Connect with us

Op-Eds

Dynasties, Hustlers and Us: Towards a Politics of Revolutionary Change

6 min read.

MIRIAM ABRAHAM on the epidemic of rightwing populism abroad, the new power games of the ruling elite at home, and how to nurture genuinely popular movements for the future.

Published

on

Dynasties, Hustlers and Us: Towards a Politics of Revolutionary Change
Download PDFPrint Article

Last week, we gathered for a drink to commiserate with a Brazilian friend and colleague following the declaration of the populist candidate, Mr. Jair Bolsonaro as their new president. As we do much too often lately, we bemoaned the rise of nationalism, populism and the erosion of the rule-based world order. We fancied re-writing Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat or Hilary French’s Vanishing Borders to update them with the recent assault on globalization, anti-immigrant rhetoric, trade wars, Brexit and the even greater threats to our environment as governments abandon international agreements. And then as we often do, we gradually moved from the big picture global issues to the inevitable discussions of the politics in our countries.

Our Brazilian friend had earned the right to go first, given that the drinks were meant for him anyway. He expressed his frustration at Jair Bolsonaro taking office in the country beginning January next year, and in jest wondered if any of us could offer him citizenship. The options around our table were not palatable. An Italian, two Americans, a Brit, an Austrian, a South Sudanese and a Kenyan. He lamented about the incoming President’s views on women, minorities and immigrants, his threat to use the army to quash urban crime and pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, among other grievances.

We asked our Brazilian friend what alternatives they had on the ballot and he readily admitted that they really had none. As in Kenya, they seem to have been stuck choosing between the Dynasty, as exemplified by Mr. Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Workers Party, who was anointed by former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (he is serving a 12-year jail sentence for corruption), or the Hustler Jair Bolsonaro, who while running on an agenda to clean up Brasilia, appears to be just as corrupt, if not worse. In what may be perceived as a quid pro quo, Judge Sergio Moro, who convicted ex-president Lula, has been nominated by the new Hustler President to serve as minister of justice in the incoming administration.

Nevertheless, the wave of anti-establishment candidates seems to be spreading across the world, as citizens protest what they perceive as entrenched systems that do not seem to address their economic and social woes. My friends were perturbed when I told them that I wished that the same wind of change would sweep through my African continent and the Middle East. I argued that if Brazil’s Bolsonaro was partly a product of social media, then my continent was more than ready to have their own version of this change. I admitted that I was disturbed by the dangerous rhetoric from their new anti-establishment leaders in their countries. But that in the absence of political leadership that attempts to root out corruption, deal with economic and social inequalities and protect our environment, then it is worth making a break with the past. This would potentially lead to setbacks, but it would re-set the political systems.

As in Kenya, Brazil was stuck choosing between the Dynasty, as exemplified by Mr. Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Workers Party, who was anointed by former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, or the Hustler Jair Bolsonaro, who…appears to be just as corrupt, if not worse.

While anti-establishment debates seem to dominate discussions in other places, in Kenya, the Dynasties and Hustlers seem to be shaping and controlling the political narrative of the country’s future. The 2022 succession plans all seem to be focused on the same names that are responsible for our woes. It is as though the Kenyatta, Odinga and Moi families, which have dominated our politics and economic lives for the past six decades have earned the right to govern forever. Or that the so-called Hustlers who have looted this country broke, will suddenly be redeemed and focus on the problems of the common mwananchi. Even when we attempt to be innovative, our lists are composed of politicians who have been part and parcel of the establishment, as former ministers or current governors. The so-called collection of views from across the country by the “Bridges to Nowhere” team; the so-called national dialogue conferences under the auspices of religious leaders; the calls for a referendum ahead of the 2022 election to change the Constitution – all are disguised attempts by the Dynasties or Hustlers to maintain their control of our destiny.

It is as though the Kenyatta, Odinga and Moi families, which have dominated our politics and economic lives for the past six decades have earned the right to govern forever. Or that the so-called Hustlers who have looted this country broke, will suddenly be redeemed.

Some are even suggesting that the “young” president remains in office, in one form or another, beyond 2022. To be fair, Uhuru Kenyatta has denied attempts to remain in power and has promised to unveil his “surprise” anointed one at the appropriate time. Time will tell. We have numerous African leaders who make retirement commitments and then turn around and claim to have “given in” to the popular demand of their populace. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda is the reigning king of this narrative in East Africa. The nerve to think that after the country has been dominated by the Kenyatta dynasty, Uhuru Kenyatta would offer to anoint a new leader, reflects a breathtaking sense of entitlement. If indeed our politics will continue to be controlled by a select set of families, then maybe we should consider formally switching from a democracy to a monarchy. It would save us a lot of lives and money, both of which are casualties of our electoral process.

In such a political climate, it is easy to give in to despondency and let the Dynasties and Hustlers battle it out themselves. But only if we would not end up as victims of their selfish adventures. Change does not come on its own. It needs people to organize and rally around a common cause. With the state of the economy, corruption, extra-judicial killings, inequalities and other ills, it should not be difficult to find consensus on a common cause. But the task of building a social and political movement is not easy. And the Dynasties and Hustlers will take every step to undermine such a movement. They will once more, re-invent themselves and present themselves as the messiahs we have been awaiting.

This is only possible if we collectively cave in to pessimism, apathy and our usual blind sycophancy to our versions of messiahs. Going back to Brazil. The military dictatorship that governed from 1964 to 1985 was opposed by academics, technocrats, reformists and many middle-class families. Although it took them time, these groups organized and formed the Party of Brazilian Social Democracy that rejected corrupt politicians, espoused free markets and respect for human rights and went on to govern between 1995 and 2003. During this period, Brazil’s economy thrived, violent crimes reduced, primary healthcare and literacy programmes among other social reforms were put in place. It was only replaced from power by the Workers Party, with even more positive social reforms, of course until political and economic power got into their heads and they became part of a corrupt and oppressive establishment.

In Kenya, there are signs of a growing number of activists, artists, writers, thinkers and technocrats who seem tired of the zero-sum game of Dynasties and Hustlers. Like myself, they spend hours behind keyboards on columns such as this one, lamenting the political-economic situation. They grapple on a daily basis with the situation in the country, dazed by each revelation of corruption, its public relations game of smokes and mirrors, arrests and release of the culprits.

In Kenya, there are signs of a growing number of activists, artists, writers, thinkers and technocrats who seem tired of the zero-sum game of Dynasties and Hustlers.

Every society needs it share of the Naom Chomskys to serve as public intellectuals. But even more urgently, it needs men and women to organize themselves to rid the country of this breed of the political class. That is the reason that initiatives such as the Kenya Tuitakayo Movement (KTM) are commendable. There is clarity on the issues to be tackled. Clarity on the need to mobilize across the country. Clarity on the importance of developing leaders. But the movement must define itself as a political one and not fall prey of the typical civil society projects that rely of external funding for survival. The movement should be wary of becoming one of those that ticks the boxes on the number of ‘capacity building’ workshops it has held or protests it has organized. It should not shy away from defining itself as a movement seeking to bring political, social and economic changes rather than a lobby group that intends to merely reform the current system. Out of sheer personal interest, no politician will want to change a system which privileges them.

Initiatives such as the Kenya Tuitakayo Movement (KTM) are commendable… [T]he movement must define itself as a political one and not fall prey of the typical civil society projects that rely of external funding for survival.

It is unlikely that such a movement will make any significant inroads to have a direct impact on the 2022 elections. It must, as a matter of necessity, move away from the model of the current political coalitions and parties that only exist as vehicles for electoral processes. But it cannot shy away from defining itself as a movement whose objective is to wrest political and economic power from the establishment and shape a new social contract with Kenyans. As a long-time friend of mine recently asked, “are we building leaders to be priests or to take political power?”.

Each day, the Dynasties and Hustlers will distract us with one issue or another, but such a movement has to focus beyond these distractions. It also has to be wary of those who sit in the boardrooms with them to destroy the movement from inside in order to maintain their privileged positions with the Dynasties and Hustlers, in the hope of having crumbs thrown their way.

It is unlikely that such a movement will make any significant inroads to have a direct impact on the 2022 elections…But it cannot shy away from defining itself as a movement whose objective is to wrest political and economic power from the establishment and shape a new social contract with Kenyans.

As expected, the drinks with my friends, ended without us finding a solution to our disenchantment with the political leadership in our countries. But with the optimism that change is inevitable, regardless of how long it may take, or how difficult it will be.

Avatar
By

Ms. Abraham is a governance and institutional development expert.

Op-Eds

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Published

on

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive
Download PDFPrint Article

The tyranny of numbers, a phrase first applied to Kenyan politics by one of Kenya’s most well-known political commentators, Mutahi Ngunyi, was repeated ad nauseum during the week of waiting that followed Kenya’s 2013 general elections.

In ads published in the run-up to the 2013 elections by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), people were told to vote, go home and accept the results. Encouraged by a state that had since the 2007 post-electoral violence dominated public discourse and means of coercion, the military pitched camp in polling stations. Many streets in Kenya’s cities and towns remained deserted for days after the polls closed.

According to Ngunyi, the winner of the 2013 elections had been known four months earlier, that is, when the electoral commission stopped registering voters.

In a country whose politics feature a dominant discourse that links political party and ethnicity, the outcome of voter registration that year meant that the Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto-led coalition, the Jubilee Alliance, would start the electoral contest with 47 per cent of the vote assured. With these statistics, their ticket appeared almost impossible to beat. For ethnic constituencies that did not eventually vote for Uhuru Kenyatta – the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate in 2013 – a sense of hopelessness was widespread.

For them, a bureaucratic, professionalised, dispassionate (even boring) discourse became the main underpinning of the 2013 elections.

This was not the case in 2017.

Uhuru Kenyatta, pressured by opposition protests and a Supreme Court ruling that challenged his victory and ordered a re-run, met with Raila Odinga – his challenger for the presidency in the 2013 and 2017 elections – and offered a settlement. It became known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

In his 2020 Jamhuri Day speech, Uhuru reiterated that the purpose of the BBI process is to abolish the winner-takes-all system by expanding the executive branch of government.

As he explained it, the challenge to Kenya’s politics is the politicisation of ethnicity coupled with a lack of the requisite number of political offices within the executive branch that would satisfy all ethnic constituencies – Kenya has 42 enumerated ethnic groups.

The revised BBI report that was released on 21 October 2020 (the first was published in November 2019) has now retained the position of president, who, if the recommendations are voted for in a referendum, will also get to appoint a prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and a cabinet.

Amid heckles and jeers during the launch of the revised BBI report, Deputy President William Ruto asked whether the establishment of the positions of prime minister and two deputy prime ministers would create the much sought-after inclusivity. In his Jamhuri Day speech, the president conceded that they wouldn’t, but that the BBI-proposed position of Leader of Official Opposition – with a shadow cabinet, technical support and a budget – would mean that the loser of the presidential election would still have a role to play in governance.

One could not help but think that the president’s statement was informed by the fact that Odinga lost to him in both the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections –  this despite Odinga’s considerable political influence over vast areas of the country.

The 2010 constitution’s pure presidential system doesn’t anticipate any formal political role for the loser(s) of a presidential election. Raila held no public office between 2013 and 2017, when he lost to Uhuru. This did not help to address the perception amongst his supporters that they had been excluded from the political process for many years. In fact, Raila’s party had won more gubernatorial posts across the country’s 47 counties than the ruling Jubilee Alliance had during the 2013 elections.

While Raila’s attempts to remain politically relevant in the five years between 2013 and 2017 were largely ignored by Uhuru, the resistance against Uhuru’s victory in 2017 wasn’t.

The anger felt by Raila’s supporters in 2017 following the announcement that Uhuru had won the elections – again – could not be separated from the deeply-entrenched feelings of exclusion and marginalisation that were at the centre of the violence that followed the protracted and disputed elections.

The reading of Kenyan politics that is currently being rendered by the BBI process is that all ethnic constituencies must feel that they (essentially, their co-ethnic leaders) are playing a role in what is an otherwise overly centralised, executive-bureaucratic state. This is despite the fact that previous attempts to limit the powers of the executive branch by spreading them across other levels of government have often invited a backlash from the political class.

Kenya’s independence constitution had provided for a Westminster-style, parliamentary system of government, and took power and significant functions of government away from the centralised government in Nairobi, placing significant responsibility (over land, security and education, for instance) in the hands of eight regional governments of equal status known in Swahili as majimbo. The majimbo system was abolished and, between 1964 to 1992, the government was headed by an executive president and the constitution amended over twenty times – largely empowering the executive branch at the expense of parliament and the judiciary. The powers of the president were exercised for the benefit of the president’s cronies and co-ethnics.

By 2010 there was not a meaningful decentralised system of government. The executive, and the presidency at its head, continued to survive attempts at limiting their powers. This has continued since 2010.

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Beyond the minimum of 35 per cent of national revenue that the BBI report proposes should be allocated to county governments, it is less clear whether the country’s leaders are prepared to decentralise significant powers and resources away from the executive, and away from Nairobi.

Perhaps the real solution to the challenges of governance the BBI process purports to address is to follow the prescriptions of the defunct Yash Pal Ghai team – it went around the country collecting views for constitutional change in 2003-2004.

According to a paper written by Ghai himself, the Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) had no doubt that, consistent with the goals of the review and the people’s views, there had to be a transfer of very substantial powers and functions of government to local levels.

The CKRC noted – much like Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga now have – that the centralised presidential system tends to ethnicise politics, which threatens national unity.

Kenyans told the CKRC that decisions were made at places far away from them; that their problems arose from government policies over which they had no control; that they wanted greater control over their own destiny and to be free to determine their lifestyle choices and their affairs; and not to be told that they are not patriotic enough!

Yes, the BBI report has proposed that 5 per cent of county revenue be allocated to Members of County Assemblies for a newly-created Ward Development Fund, and that businesses set up by young Kenyans be exempted from taxation for the first seven years of operation. However, this doesn’t amount to any meaningful surrender of power and resources by the executive.

In emphasising the importance of exercising control at the local level, Kenyans told the CKRC that they wanted more communal forms of organisation and a replacement of the infamous Administration Police with a form of community policing. They considered that more powers and resources at the local level would give them greater influence over their parliamentary and local representatives, including greater control over jobs, land and land-based resources.  In short, Kenyans have always yearned for a dispersion of power away from the presidency, and away from the executive and Nairobi. They have asked for the placing of responsibility for public affairs in the hands of additional and more localised levels of government.

This is what would perhaps create the much sought-after inclusivity.

But as the BBI debate rages on, the attention of the political class is now on the proposed new positions within the executive branch. And as the debate becomes inexorably linked to the 2022 Kenyatta-succession race, questions centring on political positions will likely become personalised, especially after the political class cobbles together coalitions to contest the 2022 general elections.

Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans will be left battling the aftermath of a pandemic, and having to deal with the usual stresses brought on by a political class seeking their votes for another round of five years of exclusion.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others

The coming election in Uganda is significant because if there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment.

Published

on

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others
Download PDFPrint Article

Western powers slowly tied a noose round their own necks by first installing Uganda’s National Resistance Movement regime, and then supporting it uncritically as it embarked on its adventures in militarism, plunder and human rights violations inside and outside Uganda’s borders.

They are now faced with a common boss problem: what to do with an employee of very long standing (possibly even inherited from a predecessor) who may now know more about his department than the new bosses, and who now carries so many of the company’s secrets that summary dismissal would be a risky undertaking?

The elections taking place in Uganda this week have brought that dilemma into sharp relief.

An initial response would be to simply allow this sometimes rude employee to carry on. The problem is time. In both directions. The employee is very old, and those he seeks to manage are very young, and also very poor and very aspirational because of being very young. And also therefore very angry.

Having a president who looks and speaks like them, and whose own personal life journey symbolises their own ambitions, would go a very long way to placating them. This, if for no other reason, is why the West must seriously consider finding a way to induce the good and faithful servant to give way. Nobody lives forever. And so replacement is inevitable one way or another.

But this is clearly not a unified position. The United Kingdom, whose intelligence services were at the forefront of installing the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) in power nearly forty years ago, remains quietly determined to stand by President Yoweri Museveni’s side.

On the other hand, opinion in America’s corridors of power seems divided. With standing operations in Somalia, and a history of western-friendly interventions in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and even Kenya, the Ugandan military is perceived as a huge (and cut-price) asset to the West’s regional security concerns.

The DRC, in particular, with its increasing significance as the source of much of the raw materials that will form the basis of the coming electric engine revolution, has been held firmly in the orbit of Western corporations through the exertions of the regime oligarchs controlling Uganda’s security establishment. To this, one may add the growing global agribusiness revolution in which the fertile lands of the Great Lakes Region are targeted for clearing and exploitation, and for which the regime offers facilitation.

Such human resource is hard to replace and therefore not casually disposed of.

These critical resource questions are backstopped by unjust politics themselves held in place by military means. The entire project therefore hinges ultimately on who has the means to physically enforce their exploitation. In our case, those military means have been personalised to one individual and a small circle of co-conspirators, often related by blood and ethnicity.

However, time presses. Apart from the ageing autocrat at the centre, there is also a time bomb in the form of an impoverished and anxious population of unskilled, under-employed (if at all) and propertyless young people. Change beckons for all sides, whether planned for or not.

This is why this coming election is significant. If there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment. Even if President Museveni is once again declared winner, there will still remain enough political momentum and pressure that could be harnessed by his one-time Western friends to cause him to look for the exit. It boils down to whether the American security establishment could be made to believe that the things that made President Museveni valuable to them, are transferable elsewhere into the Uganda security establishment. In short, that his sub-imperial footprint can be divorced from his person and entrusted, if not to someone like candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, then at least to security types already embedded within the state structure working under a new, youthful president.

Three possible outcomes then: Kyagulanyi carrying the vote and being declared the winner; Kyagulanyi carrying the vote but President Museveni being declared the winner; or failure to have a winner declared. In all cases, there will be trouble. In the first, a Trump-like resistance from the incumbent. In the second and the third, the usual mass disturbances that have followed each announcement of the winner of the presidential election since the 1990s.

Once the Ugandan political crisis — a story going back to the 1960s — is reduced to a security or “law and order” problem, the West usually sides with whichever force can quickest restore the order they (not we) need.

And this is how the NRM tail seeks to still wag the Western dog: the run-up to voting day has been characterised by heavy emphasis on the risk of alleged “hooligans” out to cause mayhem (“burning down the city” being a popular bogeyman). The NRM’s post-election challenge will be to quickly strip the crisis of all political considerations and make it a discussion about security.

But it would be strategically very risky to try to get Uganda’s current young electorate — and the even younger citizens in general — to accept that whatever social and economic conditions they have lived through in the last few decades (which for most means all of their lives given how young they are) are going to remain in place for even just the next five years. They will not buy into the promises they have seen broken in the past. Their numbers, their living conditions, their economic prospects and their very youth would then point to a situation of permanent unrest.

However, it can be safely assumed that the NRM regime will, to paraphrase US President Donald Trump, not accept any election result that does not declare it the winner.

Leave things as they are and deal with the inevitable degeneration of politics beyond its current state, or enforce a switch now under the cover of an election, or attempt to enforce a switch in the aftermath of the election by harnessing the inevitable discontent.

Those are the boss’ options.

In the meantime, there is food to be grown and work to be done.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

Published

on

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll
Download PDFPrint Article

Dear Readers/Viewers,

For four years now, The Elephant has been one of the premier online sources of news analysis in the East African region with a fast-growing readership across the African continent and beyond.

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

We have further ascertained that the directive to do so came from the Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) and was implemented beginning 12 December 2020, when we noticed a sudden traffic drop coming from several providers in Uganda, including Africell and Airtel. A forensics report, which provides technical details on the blocking, is available here.

We have written to the UCC requesting a reason for the blocking but are yet to receive a response.

The Elephant wholeheartedly condemns this assault on free speech and on freedom of the press and calls on the Ugandan government to respect the rights of Ugandans to access information.

We would like to assure all our readers that we are doing everything in our power to get the restrictions removed and hope normal access can be restored expeditiously.

As we do this, to circumvent the block, a Bifrost mirror has been deployed. Readers in Uganda can once again access The Elephant on this link.

Thank you.

Best Regards

John Githongo
Publisher

Continue Reading

Trending