Connect with us

Politics

Power Struggles: Unmasking the Thieves behind the KPLC Heist

Published

on

POWER STRUGGLES: Unmasking the thieves behind the KPLC heist
Download PDFPrint Article

In Kenya, corruption conjures up images of a favourite pair of well-worn and spit-polished shoes that one cannot bear to throw out. We roll the word on our tongues and give it pet names, such as scandals, hustling, deals, cat-walking, growing legs, eating and kitu kidogo, to name a few. The word “theft” is rarely used in public because it would entail naming the thieves and allowing ourselves to experience the full extent of the violation, complete with a sense of guilty silence and complicity. The euphemisms we use ensure that we never unmask the perpetrators beyond the frontline scapegoats, who in any case, almost always get off scot-free.

Now, a true story:

An 80-year-old lady sits in her daughter’s living room and asks animatedly, “What did Twitter say today? Eh heh? Oooh, I really want to thank Twitter for helping me. I have been suffering so much that I wished I was back in the days of ukoloni, where things worked, at least. . .” That this old mama can long nostalgically for the good ol’ days of colonialism is indeed a damning indictment on the state of Energy Capture in Kenya today.

This pensioner, who is convinced that Twitter is an actual person, had been faithfully paying her “lifeline consumer” electricity bill – consistent at Sh1,000 every month – for five years until it inexplicably leaped up to an eye-watering Sh62,000, resulting in the summary disconnection of her electricity. Fortunately, and in response to an online alert, an off-grid solar power distributor has since provided a domestic solution for her. Pro bono. However, pro bono solutions – to fill the gap created by fraudulent bills – cannot be the solution for the more than 6.6 million electricity consumers in Kenya today.

The #SwitchOffKPLC campaign

Since January 2018, the Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) has found itself in the throes of an Alamo-type siege advanced by an organically mobilised and extremely angry battalion of Kenyans from all walks of life in a highly political but absolutely non-partisan, non-class based and non-ethnicised action for Energy Justice.

The #SwitchOffKPLC campaign that started on Twitter and has since spread through wider social media spaces has unleashed an unprecedented and massive outcry against KPLC following nine consecutive months of shocking and fraudulent fleecing of electricity consumers. This campaign has partly been fuelled by KPLC’s “pay-first-ask-questions-later” motto, which left many consumers with inflated bills that they were forced to pay to avoid being disconnected.

With more than a thousand detailed emails sent to the SwitchOff hotline and thousands more shared online, the trends demonstrate how electricity consumers have been pistol-whipped half to death by these rabid cartels that prowl the hallways of Kenya’s energy sector. These cartels hide behind endless technical jargon and are fronted by ruthless “customer care” and field staff. Consumers are more than ever aware of how it is that they are misused and abused victims of an equal opportunity heist that is perfected year in, year out.

With more than a thousand detailed emails sent to the SwitchOff hotline and thousands more complaints shared online, the trends demonstrate how electricity consumers have been pistol-whipped half to death by rabid cartels that prowl the hallways of Kenya’s energy sector.

What is powerful about the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign is the relatability of the theft. When ordinary Kenyans attempt to fathom corruption scandals that are in the millions and billions, the zeroes become far too many to compute but this is not because we are stupid; it is rather because we have been traumatised to the point of absolute numbness. Or cynicism. The theft is therefore rendered abstract and quickly placed aside. What the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign does is that it highlights, in simple terms, the extra tens or hundreds and thousands of shillings that individual Kenyans are forced to part with for no reason other than blatant theft. And what an eye-opener it has been. Consumers are fed up. They are acting.

Unholy trinity

Let us start at the beginning.

The 96-year-old Kenya Power and Lighting Company (which has been rebranded as Kenya Power), is one of the oldest monopolies in Kenya. Kenyans have been born, lived and died paying monthly dues – unquestioningly – to this behemoth of a parastatal that has always been quick to remind them that electricity is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any moment for any number of reasons. With a 50.1 per cent government stake and approximately nine other shareholders owning between 0.0065 and 1.46 per cent of the company, KPLC is de facto controlled by a tightly-knit group of actors, said to include Mama Ngina, the mother of President Uhuru Kenyatta, and some well-known, self-styled tycoons.

The KPLC trinity is completed by the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) and the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO). KenGen, KETRACO and KPLC are responsible, respectively, for the generation, transmission and distribution/sale of geothermal, hydro, wind, fuel oil, biomass and gas turbine electricity in Kenya. Other collaborators include the Geothermal Development Company (GDC), the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) and the Rural Electrification Authority (REA). The Electricity Regulatory Commission (ERC) is responsible for establishing and adjusting a dizzying array of fixed and variable tariffs that form the pricing for pre- and post-paid electricity uptake in Kenya. These bodies fall under the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MoEP) that has executive oversight over all operations related to electricity generation in Kenya. Alongside the trinity and regulator are the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) that produce diesel-powered thermal and wind energy for sale to KPLC (the sole distributor) under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).

Notwithstanding periodic recommendations and gaps analyses, Kenya’s electricity outlook appears bright, with a 2020 projected on-grid capacity of 5,040MW up from 2,295MW in 2015. At least that’s what glossy annual reports, technical assessments and public relations jamborees say. With all the right sounds being made about renewable and sustainable energy – including the non-renewal of [unsustainable] diesel thermal IPP contracts (which mean nothing because some of the IPP contracts run through 2032), “Last Mile” connectivity, rural electrification and affordable off-grid solutions – one might wonder why electricity consumers are up in arms.

Enter the murky and less rosy side of electricity generation that has for decades relied on the ignorance of consumers to play around with tariffs that correlate with the type of power being generated. Despite on-paper and even infrastructurally tangible and renewable energy projects, IPPs that run diesel-powered thermal stations, as well as the recently signed Sh200 billion Lamu Coal Power Station, enjoy disproportionate PPA preferential treatment by KPLC. This means that wind, hydro and geothermal electricity remain unused or underutilised with “capacity charges” that accrue to consumers regardless.

Notwithstanding periodic recommendations and gaps analyses, Kenya’s electricity outlook appears bright, with a 2020 projected on-grid capacity of 5,040MW up from 2,295MW in 2015. At least that’s what glossy annual reports, technical assessments and public relations jamborees say.

Lake Turkana Wind Power is one such example where Sh75 billion has been spent to construct the largest wind farm in Africa covering 40,000 acres and set to produce 310MW, with possible corporate profits of up to Sh136 billion over the next 20 years. Although this is an ostensibly clean and renewable energy venture, the fact remains that this project was undertaken without due consideration of and consultation with the local communities of Laisamis constituency in Marsabit County, which resulted in a 2016 law suit filed against the investors and the Marsabit County Government. The judges threw out the case in April 2018 on “technical grounds”, showing once again that big bucks trump local communities. All the time. Which makes us wonder whether our quest for justice isn’t, after all, quixotic.

Through deliberately poor diligence on the part of the MoEP and the National Land Commission (NLC), the 428km-long power line from Loiyangalani to Suswa is yet to be completed by KETRACO, with disastrous penalties for consumers who have so far paid Sh5.7 billion in “deemed energy” fines, with a further monthly fine of Sh1 billion starting in July 2018 until the power line is complete. If we study the ministry’s role in the signing of contracts with the now bankrupt Spanish company, Isolux, and the subsequent awarding of a new Sh9.6 billion contract to a Chinese firm – paid for by yours truly – you will suffer many sleepless nights and begin to be filled with a belly-rumbling rage. Might I add that since 2015, some Chinese investors have also been eyeing the expansion of wind power ventures in Marsabit. Be very, very afraid.

The shocking disregard for local communities, be it in terms of consultation, socio-environmental impact or the right to draw down from the profitability of energy/extractive ventures, is evidenced right across the board in places like Turkana (where oil has further complicated matters) and the god-awful Lamu Coal Power Station, which threatens (for the sake of the greed of a few investors) a pristine ecosystem, a globally recognised World Heritage location and the livelihoods of some of the oldest East African coastal communities.

If we study the ministry’s role in the signing of contracts with the now bankrupt Spanish company, Isolux, and the subsequent awarding of a new Sh9.6 billion contract to a Chinese firm – paid for by yours truly – you will suffer many sleepless nights and begin to be filled with a belly-rumbling rage.

Oh, and we haven’t even begun to engage with the hare-brained scheme that is the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board. The investors (who we will tackle very soon) include a mishmash of Kenyan companies, bilateral partners, international corporations and multilateral financial institutions – all of who come with glib development and partnership-speak and a feigned concern for the people of Kenya.

Cartels and robber barons

To understand how the ordinary Kenyan is being used to finance these get-rich-quick schemes, it is important to note that under the 2018 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and under Uhuru Kenyatta’s “Big Four” plan, taxpayers will fund an annual amount of Sh100 billion over a period of 25 years (a total of Sh2.14 trillion) to 20 private power projects contrary to the law and without regard for electricity consumers and taxpayers’ rights. These and other mind boggling amounts are stealthily conveyanced through the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) that has deliberately designed loopholes perfect for such disbursements. Therefore, it becomes clear – despite the clean energy jargon – that there will have to be a sustained and systematic sabotage of the generation and transmission of cheaper, cleaner electricity for sale to consumers in order to justify the Sh2.4 trillion. We are already experiencing this because even in the face of heavy rains and resultant increase in hydro power capacity, our electricity bills continue to rise. The voracious diesel-driven appetites of the IPPs must be fed. Profits must be made.

When we consider that Kenya is one of the top seven most expensive power producers in Africa, which in addition to burdening consumers, is a serious impediment to the growth of local industry and a deterrent to foreign investment, it is not rocket science to compute how our real economic potential will never be fully realised, as it has already been sacrificed on the altars of numerous cartels.

Is your skin crawling yet?

Dig a little deeper and the pus of collusion, subterfuge and theft will begin to ooze freely, wafting its putrid stench across the landscape of consumers already heavily burdened by a rapidly encroaching recession and incredibly high costs of living. Meanwhile, the Energy Regulatory Commission, rather than providing ethical checks and balances, appears to be colluding with the MoEP, IPPs and KPLC to ensure the highest possible electricity tariffs, which are further inflated at the point of billing and enforced in an illogical yet draconian manner on frustrated and desperate consumers. The collusion exposes an intricate network of IPPs and KPLC contractors whose true owners are hidden behind layers of front-end companies whose trails often terminate abroad. Despite the seemingly iron-clad wall of secrecy, inside informers continue to share details with well-placed whistleblowers who are dedicated to alerting consumers, the media and relevant arms of government.

When we consider that Kenya is one of the top seven most expensive power producers in Africa, which in addition to burdening consumers, is a serious impediment to the growth of local industry and a deterrent to foreign investment, it is not rocket science to compute how our real economic potential will never be fully realised, as it has already been sacrificed on the altars of numerous cartels.

The integrity questions worth asking are: 1) Who are the real owners and beneficiaries of the IPPs and KPLC contractors? and 2) Where do the conflicts and interests lie when it comes to MoEP and KPLC (the trinity) operations? It can be safely assumed that the latter will be easier to uncover than the former, as seen in the April 2018 KPLC internal audit report that highlighted an impressive array of mid-level staff caught in a dragnet of illegal tendering manoeuvres amounting to a “few” billion shillings. In a threadbare public relations move, these junior heads will surely roll as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) initiates a criminal investigation into the matter. The former will – in fine Kenyan tradition – remain obfuscated and the untold hundreds of billions will disappear into nameless, faceless black hole-type accounts.

Then came the “big gaffe” by KPLC in its Annual Report of June 2017, where Sh10.1 billion was conveniently tucked away in the books as an asset or something like that when in fact it should have been registered as a loss. It has been speculated that KPLC (the historical cash cow for ad hoc government needs, including election campaigns) approved the siphoning of these funds.

An alternative theory is that the then incumbent government demanded an artificial lowering of the fuel tariffs as one of its campaign strategies or lies, depending on your perspective. In either case, the Sh 10.1 billion had to be recovered before the shareholders caught wind of the scam. It is important to add that the culture of theft of monies from KPLC started decades ago where successive regimes had managing directors and cronies who shamelessly and systematically looted the parastatal — but that is a story for another day.

The class action suit

Between September and December 2017, KPLC recovered an initial Sh2 billion through an ill-concealed overbilling and double billing system that affected pre- and post-paid consumers, throwing household budgets into complete disarray. The Kenya National Bureau of Standards (KNBS) reported that electricity prices hit a five-year high in 2017.

In January 2018, KPLC admitted to a four-month overbilling spree and claimed that the bills were linked to backdated fuel costs incurred due to the persistent drought, resulting in lowered hydro power capacity and an over-reliance on fuel-generated electricity, as well as the introduction of new meters and billing systems that suffered from teething glitches and erroneous billing. The few of us who ignited this campaign in January 2018 were initially driven by our anger regarding our individual domestic bills. We saw that fixed and variable tariffs did not add up. That successive months were billed based on “estimates”. That we received multiple bills in a single month. That our pre-paid token values were as erratic as a drunk driver. That these spikes in our pre-/post-paid bills suspiciously coincided with the end of the [first] electioneering period of 2017.

Between September and December 2017, KPLC recovered an initial Sh2 billion through an ill-concealed overbilling and double billing system that affected pre- and post-paid consumers, throwing household budgets into complete disarray. The Kenya National Bureau of Standards (KNBS) reported that electricity prices hit a five-year high in 2017.

In my case, between September 2017 and May 2018, I have had to fork out a whopping Sh167,722 to KPLC for post-paid bills that ranged between Sh11,000 and Sh37,400. For simple domestic consumption! With three months of “estimates” billed at Sh 51,000 and random “credits” worth Sh 9,500, and Sh41,500 of that gross amount dedicated to fuel tariffs, I can only wonder at the suffering faced by millions of Kenyans who live under the pay-first-questions-later motto of KPLC.

What piqued our attention, however, were the inconsistent but ever-increasing fuel tariffs, which allowed us to understand the steady collusion between diesel-powered IPPs and KPLC’s constant untruths about low hydro power capacities, hitches with geo thermal production, and of course, the slower than molasses power line construction from Loiyangalani to Suswa. Ultimately, we realised that this battle could never be fought or won individually. Many consumers, armed with their collective horror stories, outrage and the law, were determined to #SwitchOffKPLC.

When Apollo Mboya (surely a courageous lawyer of our times) saw through this mischief, he filed a two-pronged class action suit on behalf of consumers against KPLC. The first was to obtain an injunction that would halt further “recovery” of the Sh10.1 billion and seek restitution for all consumers who had been fraudulently overbilled. Court orders to that effect were issued on 12 January, 2018. The second is strategically focused on the KPLC monopoly and shady dealings with IPPs that violate Constitutional provisions in Article 201, paragraph 8 (e) of the Fourth Schedule that distributes functions between the national and county governments. Also explored are contraventions related to the Energy Act, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the Public Finance Management Act, the National Government Loan Guarantee Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the 2018 Budget Policy Statement.

Many Kenyans following the court case and wider campaign have understood the importance of what Mr. Mboya is doing on behalf of consumers. He steadfastly carries on, supported by the Electricity Consumers Society of Kenya and concerned citizens in the face of attacks by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK), social media trolls and, of course, the hopelessly inept KPLC spin doctors. It is evident that the quest for justice will become ever more dangerous as Mr. Mboya inches closer to the real faces behind the theft.

Five months on and not surprisingly, KPLC has yet to comply with the court order to desist and cease the overbilling of consumers, opting instead for weak public relations stunts replete with apologies and broken promises. Customer Care remains catatonic and equipment continues to malfunction. It is business as usual at KPLC. Or is it?

The consumer-focused questions worth asking are: 1) By how much has KPLC defrauded its consumers to date? 2) Which consumers have been defrauded? and 3) When will consumers receive a refund/credit? KPLC remains mum and will likely do so until the legal determination of the matter. Meanwhile, consumers continue to receive erratic and inordinately high bills. (It has since been exposed that KPLC deliberately tampered with the Integrated Consumer Management System (ICMS )that facilitated the illegal inflation of consumer bills.)

Five months on and not surprisingly, KPLC has yet to comply with the court order to desist and cease the overbilling of consumers, opting instead for weak public relations stunts replete with apologies and broken promises.

The KPLC heist may not be as sizeable as South Africa’s ESKOM that is still reeling from the effects of the #guptafiles that exposed the theft of billions of rands by specific families and cartels but we are definitely hot on the heels of what could be a continental scandal. The KPLC heist looms significantly over the lives and times of millions of Kenyans who have come together in their thousands under the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign on behalf of others. These men and women have activated a revolution and are daring to imagine a different Kenya. We are collectively determined to cut off the heads of the Medusa-like snakes that have held us hostage since 1922.

In straight-speak, we are going after the energy sector thieves and we will unmask them. And then, we are coming after you.

To be continued. . .

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

Jerotich Seii is a humanitarian and development consultant with more than 20 years of experience in sub-Saharan Africa.

Politics

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?

Being nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine grass-roots legitimacy but it is hard not to suspect that some of the losers in the nominations process might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn.

Published

on

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Download PDFPrint Article

Who won Kenya’s “nominations”, the tense and often unpredictable political process through which parties select which candidates they want to represent them in the general election scheduled for 9 August? That may sound like a silly question. Social media is full of photographs of smiling candidate clutching their certificates of nomination—surely we need to look no further for the winners?

But maybe we do. Beyond the individual candidates in the contests for nominations, there are other winners. One may be obvious: it seems the general feeling is that Deputy President William Ruto came out better from the nominations than did his principal rival in the presidential race, former opposition leader Raila Odinga—about which more below. However, for some, coming out on top in the nominations may prove a poisoned chalice. Where nominations are seen to have been illegitimate, candidates are likely to find that losing rivals who stand as independents may be locally popular and may gain sympathy votes, making it harder for party candidates to win the general election. This means that there are often some less obvious winners and losers.

One reason for this is that nominations shape how voters think about the parties and who they want to give their vote to, come the general election. Research that we conducted in 2017, including a nationally representative survey of public opinion on these issues, found that citizens who felt that their party’s nomination process had not been legitimate were less likely to say that they would vote in the general election. In other words, disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out. In 2017, this appeared to disadvantage Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose nomination process was generally seen to have been more problematic—although whether this is because they were, or rather because this is how they were depicted by the media, is hard to say.

In the context of a tight election in 2022, popular perceptions of how the nominations were managed may therefore be as significant for who “wins” and “loses” as the question of which individuals secured the party ticket.

Why do parties dread nominations?

The major parties dreaded the nominations process—dreaded it so much, in fact, that despite all their bold words early on about democracy and the popular choice (and despite investments in digital technology and polling staff), most of the parties tried pretty hard to avoid primary elections as a way of deciding on their candidates. In some cases that avoidance was complete: the Jubilee party gave direct nominations to all those who will stand in its name. Other parties held some primaries—Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) seems to have managed most—but in many cases they turned to other methods.

That is because of a complicated thing about parties and elections in Kenya. It is widely assumed—and a recent opinion poll commissioned by South Consulting confirms this—that when it comes to 9 August most voters will decide how to cast their ballot on the basis of individual candidates and not which party they are standing for. Political parties in Kenya are often ephemeral, and people readily move from one to another. But that does not mean that political parties are irrelevant. They are symbolic markers with emotive associations – sometimes to particular ideas, sometimes to a particular regional base. ODM, for example, has been linked both with a commitment to constitutional reform and with the Luo community, most notably in Nyanza. So the local politician who wants to be a member of a county assembly will be relying mostly on their personal influence and popularity—but they know that if they get a nomination for a party which has that kind of emotive association, it will smoothen their path.

Disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out.

This means that multiple candidates vie for each possible nomination slot. In the past, that competition has always been expensive, as rival aspirants wooed voters with gifts. It occasionally turned violent, and often involved cheating. Primary elections in 2013 and 2017 were messy and chaotic, and were not certain to result in the selection of the candidate most likely to win the general election. From the point of view of the presidential candidates, there are real risks to the primary elections their parties or coalitions oversee: the reputational damage due to chaos and the awareness that local support might be lost if a disgruntled aspirant turns against the party.

This helps to explain why in 2022 many parties made use of direct nominations—variously dressed up as the operation of consensus or the result of mysterious “opinion polls” to identify the strongest candidate. What that really meant was an intensive process of promise-making and/or pressure to persuade some candidates to stand down. Where that did not work, and primaries still took place, the promise-making and bullying came afterwards—to stop disappointed aspirants from turning against the party and standing as independents. The consequence of all that top-down management was that the nominations saw much less open violence than in previous years.

So who won, and who lost, at the national level?

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates. That brings us to the big national winners and losers of the process. Odinga—and his ODM party—have come out rather bruised. They have been accused of nepotism, bribery and of ignoring local wishes. This is a particularly dangerous accusation for Odinga, as it plays into popular concerns that, following his “handshake” with President Kenyatta and his adoption as the candidate of the “establishment”, he is a “project” of wealthy and powerful individuals who wish to retain power through the backdoor after Kenyatta stands down having served two-terms in office. In the face of well-publicised claims that Odinga would be a “remote controlled president” doing the bidding of the Kenyatta family and their allies, the impression that the nominations were stage-managed from on high in an undemocratic process was the last thing Azimio needed.

Moreover, perhaps because Odinga seems to have been less active than his rival in personally intervening to mollify aggrieved local politicians, the ODM nominations process seems to have left more of a mess. That was compounded by complications in the Azimio la Umoja/One Kenya Alliance Coalition Party (we’ll call it Azimio from now on, for convenience). Where Azimio “zoned”—that is, agreed on a single candidate from all its constituent parties—disappointed aspirants complained. Where it did not zone, and agreed to let each party nominate its own candidate for governor, MP and so on, then smaller parties in the coalition complained that they would face unfair competition come the general election. That is why the leaders of some of these smaller groups such as Machakos Governor Alfred Mutua made dramatic (or theatrical, depending on your view) announcements of their decision to leave Azimio and support Ruto.

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates.

So Ruto looks like a nomination winner. But his success comes with a big price tag. His interventions to placate disgruntled aspirants involved more than soothing words. A new government will have lots of goodies to distribute to supporters—positions in the civil service and parastatals, diplomatic roles, not to mention business opportunities of many kinds. But the bag of goodies is not bottomless, and it seems likely that a lot of promises have been made. Ruto’s undoubted talents as an organizer and deal-maker have been useful to him through the nominations—but those deals may prove expensive for him, and for Kenya, if he wins the presidential poll.

Money, politics, and the cost of campaigns

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword. In the short term, many of them will have saved considerable money: depending on exactly when the deal was done, they will have been spared some days of campaign expenses—no need to fuel cars, buy airtime for bloggers, pay for t-shirts and posters, and hand out cash. But that will be a brief respite. The disappointed rivals who have gone independent will make the campaigns harder for them—and likely more expensive. The belief that they were favoured by the party machinery may mean that voter expectations are higher when it comes to handouts and donations on the campaign trail. And the fact they were nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine their grass-roots legitimacy.

Others may experience a similar delayed effect. Among the short-term losers of the nominations will have been some of the “goons” who have played a prominent physical role in previous nominations: their muscular services were largely not required (although there were exceptions). The printers of posters and t-shirts will similarly have seen a disappointing nominations period (although surely they will have received enough early orders to keep them happy, especially where uncertainty over the nomination was very prolonged). The providers of billboard advertising may have seen a little less demand than they had hoped for, although they too seem to have done quite well from selling space to aspirants who—willingly or not—did not make it to the primaries. But where the general election will be fiercely contested, entrepreneurs will likely make up any lost ground as the campaigns get going. In these cases, competition has been postponed, not avoided.

Those in less competitive wards, constituencies or counties—the kind in which one party tends to dominate in the general election—are unlikely to be able to make up for lost time. These “one-party” areas may be in shorter supply in 2022 than in the past, due to the way that the control of specific leaders and alliances over the country’s former provinces has fragmented, but there will still be some races in which it is obvious who will win, and so the campaigns will be less heated.

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword.

More definite losers are the parties themselves. In some ways, we could say they did well as institutions, because they were spared the embarrassment of violent primaries. But the settling of many nominations without primaries meant not collecting nomination fees from aspirants in some cases, and refunding them in others. That will have cost parties a chunk of money, which they won’t get back. That may not affect the campaigns much—the money for campaigns flows in opaque and complex ways that may not touch the parties themselves. But it will affect the finances of the parties as organizations, which are often more than a little fragile.

Are the losers actually the biggest winners?

Some losers, however, are really big winners. Think about those candidates who would not have won competitive primaries but were strong enough to be able to credibly complain that they had been hard done by due to the decision to select a rival in a direct process. In many cases, these individuals were able to extract considerable concessions in return for the promise not to contest as independents, and so disrupt their coalition’s best laid plans. This means that many of the losers—who may well have been defeated anyway—walked away with the promise of a post-election reward without the expense and bother of having to campaign up until the polls.

It is hard not to suspect that some of them might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn. In fact, some of them may have been aiming at this all along. For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome. Instead of spending the next three months in an exhausting round of funerals, fund-raisers and rallies, constantly worrying about whether they have enough fifty (or larger) shilling notes to hand out and avoiding answering their phones, they can sit back and wait for their parastatal appointment, ambassadorship, or business opportunity.

For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome.

For these individuals, the biggest worry now is not their popularity or campaign, but simply the risk that their coalition might not win the presidential election, rendering the promises they have received worthless. Those whose wishes come true will be considerably more fortunate—and financially better off—than their colleagues who made it through the nominations but fall at the final hurdle of the general election.

Separating the winners of the nominations process from the losers may therefore be harder than it seems.

Continue Reading

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

Trending