Expected break with past is still elusive

In 2010, when Kenya passed a new Constitution, there was a feeling everywhere that the document marked a break with the past.

There was a general and silent consensus that the country was on the road to a new beginning.

The hope for a new beginning continued to shape ideas and institutions that were developed to move the country forward.

This hope reflected also on the economy. Even as the heat for the 2013 elections continued to intensify, growth figures did not drop as had been the case with past elections.

Main economic activities continued without major interruptions.

VIOLENCE
After the elections in 2013, hope remained in place. Kenyans were hoping for better things and for a break with the past.

The past they wanted to break away from was not far. The 2007 post-election violence was not far.

The violence had been brought about by many factors. The dispute over the presidential election results was just an ‘accident’.

The actual factors responsible for the violence had accumulated over the years and required any level of disturbance to erupt into violence.

The mediation team that ended the violence captured it well by identifying a number of them.

RULE OF LAW

First was high levels of inequality in Kenya and general imbalances in development.

Related to this was high levels of exclusion and marginalisation of segments of the population.

The mediation team also noted that Kenya had high levels of impunity. There was a general absence of the rule of law and people were not held to account for their actions.

There were of course other factors. These included absence of reforms of institutions, some of which had even been too personalised to be of use to public service.

They included high levels of youth unemployment and absence of land reforms.

Of course some of these were so poorly defined as problems that it was left to later mediation processes to give them proper meaning.

MARGINALISATION
A point to bear in mind is that the violence was triggered by lack of inclusive politics and general marginalisation of segments of the population.

These were generally identified as the reasons violence erupted every election year.

They were also identified as the reason development and stability remained elusive in Kenya many years after independence.

The Constitution was introduced to address these challenges. The drafters of this document carefully read the history of the country.

From that history they noted that imbalances in development and exclusion from political power by those who win elections contributes to waves of violence.

They addressed this by providing for devolution of power and resources to the county governments. They also provided strong principles to guide governance.

ETHNICITY
I am bringing back these observations because it is evident that things have not changed. There is no clear break with the past.

The status quo obtains and it is business as usual. Leaders and citizens have generally forgotten what contributed to the violence that almost ended the very concept of Kenya.

Let us take the case of ethnic divisions. The divisions have deepened in the last few years than was the case before 2007.

There are now clear blocs radically opposed to each other. The anger has taken communal form. Anger is now collective.

This is what you get when you listen to ordinary citizens talking. Communities have developed negative labels on one another.

The negative stereotypes are common and have got their way into songs. Simply put, ethnic divisions have deepened.

ELECTIONS
The 2017 election did not help. It has widened what was already a crack.

The elections have left the country highly polarised and divided into blocs that are intolerant.

Although businesses are slowly picking up from the fall during the long election period, you hear some lamenting that it was because of ‘so and so’ during the election.

There is an ethnic label alluded to in the lamentation.

Perceptions of marginalisation and exclusion are much in place yet again.

GOVERNANCE

The past discussions of marginalisation often centred on development resources and how some regions were getting more than others.

Today, however, the discussion has shifted quite rapidly. The focus now is on inclusion in government.

And inclusion here means appointment to posts of Cabinet secretaries and permanent secretaries.

It is no longer about resource transfers, because devolution of resources has addressed this.

It is now about how many people from which tribe are in government in this or that post.

The measure of exclusion is therefore in the form of numbers in senior posts in government.

COUNTIES
This measure of exclusion is extending to the county governments. Citizens are also watching counties.

The feeling in some counties is that the county governments are also not inclusive.

There are groups not included in the county executive or there are certain groups that are over-represented in the county executive.

Another concern registered almost everywhere is the failure to hold people accountable. There are no consequences for breaking the law.

There are no consequences for failing to submit to the law, especially if you are senior and politically influential.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Generally, looking at these issues one can say the country has rapidly rolled back to the period before the making of a new constitution.

The country has rolled back to the period when many problems accumulated under the carpet unattended to only to be picked up to fuel the flame of violence.

More specifically, the feelings of marginalisation and exclusion from political power by segments of the population and different parts of the country are not different from the perceptions that feed into waves of violence in the past.

The ethnic divisions and general polarisation that have flowed from the 2017 election animosity are unprecedented.

And the general failure to enforce the law and to hold senior and influential people to account for their wrongdoing is at a new high level.

CORRUPTION
These are the general ‘lows’ to which the country has gone since 2010. And it does not appear as if it is getting better.

The war against corruption lost momentum while the discussions on good citizenship have disappeared alongside discussions on leadership and integrity provisions of he constitution.

The country got here simply because of the meaning given to elections, and presidential election in particular.

First, elections have come to mean everything for the Kenyan politicians and voters.

In the first place, leaders go to elections these days not to serve the public.

The last time we had leaders who cared about the ‘public good’ was in the period up to the late 1980s.

Some of the studies carried out on harambee development projects in Kenya demonstrate this quite well.

WEALTH
Nonetheless, elections have now become a source of riches. Elites go to elections because they grow rich by doing business with the government.

And they also place friends in high places so that they can get individual benefits from the government with ease.

From this linkage between elections and riches, leaders rarely talk about the public good.

Elections also serve a different purpose for the voters. In the past, voters wanted leaders who would facilitate development in their areas.

Now they want leaders who can pay them bribes to vote. They want jobs and other opportunities for their youth.

DEVELOPMENT
All these things are supposed to be received from one place – the government.

In other words, Kenyans are still beholden to the idea of the government as the engine of development.

If you control the government then your destiny and actual future is well assured.

If you control the government, then the destiny of your own people and your own well-being is more than assured.

This has in turn led to leaders struggling to get into government not because they want to serve people better but because it is an opportunity for themselves and their groups.

VOTERS
And because all leaders want is numbers during elections, it becomes difficult to enforce the law or to punish senior leaders when they commit crimes.

Enforcing the law and holding senior leaders to account often leads to those held to account mobilising their constituencies for defence.

Ordinary citizens are not necessarily pawns in this game. They are complicit in this game.

They put pressure on the leaders to behave parochially because they also want to gain from power.

The citizens urge their leaders to get power because, to the citizens, that is how they will also benefit.

RESOURCES

The ‘our turn to eat’ story becomes quite real as an incentive to behave low.

The behaviour of the leaders therefore is not any different from that of the citizens. It is a societal culture that has built over the years to take a new disturbing form.

The solutions to these problems are simple. They are about adhering to the principles and values of governance that are well spelt out in the Constitution.

Strict enforcement of the rule of law and principles of accountability would lead to better development and more resources to share without scramble.

Prof Karuti Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi; [email protected]