The Murang’a Factor in the Upcoming Presidential Elections
Download PDFPrint Article

In the last quarter of 2021, I visited Murang’a County twice: In September, we were in Kandiri in Kigumo constituency. We had gone for a church fundraiser and were hosted by the Anglican Church of Kenya’s (ACK), Kahariro parish, Murang’a South diocese. A month later, I was back, this time to Ihi-gaini deep in Kangema constituency for a burial.

The church function attracted politicians: it had to; they know how to sniff such occasions and if not officially invited, they gate-crash them. Church functions, just like funerals, are perfect platforms for politicians to exhibit their presumed piousness, generosity and their closeness to the respective clergy and the bereaved family.

Well, the other reason they were there, is because they had been invited by the Church leadership. During the electioneering period, the Church is not shy to exploit the politicians’ ambitions: they “blackmail” them for money, because they can mobilise ready audiences for the competing politicians. The politicians on the other hand, are very ready to part with cash. This quid pro quo arrangement is usually an unstated agreement between the Church leadership and the politicians.

The church, which was being fund raised for, being in Kigumo constituency, the area MP Ruth Wangari Mwaniki, promptly showed up. Likewise, the area Member of the County Assembly (MCA) and of course several aspirants for the MP and MCA seats, also showed up.

Church and secular politics often sit cheek by jowl and so, on this day, local politics was the order of the day. I couldn’t have speculated on which side of the political divide Murang’a people were, until the young man Zack Kinuthia Chief Administrative Secretary (CAS) for Sports, Culture and Heritage, took to the rostrum to speak.

A local boy and an Uhuru Kenyatta loyalist, he completely avoided mentioning his name and his “development track record” in central Kenya. Kinuthia has a habit of over-extolling President Uhuru’s virtues whenever and wherever he mounts any platform. By the time he was done speaking, I quickly deduced he was angling to unseat Wangari. I wasn’t wrong; five months later in February 2022, Kinuthia resigned his CAS position to vie for Kigumo on a Party of the National Unity (PNU) ticket.

He spoke briefly, feigned some meeting that was awaiting him elsewhere and left hurriedly, but not before giving his KSh50,000 donation. Apparently, I later learnt that he had been forewarned, ahead of time, that the people were not in a mood to listen to his panegyrics on President Uhuru, Jubilee Party, or anything associated to the two. Kinuthia couldn’t dare run on President Uhuru’s Jubilee Party. His patron-boss’s party is not wanted in Murang’a.

I spent the whole day in Kandiri, talking to people, young and old, men and women and by the time I was leaving, I was certain about one thing; The Murang’a folks didn’t want anything to do with President Uhuru. What I wasn’t sure of is, where their political sympathies lay.

I returned to Murang’a the following month, in the expansive Kangema – it is still huge – even after Mathioya was hived off from the larger Kangema constituency. Funerals provide a good barometer that captures peoples’ political sentiments and even though this burial was not attended by politicians – a few senior government officials were present though; political talk was very much on the peoples’ lips.

What I gathered from the crowd was that President Uhuru had destroyed their livelihood, remember many of the Nairobi city trading, hawking, big downtown real estate and restaurants are run and owned largely by Murang’a people. The famous Nyamakima trading area of downtown Nairobi has been run by Murang’a Kikuyus.

In 2018, their goods were confiscated and declared contrabrand by the government. Many of their businesses went under, this, despite the merchants not only, whole heartedly throwing their support to President Uhuru’s controversial re-election, but contributing handsomely to the presidential kitty. They couldn’t believe what was happening to them: “We voted for him to safeguard our businesses, instead, he destroyed them. So much for supporting him.”

We voted for him to safeguard our businesses, instead, he destroyed them. So much for supporting him

Last week, I attended a Murang’a County caucus group that was meeting somewhere in Gatundu, in Kiambu County. One of the clearest messages that I got from this group is that the GEMA vote in the August 9, 2022, presidential elections is certainly anti-Uhuru Kenyatta and not necessarily pro-William Ruto.

“The Murang’a people are really yet to decide, (if they have, they are keeping the secret to themselves) on who they are going to vote for as a president. And that’s why you see Uhuru is craftily courting us with all manner of promises, seductions and prophetic messages.” Two weeks ago, President Uhuru was in Murang’a attending an African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa (AIPCA) church function in Kandara constituency.

At the church, the president yet again threatened to “tell you what’s in my heart and what I believe and why so.” These prophecy-laced threats by the President, to the GEMA nation, in which he has been threatening to show them the sign, have become the butt of crude jokes among Kikuyus.

Corollary, President Uhuru once again has plucked Polycarp Igathe away from his corporate perch as Equity Bank’s Chief Commercial Officer back to Nairobi’s tumultuous governor seat politics. The first time the bespectacled Igathe was thrown into the deep end of the Nairobi murky politics was in 2017, as Mike Sonko’s deputy governor. After six months, he threw in the towel, lamenting that Sonko couldn’t let him even breathe.

Uhuru has a tendency of (mis)using Murang’a people

“Igathe is from Wanjerere in Kigumo, Murang’a, but grew up in Ol Kalou, Nyandarua County,” one of the Mzees told me. “He’s not interested in politics; much less know how it’s played. I’ve spent time with him and confided in me as much. Uhuru has a tendency of (mis)using Murang’a people. President Uhuru wants to use Igathe to control Nairobi. The sad thing is that Igathe doesn’t have the guts to tell Uhuru the brutal fact: I’m really not interested in all these shenanigans, leave me alone. The president is hoping, once again, to hopefully placate the Murang’a people, by pretending to front Igathe. I foresee another terrible disaster ultimately befalling both Igathe and Uhuru.”

Be that as it may, what I got away with from this caucus, after an entire day’s deliberations, is that its keeping it presidential choice close to its chest. My attempts to goad some of the men and women present were fruitless.

Murang’a people like reminding everyone that it’s only they, who have yet to produce a president from the GEMA stable, despite being the wealthiest. Kiambu has produced two presidents from the same family, Nyeri one, President Mwai Kibaki, who died on April 22. The closest Murang’a came to giving the country a president was during Ken Matiba’s time in the 1990s. “But Matiba had suffered a debilitating stroke that incapacitated him,” said one of the mzees. “It was tragic, but there was nothing we could do.”

Murang’a people like reminding everyone that it’s only they, who have yet to produce a president from the GEMA stable, despite being the wealthiest

It is interesting to note that Jimi Wanjigi, the Safina party presidential flagbearer is from Murang’a County. His family hails from Wahundura, in Mathioya constituency. Him and Mwangi wa Iria, the Murang’a County governor are the other two Murang’a prominent persons who have tossed themselves into the presidential race. Wa Iria’s bid which was announced at the beginning of 2022, seems to have stagnated, while Jimi’s seems to be gathering storm.

Are the Murang’a people prepping themselves this time to vote for one of their own? Jimi’s campaign team has crafted a two-pronged strategy that it hopes will endear Kenyans to his presidency. One, a generational, paradigm shift, especially among the youth, targeting mostly post-secondary, tertiary college and university students.

“We believe this group of voters who are basically between the ages of 18–27 years and who comprise more than 65 per cent of total registered voters are the key to turning this election,” said one of his presidential campaign team members. “It matters most how you craft the political message to capture their attention.” So, branding his key message as itwika, it is meant to orchestrate a break from past electoral behaviour that is pegged on traditional ethnic voting patterns.

The other plunk of Jimi’s campaign theme is economic emancipation, quite pointedly as it talks directly to the GEMA nation, especially the Murang’a Kikuyus, who are reputed for their business acumen and entrepreneurial skills. “What Kikuyus cherish most,” said the team member “is someone who will create an enabling business environment and leave the Kikuyus to do their thing. You know, Kikuyus live off business, if you interfere with it, that’s the end of your friendship, it doesn’t matter who you are.”

Can Jimi re-ignite the Murang’a/Matiba popular passion among the GEMA community and re-influence it to vote in a different direction? As all the presidential candidates gear-up this week on who they will eventually pick as their running mates, the GEMA community once more shifts the spotlight on itself, as the most sought-after vote basket.

Both Raila Odinga and William Ruto coalitions – Azimio la Umoja-One Kenya and Kenya Kwanza Alliance – must seek to impress and woe Mt Kenya region by appointing a running mate from one of its ranks. If not, the coalitions fear losing the vote-rich area either to each other, or perhaps to a third party. Murang’a County, may as well, become the conundrum, with which the August 9, presidential race may yet to be unravelled and decided.

Continue Reading

Trending