Kibaki should catalyse reforms instead of protesting USA Travel Ban

The two conflicting views on travel ban coming from the President and the Prime Minister who are partners in the grand coalition government shows that one faction is for reforms and another ardent protectors of the status quo.

The two leaders must take full responsibility for failing to provide direction in the reform process instead of duelling on empty rhetoric.

If the Prime Minister is for reforms, he should avoid portraying himself as Mr. Clean, when he is part and parcel of the grand coalition government.

He should instead tell Kenyans and world what he has done individually to catapult reforms in the Country.

His recent speech in Harvard University, where he supported the USA’s travel ban on government officials convinced the world that it’s the government that is behind the delay to bring about reforms in Kenya.

It also showed a fatigued reform process and a disoriented government that lacks operational uniformity.

President Kibaki should also tell us why the government has failed to implement the reforms Kenyans desperately need to pave the way for smooth running of the country’s social, economic and political affairs.

The protest letter to Washington portrays Kibaki as a leader hell-bent on protecting few individuals and not the interests of the masses; the bulk of those who have been voting for him to public office for many decades.

We want him to focus on the wellbeing of the Kenyan people and their future but not the interests of power barons. It would have made sense if the President stated in the protest letter, the reasons for procrastinating reforms instead of just criticizing Washington’s travel ban on government officials.

Kenyans will support any external pressure if it will compel the government to implement the reforms the nation desperately needs. In fact, the USA has made a positive step and it will be fair if other Western powers especially the EU took similar steps.

The president his Vice, the Prime Minister and his deputies all should suffer the travel ban because its them who are in the seats of power but are impediments to the reform process.

Our leaders like being pushed from outside in order to implement reforms. It’s the pressure from outside that compelled former President Moi to accept the reintroduction of multiparty democracy in the early 1991.

Kenyans remember the activities of former ambassadors of Germany, Berndth Muzelberg and the late Smith Hemsptone of the United States in the reform process in Kenya.

Indeed, Kibaki and Raila were pushed externally to agree on power sharing as a result of former US Secretary of State; Condy Rice’s terse statement in Nairobi last year.

It’s sad that after one and a half years of the grand coalition government, the nation is still in limbo on meaningful reforms especially Agenda Four of the National Accord.

We are shocked on the president’s swift response on Washington’s ban on government officials when he is known to be silent on issues that require urgent response especially those that affect the lives of millions of Kenyans.

Why has kept silent on the Ringera circus as well as the trial of the Masterminds of post election violence and now wants to defend a few individuals in the grand coalition government who are likely to be personal non grata in the USA?

Finally, it’s imperative that Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki played pivotal roles to catalyse reforms in Kenya failure to which, we shall conclude that they are the biggest impediments to realize this end.

Joseph Lister Nyaringo,

USA, Georgia

Kenya's Youth Council Bill is merely a means to keep the old guard on top

Kenya's National Youth Council Bill 2009 came up for reading this week in parliament, though lack of quorum once again caused some delay. Though this should be cause for celebration for the country's youth movement, several clauses illustrate the government's inability to respect the needs and demands of Kenya's youth.

Indeed the Bill is ambiguous even when it comes to the definition of who actually constitute the youth. In the Bill's preliminary, the youth are termed as persons between fifteen and thirty years. However,the United Nations categorises youth as those between the ages of 15 to 24 years old. And for one to benefit from a loan from the country's Youth Enterprise Development Fund, one has to be between the ages of 18 to 35 years.

Then there is the issue of actual youth participation in the proposed Council. Section 5 of the Bill states that the Chairperson shall be appointed solely by the Minister of Youth Affairs & Sports. However, she need not even consult with youth groups when making her decision, so she could appoint a geriatric if she chose.

On further perusal of the clauses regarding the composition of the Council, it turns out that it is not only the Chair that could turn out to be old. Apart from the traditional practice of having permanent secretaries from the parent ministry and the Treasury in addition to the Attorney General (or an appointed proxy), the Minister also holds sole powers to appoint six other members to the Council. The clause once again does not insist on any consultation with youth groups, and also has no mention whatsoever of the age of these members.

Further, the Chief Executive of the Council can be as old as Methuselah as far as the Bill is concerned. This is the same officer who should serve as the face of the Council and be the voice of the youth to the Council members, yet the Bill omits to mention that they even need to form any liaisons with the country's youth groups or have any prior experience in youth policy making.

The staff of the Council too do not have to be youth. And remember that it was only a few months ago when the retirement age of civil servants in Kenya was hiked up by five years to 65! Seeing that the government claims to be striving to implement austerity measures, most likely the staff will be deployed from other government ministries; so who is to say that the Council offices will not be manned by 59 year olds? This in the same country where nearly 10% of the total population are unemployed youth, stinks of the same insensitivity government policies have had towards the Kenyan people.

The bid to control the youth through this reactionary document, also rises higher up in government echelons, not merely resting on the shoulders of the Minister of Youth Affairs. The President who himself is inching closer to 80 years holds the sole power to appoint the Chairperson of the proposed Advisory Board to the Council. This is the same person that oversaw the re-appointment of the oldest civil servant in Kenyan history back to the Kenya Airport Authority! Even scanning appointments to commissions and government agencies, it would be more in keeping to norm for the President to appoint someone over retirement age, this time not even having to consult with younger MPs let alone youth organisations themselves.

But there is a glimmer of light where the advisory board is concerned where the Minister of Youth (again!) has the power to appoint eight representatives of youth organisations. However, yet again the youth are locked out in getting extra seats on this board by the following factors:

• Though one member must be nominated by the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, to be a member one has be an association or a corporate entity and fork out at least Kshs. 5,000 (US$ 65). Youth entrepreneurs generally tend to be cash strapped, and thus more likely to be unable to even afford this sum, precluding them from such a nomination.
• Including only the Commission of Higher Education to represent the education sector ignores the millions of youth who never had or will have the opportunity to benefit from tertiary education.
• The National Economic and Social Council has a small minority of youth members, who once again only represent the creme de la creme of industry and financial services in the country. What about the informal sector entrepreneurs who form the majority of business activity in Kenya and employ 75% of Kenyans of working age?
• Finally where are the nomination categories that will nominate members to press for the rights of rural and urban poor youth?

Even the experts that are supposed to advise the advisory board do not have to be youthful. To us, the best expert is the one that is living the life - the youth themselves!

Another toothless dog?

It seems that indeed this proposed Council is once again a PR gimmick of the government, a mere toothless poodle to appease and control the youth. Under the Bill, the activities and mandates of the Council are only a duplication of what national youth movements have already being doing for eons. The proposed Council pales in comparison to the youth council in Rwanda, which even has enough power to elect members to the country's Chamber of Deputies, the second chamber of parliament.

As Hon. Denis H. Obua MP of Uganda writing earlier on the yipe.org blog comparing the mainstreaming of youth policy in his country to that of Rwanda commented:

"My observation was that issues of the youth are given top priority by the Rwandan government.

Their youth councils are one of the best supported in Africa and the Ministry of Youth Affairs is considered one of the core ministries ... But does the Rwandan government have more resources than Uganda’s? The answer is no, but issues of the youth attract top attention in Kigali".- Govt crippling youth efforts to live better, November 21 2008

Though the Kenya Bill tries to promote fresh talent by limiting the number of years one can sit on the Council or the Advisory Board to three years, a better measure would be to ensure that the main decision making powers rest with the youth membership, while the permanent secretaries and Attorney General's representative act as advisers to ensure they act within mandate and the law. The maximum limit for the youth Council members can be either 30 or 35 years, after the Ministry of Youth finally settles on one age. After that the Council members should retire.

Also the powers of the Minister of Youth to hire and fire should be curtailed, by insisting that there should be some consultative process with the youth of Kenya, before embarking on such actions.

The Appetite Of A Notorious Expansionist: Danzig For Hitler, Migingo For Museveni?

The border crisis between Kenya and Uganda is a reminder of some of the historical facts related to both ancient and modern conquests. History has proved that border disputes or the urge for territorial expansion is no new thing.

The appetite of all political expansionists has always appeared insatiable. That is why in as much as the Kenyan and Ugandan governments are looking for the surveyors to ascertain the real borders in Lake Victoria; Ugandan troops are busy shifting the Kenya Uganda border beacons in West Pokot. This behavior by the Ugandan government could be a time bomb for Kenya. The behavior exhibited by the Ugandan troops is a very high level of provocation.

If in Migingo they were using survey maps as an excuse, then what is their excuse for invading Kenyans borders in the north. If we look at the Norman conquests of England in AD 1066 by Duke William of Normandy, and Adolf Hitler’s attempts to conquer the whole of Europe in precedence to world war two, then we can easily guess what kind of person president Museveni is given his stay in power on the Ugandan presidency, presiding over and ‘winning’, flawed presidential elections, appointing his close family relatives to senior political offices in the country and his behavior on the border points exhibit someone with insatiable appetite for power with expansionist tendencies.

At the beginning of 1066, the Anglo Saxon ruler of England, Edward the Confessor was on his death bed. Since he had no children, there was no direct heir to the throne and he had not publicly designated any heir to succeed him. After his death Harold Godwinson succeeded him. This was resented by William of Normandy who was distantly related to the Confessor and claimed that he had been promised the throne.

Duke William had readied himself to invade England which included parts of France like Brittany and Flanders. Duke William and his army crossed the English Channel and landed in England. On hearing the news of the Norman army landing on the English coast, Harold Godwinson marched south with his army to battle the Norman invaders.

Though the English army was victorious in the battle of Stamford Bridge, it also suffered losses. It was in a battered and weakened state which adversely affected its capacity to repel the Norman invasion of England.

The Norman story informs us that Museveni might have been planning to invade Kenya for some time and he seems to be well prepared for the war. Given his stubbornness you never know which other parts of Kenya he is soon going to either quietly invade or claim that they belong to his country. History has proved that expansionists will use flimsiest of excuses to intrude other states including use of gangster diplomacy. It’s widely believed that those people who gained power by the guerrilla operations have little regard for human life and going to war to them is no big deal as long as it’s aimed at satisfying their urge to expand territory. Its has even been alleged before that Museveni is a believer in Mao Tse Tung’s ideas including the belief that power comes through a barrel of a gun.

The scenario also replicates the tricks Hitler used against his neighboring countries in 1938 with an intention of being able to have political grip of the whole of Europe through military conquest. By the beginning of 1939, Adolf Hitler had become so bold that he tried to steal two separate neighboring territories at the same time. While he was focusing on taking Czechoslovakia, he was also pressuring Poland to give him the former German city of Danzig located on the Baltic Sea. And he wanted the Poles to permit construction of a new super highway and railroad stretching from Germany through Polish territory into East Prussia.

Given these historical scenarios which are only but examples, we seem to be faced by a more serious problem than we may imagine. It indicates that any form of military provocation is usually well preplanned by the aggressor and that the aggressed in most cases is found unawares or ill prepared and also that other neighboring states will easily realize the weakness of the assaulted nation and also attempt to take advantage and try to annex that land.

Maybe Museveni thinks he can be Hannibal, the Carthaginian military commander and tactician who is rated as one of the best commanders in history. "M7" could be reading too much into the journeys Hannibal took as he sought to conquer Rome. Maybe Kenya is Museveni’s Rome but it could as well turn out to be his Waterloo.

It is advisable that Kenya ceases entertaining Museveni diplomacy and embarks on securing its borders more aggressively lest we end up getting invaded by other neighboring states who might easily think we are invincible. We beseech thee the commander in chief and president of Kenya to act over Migingo and Pokot west in the earliest opportune moment to regain the pride of the nation. Museveni might be buying time as he prepares for assault with an intention to have personal whims to decide what part of Kenya belongs to Uganda and which does not

If Kenya doesn’t take action, this Ugandan president might easily claim just like his country’s former despot Iddi Amin that, Uganda extends up to Naivasha.


Fwamba Nc Fwamba and Muriuki Mukurima
Nairobi, Kenya.