To prosper, we must reject legacy of tribalism and corruption

The founding fathers of Africa are a venerated and celebrated lot. They were an elite group of Western-educated, eloquent individuals who used their abilities to inspire millions of Africans into believing in the idea of modern African countries that could rival any society in the world.

Whereas the founding fathers of the Tiger economies of Asia laid a foundation for prosperity in their countries, their African counterparts planted the seeds for much that bedevils Africa almost half-a-century later: Corruption and ethnic-based politics.

A striking similarity in sub-Saharan Africa is the legacy and attitude of its leadership. The so-called founding fathers’ penchant for authoritarianism, tribalism, and self-enrichment set the stage for the problems in Zimbabwe, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and many other countries. The leader of this trend was the celebrated Pan-Africanist, Kwame Nkrumah, who pioneered the amending of the law to concentrate power and silence alternative voices.

This phenomenon can be captured by a simple analysis of constitutional amendments championed by the founding fathers after independence.

This was done in the ingenious guise of transforming the newly independent states into republics so that instead of the queen of England, a native African would be the head of State.

What the founding fathers did not tell the citizens was that they were to take up the vast powers of the former colonisers, owning all the land and everyone in their dominion, thus transforming themselves into imperial presidents. The position of a parliamentary prime minister who was answerable to parliament, was no longer attractive. The president could now give anyone land, although he was most generous to himself and his relatives and friends.

The founding presidents used national unity as an excuse to scrap the upper houses of parliament and regional governments. In Kenya, the Senate was abolished via a simple constitutional amendment. The leaders insisted that the people must be united and that the central government was the best model to cater for everyone’s needs. This led to the marginalisation of regions considered not to be compliant. In Kenya, Luo Nyanza and the northern frontier provinces bore the brunt of a centralised government.

Another way to deal with voices of dissent and to destroy alternative political organisation was to impose one-party rule “to foster national unity”.

Before the 1980s, most African countries experienced economic stability mainly due to the cold war that saw the USA and the USSR shower countries that supported their philosophy with financial aid in order to maintain their capitalist or communist alignment. With the end of the Cold War, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, African leaders suddenly found themselves confronted with economic shambles because no one was handing them money.

Suddenly, the international community cared about democracy in Africa and wanted states to embrace multi-party politics. Many countries, including Kenya, again amended their constitutions to allow other parties to compete for power.

Many of these countries promulgated new constitutions that returned post-colonial institutions such as upper houses of parliament, devolution, and regionalism. In many cases, these constitutional changes were forced by civil unrest and war, coups, and international pressure. For Kenya, the breaking point was the 2007/2008 post-election violence.

The Constitution of Kenya (2010) has given Kenyans a framework to fight tribalism, corruption, marginalisation, and impunity. However, as long as we continue to vote and support leaders who espouse vices such as tribalism and corruption, we will never enjoy the benefits of the Constitution such as equality, equity, human rights, democratisation, accountability, and transparency. Leaders are almost always a reflection of the people.

Mr Kiprono is a senior programmes officer, Article 19 - Eastern Africa. [email protected]