Give Uhuru more teeth with which to bite insecurity and corruption
What you need to know:
- In short, the President and his able deputy have been thrown into the bullpen without a sword and then expected to slay a murderous creature with their bare hands. How are they to do it?
- Let us look at the issue more broadly. One of our sister EAC states, Rwanda, is almost corruption-free. Ethiopia, our northern neighbour is almost corruption-free.
- I doubt that this is the case. Both Kagame and Meles seized power after a long struggle in the bush. Throughout their tenure, they have used strong-arm tactics in the name of safeguarding the countries’ national security, which has meant long jail terms for economic saboteurs and rent-seekers.
The other day, I was reading a thriller in which one of the main characters, a spy, was forced into the arena where bullfighting is the main attraction.
He was no matador or anything, but a drug lord he was investigating didn’t care; he wanted the spy gored and killed by the bull without fighting back, and so no weapon was allowed. In the event, it did not happen and the fellow was able to limp away to fight another day.
This anecdote neatly sums up the dilemma faced by President Kenyatta daily while trying to do the job we gave him. He appears determined to fight the vicious corruption that is eating our country’s innards, but we have denied him the weapon with which to do it.
He is obviously keen to contain runaway insecurity, but every attempt he makes is dissected and declared flawed and unconstitutional even before it is tried out. In the meantime, terrorists continue mowing us down with machine guns.
In short, the President and his able deputy have been thrown into the bullpen without a sword and then expected to slay a murderous creature with their bare hands. How are they to do it?
It has always been my contention that the 2010 Constitution is an impressively progressive document, but in some instances, its framers contrived to emasculate the presidency so greatly that its holder can hardly cough without attracting all manner of accusations and acrimony.
It seems to me that, in reaction to the excesses of the Moi regime, which included gross human rights abuses and economic plunder of gargantuan proportions, we went overboard. Never again, our panel of constitutional experts said, shall we entertain despotism and dictatorship of any description.
Fair enough. But that very liberalism in which the Constitution was couched also served to tie the President’s hands during national crises. As a result, the presidency has appeared hesitant, ineffectual and prone to gaffes. Was that what the fathers of our new Constitution really wanted? I doubt it.
EAC STATES
Let us look at the issue more broadly. One of our sister EAC states, Rwanda, is almost corruption-free. Ethiopia, our northern neighbour is almost corruption-free. How did President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, and the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia get it right in eradicating official and petty corruption?
Are Rwandans and Ethiopians naturally free of that particular vice, while to us, it comes naturally?
No, I believe they are a lot more disciplined, partly due to historical circumstances, but also because the two leaders could not quite agree to become mere figureheads while civil society lawyers called all the shots.
And how have the two countries — both of which can, without much dispute, be described as warlike judging from their military forays into neighbouring countries all over the central and eastern African region — kept terrorists at bay while we keep suffering blow after blow from Al-Shabaab allegedly because the Kenya Defence Forces went to Somalia? Are our defence, police and intelligence apparatus so compromised that they are unable to do their job — assure us of our security?
STRONG-ARM TACTICS
I doubt that this is the case. Both Kagame and Meles seized power after a long struggle in the bush. Throughout their tenure, they have used strong-arm tactics in the name of safeguarding the countries’ national security, which has meant long jail terms for economic saboteurs and rent-seekers.
Unfortunately, the two leaders have been accused of using even stronger, sometimes terminal, measures against political dissidents and opponents.
This, of course, is a path we dare not follow, for we have been there and done that, and in any case, we pride ourselves on being a liberal democracy.
However, ways must be found, constitutionally, to give the President more powers if he is to be effective in fighting the twin vices of corruption and insecurity, which are sometimes closely inter-linked.
And here I am not talking of ill-conceived legislation that aims at the wrong targets like the media; I am talking of measures like setting up an organ that would ensure homeland security without infringing on the rights of any minorities.
As some legislator commented, “if we want the President to be accountable, we must give him more powers so that we can blame him when he messes up”.
[email protected]
