Kenya faced with wrath of unbridled liberal democracy

The Saba Saba rally at Uhuru Park tomorrow is seemingly calibrated to produce maximum “CNN effect” by amassing perhaps the largest ever display of popular support and “people’s power”.

Advertised by wonks as “the beginning of the third and final liberation of our country”, the event is likely to erase the opposition’s image as a political underdog after the 2013 electoral setback.

Uncertainty, tension and anxiety have gripped the country like a vice since May 31 when opposition leader Raila Odinga unfurled his whirlwind of rallies for a “national dialogue”. And a “third way” strategy to broker talks between the opposition and government is yet to gain traction. What sense, then, do we make of Kenya’s polarisation and smouldering political antagonism?

In a deep sense, Kenya is haemorrhaging from what the architects of American democracy identified as the tyranny of excessive democracy.

Unlike the drafters of Kenya’s new liberal constitution, the prompters of the idea of freedom trained their thoughts on the causes of tyranny and oppression, concluding that tyranny not only stems from oppressive governments, but from excessive democracy as well.

Although liberal democracy carries the promise of unhindered enjoyment of liberties, recent events in North Africa and the Middle East reveal its downside as an anarchic trait that exalts mob-rule and chaos as an expression of people’s power.

In hindsight, the pristine spirit of Saba Saba in the 1990s was noble. Pro-democracy activists had a vision to end oppressive government and entrench freedom, law and order for posterity.

Many of us triumphantly celebrated the adoption of the new liberal constitution in 2010 as the local equivalent of Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” (1992) and the global triumph of the liberal order.

As the uncertainty set off by Saba Saba and the killings in Mpeketoni now show, we perhaps wasted our wine on premature celebrations.

Excessive democracy
Dialogue is cast as the silver-bullet to end Kenya’s myriad problems, particularly insecurity. But the truth is different. Kenya is not ailing from a dialogue deficiency syndrome. In fact, after the election, the greatest challenge is how to even out the keel for the country’s top-heavy architecture of dialogue.

Billions are going into footing the bill for 50 constitutionally-sanctioned avenues of dialogue, including 47 County Assemblies, National Assembly, Senate and Council of Governors.
The opposition is asking the government to side-step these legal spaces, establish and pay for a 51st forum for a manifestly uncrystallised “national dialogue”.

Dialogue of the deaf
Conceptually, the push for the “talks about talks” is no more than a dialogue of the deaf that reveals two antagonistic interpretations of the new constitution, especially the sovereign.
On its part, the government has restated the efficacy of “representative democracy” as the modern expression of the will of the people.

Following its electoral victory, Jubilee declared “the triumph of democracy” hoisted on the idea of a functioning “representative democracy” as a tool of rapid economic progress and social transformation. As such, President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto have ruled out convening the national dialogue conference, vowing to stay the course in delivering their electoral pledges.

Jubilee stalwarts see no value in the opposition’s type of dialogue which is only suitable for transitions and post-conflict processes.

In a democratic state like Kenya, dialogue takes place in Parliament as the legal forum to resolve the main issues affecting citizens. “The constitution must be followed … Article 95(2) says that the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya will deliberate and resolve all issues of concern of the people of Kenya,” said Majority Leader Aden Duale.

“Cord has and will continue to maintain that the sovereignty of the country lies with the people of Kenya as enshrined in … the constitution,” said a recent statement. “Such talks must be open to all stakeholders in the country,” it added.

On his part, Raila Odinga has reiterated that Parliament “is a house of small issues that cannot handle large national issues like security”.

But Raila’s call for talks has proved a strategic masterstroke, which has enabled him to re-energise the opposition; reassert his authority within the ODM party in the aftermath of the Karasani party election debacle; to out-shine his potential challengers for Cord leadership; and to mount a challenge to President Kenyatta’s power by laying claim to “people’s power” in preparation for the 2017 contest.

However, the logic of “pure democracy” in the 21st century evokes the memories of “the Arab Spring”, a campaign of revolt and civil resistance marked by street demonstrations which have resulted in regime change amid some of the deadliest cases of chaos and anarchy in modern times.

Not surprisingly, the clamour for talks has attracted conspiracy theories that view “dialogue” as a watchword for ousting the Jubilee leadership from power, a charge Raila has rejected.

The Third Way

In the face of this brinkmanship, a group of MPs has picked and air-brushed the prototype of the Inter-Party Parliamentary Group (IPPG) that negotiated important constitutional reforms ahead of the 1997 elections, creating an Inter-Party Parliamentary Caucus (IPPC) to spearhead an inclusive dialogue.

But Kenya’s new third way has come unstuck, disowned by the two protagonists. Raila has insisted that the rally will go on and adopt a resolution on how to tackle corruption, insecurity, threats to devolution, the electoral process, national inclusivity and international isolation.

In Saba Saba, Kenya faces the wrath of its new unbridled liberal democracy, and the perils of its fractious power elite.

Prof Peter Kagwanja is the Chief Executive of the Africa Policy Institute