Graft: Maybe some ‘enlightened dictatorship’ could do the trick

President Uhuru Kenyatta addresses residents of Kanduyi in Bungoma County on November 24, 2016. He must tackle graft. PHOTO | SAMUEL MIRING'U | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • It could presumably be done, but the hullabaloo that would greet the move would be venomous and probably not worth the effort.
  • Maybe we should try doing the same with a few amendments to our Constitution. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

When Senate Majority Leader Kithure Kindiki suggested the other day that perhaps the President should be granted more powers to fight the endemic corruption which has soiled this country’s image, he was soundly berated by the brigade of naysayers who believe that the only reason why Kenyans adore graft is because the Jubilee leadership lacks the will to stop them.

He could also have alarmed those who feel that unless they keep harping on the issue, they cannot win the elections next year, and they wouldn’t be expected to approve of anyone who plotted to remove such a potent weapon from their arsenal.

In short, they wouldn’t want corruption to be defeated just yet, though they don’t say so.

Well, they need not worry, for that will not happen any time soon.

Nevertheless, for the sake of the country’s future, perhaps we should listen to those who, while not denying that this obscenity exists amongst us, cannot see a way out of the maze unless extraordinary measures are taken to shake Kenyans out of their obsession.

There is no sense lamenting that corruption is a bug that is gnawing at the country’s innards thus destroying its economic health, and then opposing any suggestions on how to eradicate it.

Of course, by suggesting that the Constitution be amended to give the President more powers to deal directly with corruption in government ministries, which presumably means sacking the rogues, Prof Kindiki was treading on very shaky grounds.

It could presumably be done, but the hullabaloo that would greet the move would be venomous and probably not worth the effort.

HARD TASK
First, it would be interpreted as stark opportunism.

With seven months to go before the elections, people would justifiably ask why such a suggestion was never made before.

Second, there is a very thin line between giving a leader additional powers and turning him or her into a despot.

Only very sagacious rulers could resist the temptation to misuse powers not originally contemplated in the Constitution.

The third reason is that no individual, however powerful, can single-handedly fight such a corrosive menace.

That is why the Constitution set up independent institutions to do the job.

If the institutions themselves have become toothless, it was probably by design — to prevent them becoming too powerful and dictatorial.

So the whole issue has turned into a conundrum: the organs set up to fight corruption cannot do a good job because they are hobbled, and the President cannot disband them at will.

Meanwhile, he has become a convenient scapegoat because, as the saying goes, the buck stops with him.

In my small way, on a few occasions in the past, I remember arguing that the presidency was too emasculated by the 2010 Constitution to be effective in some areas.

For doing so, I was dubbed an apologist for a rotten regime and a tribalist to boot.

The question is this: if the anti-graft bodies cannot act and the President dare not give them a well-deserved kick on the backside lest he be accused of subverting the Constitution, who on earth will slay the dragon?

BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP

If the other arms of government — the Legislature and the Judiciary — fail to ensure the corrupt go to jail because the former are also corrupt while the latter tie themselves up in knots with the law, who will ever tame this carnivorous beast?

I am a firm believer in democracy and the rule of law and I abhor tyranny in all its manifestations.

However, we need to ask ourselves a simple question: what would be wrong with giving the President a few specific powers to fight graft even if a constitutional amendment was necessary?

We should not always knock what is known as benevolent or enlightened dictatorship.

In three decades, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew transformed his island-state into a “First World” country.

Rwanda’s Paul Kagame is in the process of doing it for his country.

Maybe we should try doing the same with a few amendments to our Constitution. Desperate times call for desperate measures.