Sooner rather than later, Kenyans will be forced to relook at the 2010 Constitution. The provisions that guide the recruitment and appointment of state officers, especially from the political class, are rarely observed if at all.
The drafters must have envisioned the Constitution to be implemented in an environment that is more utopian. They anticipated an enlightened citizenry as was hypothesised by Plato in The Republic.
They further dreamed of visionary leaders at the top political echelons as was proposed to be philosopher in the classical sense. Aristotle would later distinguish between a virtuous leader and one with philosophical skills. A sharp difference between the theoretical wisdom of a philosopher and the political wisdom of a ruler.
It is safe to argue that Kenyans relied more on the theoretical wisdom of their philosophers than the practical wisdom of the political leaders. The resultant Constitution was and still is not consistent with the political realities of the nation. Its implementation is skewed towards the wishes of the ruling political class.
This has turned out to be inconsistent with the desires of the citizens on more than one occasion. The political practice has not been in tandem with the national values and principles of the supreme laws. Political leaders always choose to engage in activities that make them successful in “real politik”. They thus engage in strategies that would maximise their efforts in mobilising majority votes for easy victory.
Most of the activities in these processes have been and continue to be anathema to nationhood and a cohesive society. Yet, for effective national development, the government requires a conscientious citizenry united in pursuit of the nation’s vision.
The political realities of winning an election by all means possible have made the leaders employ uncouth methods. These involve mobilising votes on the basis of tribal affiliations. Members of ethnic communities are banded together and sold the fear of losing and the bounties of winning at the same time.
It is like the invention of hell to faster promote the biblical evangelism. This was after it got established that heaven alone was not sufficient to push the Christian agenda among those considered pagans. The fear of hell became more potent in pushing people towards God than the bliss of heaven.
This resonates well with the Hobbesian theory of Thomas Hobbes and and social contract theory of John Locke. The fear of a brutish and nasty life pushed men to design laws to protect themselves from themselves. This negated the notion and practice of might as right. However, since human communities are grouped and unique in traditions and cultural practices, these laws should be sensitive to the respective political environments. At the same time, the laws should seek to inspire and instil good behaviour and high moral standards among the citizens. This is done by penalising conduct unbecoming and rewarding civic duty.
Kenya professes to be a multiparty democracy with a presidential system of government. However, the process of implementing these twin concepts are not consistent with the philosophy. Political parties are established as regional organisations or at best, coalitions of regions. The tribes in the regions are used as the bastions of interests. Bigotry and sentimental cocooning are key to pushing and pursuing narrow parochial interests.
Blind following of tribal kingpins is seen as a safety net for regional interests. The kingpins also take advantage of civic ignorance to instil mortal fear of other tribes in their members. Political parties struggle to design policies and manifestoes but never use them for real campaigns. General elections are, therefore, won more on the basis of tribal insecurities than development manifestoes. Leaders cleverly deploy herd mentality and mob psychology in rallying their tribesmen to the ballot.
Over time, these twin practices have inadvertently entrenched a sense of entitlement and supremacy among some tribes on one hand. On the other hand, some tribes have developed a combination of inherent fear and hatred for the others. Unfortunately for the country, these have been the main planks upon which politics is practised.
History records the colonial heritage and the disputes at the first Lancaster House Conference as the genesis. Instead of confronting the challenges of nationhood with honesty and pragmatism, leaders pushed policies that further abated the vice. Programmes were designed and implemented that elevated certain regions and alienated others.
Politically, novices from some targeted tribes were elevated to national prominence and fame. In other instances, some tribal kingpins were tormented and consigned to political oblivion. The abolition of the bicameral parliament, establishment of the presidency and the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1965 should be seen in this light. Deliberate exclusion was practised by national leaders.
State machinery has since been used to exalt some tribes or coalitions of the same while limiting the participation of others in government. While all citizens are demanded of to pay taxes equally, the application is not equitable. Resources are mobilised across the country but the distribution of the same lacks justice.
Tribal bigotry and regional jingoism have, therefore, become the hallmark of Kenya’s political paradigm. These have been the bane of national development. Provision of social services is imbalanced, ineffective and inefficient.
At the apex of the political pyramid, the tribal kingpins in government share public resources with glee. While at the middle and base, the citizens equally share the burden and pain of heavy taxes and poor social services.
Easy access to quality education, healthcare and communication is the preserve of the ruling class both in public and private sectors. The middle class and lumpen proletariat literally struggle for their daily bread. They hardly enjoy life of dignity and are constrained to freely exercise their civic obligations. The polarised political environment cannot promote national unity and, therefore, inclusivity in national development.
Some 40 years from today, Kenya will be celebrating a century of Independence, yet the current political leaders continue to perpetuate the practices that bedevil national unity. Propaganda laced with inciting messages are regularly doled out to gullible tribesmen and women for that matter. The leaders have tightened their grip on their respective regions by peddling outright lies against other tribes.
Activities of subtle oath taking are deployed to secure unbridled loyalty of party members. Nominations and appointment to public offices no longer pretend to prioritise meritocracy. Instead, there is brazen nepotism in key government placements.
Over time since Independence, government tenders have become the preserve of those who control the levers of public service. Favouritism and exclusion have pushed certain populations to resistance and near hopelessness. National unity is paramount for development. The main ingredient of national unity is patriotism, which is an intrinsic factor.
Political leaders of today have a rare opportunity to turn round the clock in favour of national unity. Their actions and pronouncements must promote inclusivity. They have a moral duty to serve every citizen without discrimination. The constitution has been given enough lip service.
If it is the case that some of its provisions are inhibiting, the leaders must initiate the necessary amendments. Citizens should be encouraged to be proud of their respective tribal orientation but only as a part of the nation’s cultural heritage.
Leaders should propagate the positivity of the regions as harbingers for the devolution of resources. Punitive measures must be meted out by citizens on leaders who promote ethnic chauvinism and regional balkanisation. This is the panacea for instability and national development.
Political and public policy analyst