Connect with us

Politics

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai – Part 5: Being Kenyan in Kenya

10 min read.

Ghai’s contribution to human rights is without equal. He is in the very fortunate position that people will appreciate him more and more as time passes. It’s a slow burn. Kenyans realize.

Published

on

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: Being Kenyan in Kenya
Download PDFPrint Article

Ghai returned to Kenya in 2008, “with no expectations” of getting involved in constitutional work again. “We wanted to rest,” he says, remembering the decision that he and Cottrell Ghai took to settle in Nairobi. “We felt we were getting old.” Despite what he may have envisioned as a quiet life, however, the Ghais are never far from the limelight. Manji describes the Ghais’ life: “For all their living in Muthaiga in a nice house, all they do is work — and work and work and work.”

Ghai’s experience in and service to various nations have afforded him multiple opportunities to make a home outside of Kenya. “With his outstanding legal training, he could easily have developed ‘big man’ syndrome and sat in London and held court. He could’ve made himself an extremely nice life,” says Manji. Cottrell Ghai explains the decision to return to Kenya. “There was a conviction that he wanted to be Kenyan in Kenya; he still does feel pretty strongly Kenyan.”

Importantly, Ghai’s conception and quiet demonstration of his Kenyan identity has allowed him to carve out a special niche for himself in his home country. Indeed, Githongo credits Ghai’s ability to rise “above tribe” as one reason why Moi agreed to appoint him as Chair of the CKRC. “Yash made sense for Moi, who was in a political corner. He had no tribe but he was Kenyan. He was very sharp and very respected, but he wasn’t affiliated with any big ethnic groups. Moi, in his pure political, ruthless analysis, thought, ‘This is the right guy.’” Over the years, Ghai’s work with various communities around Kenya has cemented his reputation. “Yash transcends. People see him, ordinary people see him as just Yash,” Githongo says.

Ghai’s model of Kenyan-ness has inspired others. Says Manji, “We grew up in the Moi era, and we were told not to engage in politics. Keep your head down, say nothing. I tried once or twice and was told very clearly not to talk politics at the table. There was this Asian tendency to quietly get on with your life and don’t let anyone know your thinking. Growing up under Moi, you weren’t entirely sure there was any kind of contribution you could make. What I loved about Yash was that I was suddenly free to think and talk about Kenyan politics and be political. Through his authority, he gave me authority to be political. There was something there that liberated me. I saw a model of how to be Kenyan and Asian. He really showed me how to make a contribution, and one way in which he did that is by demonstrating how to feel Kenyan by transcending tribe.”

It is unsurprising that – since returning to Kenya – both Ghais have continued to dedicate much of their time and energy to constitutional work. Indeed, they continue to invest time and energy in the Kenyan Constitution, ever-dedicated to its power to effect change. Manji refers to Ghai as “a constitutional optimist and something of an idealist.” Since resigning from the CKRC, Ghai has continued to publicly write and speak about the Constitution. On many occasions, he has also advised the government on constitution-related issues and developments. His “Katiba Corner” in The Star, which he and Cottrell Ghai began in late 2013, continues to offer the latest analysis and commentary – from themselves and other experts – on constitution-related matters in Kenya.

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Father of the Constitution

Read also: The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Father of the Constitution

Perhaps the Ghais’ most important contribution, however, and one that will house the professor’s legacy in Kenya for a long time to come, is the Katiba Institute (KI), an NGO dedicated to “achieving social transformation through the Constitution.” KI’s first Executive Director, Waikwa Wanyoike, recalls his enthusiasm for the position. “Yash is larger than life in academia and constitutional law. I knew his history quite well, and I knew he was very principled. He had gone into exile just because he didn’t want to compromise on his principles, and he had been extremely successful. There is no question that being able to work in an institution where Yash was the main person – for me – was icing on the cake. Who else would you want to work for with regard to constitutions in Kenya and globally? It was a moment of pride that I could associate myself with him and with an institute that he founded. Being able to take advantage of Jill as well, of her interest in and knowledge of law generally – again, that was a huge, huge bonus for me.”

KI is also a reflection of Ghai’s commitment to Kenya. There is a commitment to harnessing local expertise and building a strong base of highly skilled lawyers. Says Wanyoike, “How do you justify calling yourself an institute when you use consultants, when you aren’t a repository of expertise? We knew that, if we have the right people, even if we weren’t able to mobilize financial resources, we would still manage. We also wanted to build a new group of technical experts for the future. We saw ourselves as an extension of teaching institutions, a place where people could come and learn about real life problems.” This extends to more than the training of lawyers. KI’s Executive Assistant says, “Before KI, I didn’t understand the constitution, but now — working with him — I have learned a lot. I can say I am more knowledgeable about my rights and I can interpret some of the articles, despite not being a lawyer. He has impacted a lot of people in terms of trying to offer trainings to different communities and the world. A lot of people are more knowledgeable and they appreciate and have pride in Prof. for what he has done for this country.” The focus on technical expertise goes hand in hand with broad inclusion. Wanyoike describes KI’s desire to focus on groups that ordinarily would not get attention. More than half of KI’s lawyers are women, and they appear before the Supreme Court more than other female litigators.

True to Ghai’s spirit, KI fights hard to stay true to its own mission and priorities, relying as little on donors as possible. “The programming of KI is not driven by donors or grants. 60-75 percent of litigation is not reflected in activity reports for donors. It’s being creative, based on the needs and demands of the country at the moment.”

And it has worked. Says Manji, “What you see in Katiba is the most robust lawyers you can imagine. Yash has got an incredible eye for good lawyers. Waikwa is a really good example – he is Kenya’s most brilliant lawyer. Everyone at Katiba is the same — the starting point is great lawyers and great legal minds and everything else follows.”

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: Years of Exile

Read also: The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: Years of Exile

Both Ghais continue to be a mentor to many, including Manji, who describes how the couple took her under their collective wing when she became the head of the British Institute of East Africa. “They were absolutely exemplary in looking after me. Any time I wanted advice or anything I ever asked, they did for me. They were just outstanding.” Speaking of Ghai specifically, she says, “He’s my teacher, as well as a mentor and an advisor. He’s the grandfather of everything we are trying to do. There are many of us who feel that.” Mutunga concurs. “When I became CJ, he was a great mentor and advisor. He was one of the scholars and judges who inducted the Supreme Court in Mount Kenya Safari Club (Yash used his contacts to get us these prominent jurists). His contribution to the development of progressive jurisprudence based on the 2010 Constitution is exemplary. His and Jill’s work at the Judiciary Training Institute has been legendary.”

The Ghais also continue to support KI. Says Wanyoike, “At an intellectual level, they have always been very present, but at an administrative level they have not. They have always given us a lot of autonomy to operate, while also creating as much time for us as we have needed. People told me that Prof. is difficult to work with, because he is headstrong, but that was never borne out in my experience. He insists on integrity and honesty, and as long as he has confidence that is what is driving you, he is not in your space. People don’t know this. He has so much deference and respect for people who work for him. If there is ever a difference of opinion between him and the staff, he will almost always defer to what staff have decided. He is extremely loyal to people who work with him. This is at all levels.”

Today, Ghai can often be found seated at the desk in the home office he shares with his wife, a large room whose walls, shelves and surfaces seem to spawn books. “It’s like a bomb of papers,” Githongo says with a laugh. “He is the uber big brain. Yash can stay up half the night and in the morning you have a written constitution… and it’s flawless. It’s astonishing stuff.” And when he is seated in front of his computer, referring from time to time to one or the other miniature pyramids of books surrounding him, he appears the quintessential professor. At certain moments, when he pulls out his old, dog-eared copy of the Kenyan Constitution – peppered with his hand-written notes in the margins – to point to key sections and emphasize his arguments, he remains the quintessential professor.

Most days, Cottrell Ghai is seated across from him. “We never realized the sheer power and importance of the role of Jill in the beginning,” Githongo recalls. “Jill came in a bit later, and when she became visible, people did not know how to place her. Then they realized that she’s as formidable a mind as Yash. She’s ferocious, totally big brained and knows her stuff. It’s a team, a very formidable team. I don’t think Yash would have made it this far, with the years of disappointments and betrayals, without her.”

yash-family

Yash Pal Ghai with his family

Ghai agrees, crediting his wife as his partner in thinking, writing and editing. Even if it is not a jointly authored work, Ghai says, it is the product of “hours of discussion” with Cottrell Ghai. He is lucky, he says, to have such a valued professional partner in his wife. When asked about her career, Cottrell Ghai is dismissive. “I wasn’t that distinguished and I’ve never been that ambitious. I’ve always told Yash that the most interesting things I’ve done in my life have been because of him.”

Ghai also sees his children and grandchildren at least once a year, and he considers himself lucky to have made lasting peace with his ex-wife, who is now a friend. Vacations are sometimes extended family affairs. It is lucky, Ghai thinks, that it is possible to be one family in this way. Cottrell Ghai agrees, saying that seeing the children remains an important priority for her husband. She worries that he does not get more time with them. Ghai also maintains old relationships, taking the time to visit and vacation with his close friends, whenever possible. Whitford says, “I admire him to no end. I feel very lucky that he would regard me as a close friend. I certainly regard him as a close friend. We came from totally different upbringings, but we just hit it off. If he thinks well of me, I feel immensely grateful for that and flattered.”

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Hong Kong experience

Read also: The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Hong Kong Experience

One of his most recent projects has been support of social justice centres in Kenya. Wanyoike describes his commitment to these centres, which are based mainly in Kenya’s poor, informal settlements. “He has actually contributed a significant amount of money to establishing social justice centres, but he won’t take credit for it.” Kavoi describes the impact of this work on Kenya today. Ghai’s support has allowed the centres to maintain offices and it has also sent students to university. He uses his networks to link the centres to other like-minded organizations, helping promote their impact. Githongo describes such work as exemplary of Ghai’s independent spirit and deep-felt conviction for promoting rights, especially amongst those who are most disempowered. “Yash is a very frustrating figure for [the elites]. He is retired and is hanging out with Mathare Social Justice guys. He should be at the country club; that’s the model.”

Increasingly these days, Ghai expresses a desire to withdraw from public life. He is working on a biography of his personal hero, Chanan Singh. It is a project that means a great deal to him, both because of the great admiration he had for Singh and because he promised his best friend – Singh’s son – that he would do it. “In the last year, I feel age with a vengeance. Things I write take three or four times longer than they used to.” And yet he seems rejuvenated by a walk through his neighborhood, where he is a well-known and beloved figure, inevitably greeted and often thanked by strangers. “It is a bit like being married to a rockstar,” Cottrell Ghai says, describing the public attention. Wanyoike remembers being star-struck long ago, before he had officially met Ghai. “In 2010, I was visiting Kenya, and I went to Uchumi in Sarit. I saw him there, shopping with Jill, and I had this huge urge to introduce myself and say hi. But then I thought, ‘When you are that well-known, you don’t want people to come up to you in the store.’ So I disciplined myself.” Cottrell Ghai says, however, that her husband enjoys the attention. “It gives him a warm feeling; he feels appreciated by people in Kenya.”

It may seem strange that, after all the betrayals Ghai endured in his home country, he carries on with the same work, fighting for the same cause. According to Githongo, this is because Ghai’s work was always aimed at the common man. “When a watchman recognizes him, that’s what is more important for him, and that’s who he wrote the Constitution for.” He goes on, “Once Kenyans respect you for something, no one can take it away. The watchman on the road, the packers in the shops will give him that respect — not because he’s powerful or rich but because he has stood up for the people. Kenyans realize that the same people that have cheated them have cheated him. Ghai has been called “the man who solved the world,” a title at which he shakes his head. In Kenya, though, Githongo says Ghai is known as “mtu wa roho safi (a pure-hearted man). That’s the way ordinary people known him, describe him and appreciate him.”

Reflecting back on his career, Ghai says, “I always wanted to serve the people if I could. I have always been conscious that, if I have been doing something good, it’s because I probably had better opportunities than others.”

The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Defender of Justice

Read also: The Indomitable Yash Pal Ghai: The Defender of Justice

Githongo believes that Ghai’s work will continue to impact Kenya for generations to come. “His contribution to human rights is without equal. He is in the very fortunate position that people will appreciate him more and more as time passes. It’s a slow burn. Kenyans realize.” Manji agrees, remarking, “It’s not just in the books, or in the law courts. He protests in the streets! He’s got a real connection to ordinary people, and that to me is his contribution to human rights.”

Ghai’s work has not always made him popular, especially in Kenya. In fact, Ghai recently lamented certain politicians’ rhetoric, which blames the Constitution for problems that clearly are the result of elites’ unwillingness to respect the rule of law. Mutunga is not surprised. In fact, the former Chief Justice points out that Ghai was honored by the Queen of England for his work while his home country failed him. Mutunga refers to Matthew 13:57, a Bible verse that reads, “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

“He continues to work against the grain,” Githongo says, “so his phone won’t ring. The moment the crisis comes, the phone will ring off the hook. All the hoodlums will call him then. He’s our fireman.”

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

Seema Shah is an elections expert with experience in North America, Asia and Africa. She holds a doctorate in Political Science, and her research focuses on electoral politics, with an emphasis on electoral integrity and electoral violence.

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