Security and accountability are free public goods!

Public goods are those that are non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. Due to the fact that the use by paying and non-paying consumers cannot be controlled, governments have to step in to ensure provision of such social goods. In turn tax monies go towards enabling governments to provide these social services.

Internal security is one such public good that falls to governments to provide to citizens. Though private sector security companies complement government security, they are constrained in providing this service for all as they do not enjoy economies of scale on the one hand and also to provide security for all is not economically viable in terms of ensuring that all consumers pay for such services.

According to Paul Collier writing in an article titled “Development in Dangerous Places” another public good is accountability. Historically, rulers needed revenue for their armies, which in turn provoked pressure for accountability and good governance from the taxpayers. Ultimately, security and accountability to Collier are not just public goods but expressions of power.

In countries of Collier’s Bottom Billion however, social divisions reign supreme. This lack of national cohesiveness in turn makes it more difficult to provide public goods. For instance, the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya aptly demonstrated the weak bonding of nationhood where tribes hacked one another with machetes and arrows causing the nation’s internal security to run down the doldrums. Kenya, fortunately or unfortunately has in its independence not had to face a massive external threat from an external aggressor which would galvanise its more than 40 tribes into a feeling of being Kenyan against foreign attackers. The Somalia and Ethiopian border squabbles never even reached such a point because the Kenya is home to sub-tribes of both nations. And even the most recent Migingo Island squabbles, were over a piece of land that hosts more Kenyans than Ugandans.

This lack of social cohesion breeds numerous self-identities and cultures which clash, and not without blood being poured. What is left is a fragmented population, where for instance the hint that Luis Moreno-Ocampo intends to prosecute crimes against humanity, send politicians into a tizz, whipping up ethnic hatred at the drop of a hat.

The second weapon politicians use is to invoke the concept of sovereignty forgetting that sovereignty requires a sense of nationhood; something that they themselves have to ensure is muted, so as to contain groupings calling for accountability.

Collier even names the weakened status of the military in bottom billion countries as a tool used by the political elite to retain power. It is this same military that presides over hurried swearing in ceremonies of tin-pot dictators when they steal elections overnight. And it is this same military that terrorises the masses to accept these “democratic election results”. But, it is this same military that must remain toothless in order for unpopular leaders to survive.

During the Migingo saga, many Kenyans commented that a small military battalion should invade the one acre island to shut Museveni up. But Kenyans were told that diplomacy was the way to go, even after President Museveni himself insulted Kenyans and more specifically members of the Luo tribe, from whom the Prime Minister Raila Odinga originates.

This was not the first time Uganda’s army had tried to stray onto Kenya’s territory. In the Moi era, and indeed during Jomo Kenyatta’s reign, Uganda insurgencies were swiftly turned back, and it was common to find the borders being closed as a matter of national security. However, probably as a good neighbour Kenya has turned to diplomacy as its weapon of mass destruction. This in turn has also led to the proliferation of small arms which have intensified a heightened scare amongst citizens for their personal safety.

The impact on business

Providing a safe environment where firms can conduct their business is a key function of any government. Yet, around the world, as many as 15% of firms report losses due to crime. In spite of this, a much higher share of firms (almost 60%) protect themselves from theft by using private security services, which adds to the cost of doing business. Interestingly, 16% of African firms report losses due to crime, at par with Eastern Europe and Central Asia. However, over half of the African businesses employ private security firms. Consequently, African firms spend an unrivalled amount of money on security, equal to over half a percentage point of sales, which is considerably higher than East Asia or South Asia.

The Africa Competitiveness Report 2009 (ACR) shows that most of the competitive disadvantage of African firms is due to invisible costs—that is, losses experienced by factors that include corruption (non-accountability) and lack of security.

The business costs of crime and violence and the sense that the police are unable to provide protection from crime are particular concerns for African entrepreneurs. The ACR disaggregates security into costs of terrorism, crime and violence, organized crime and the perceived reliability of police services. Amongst the survey’s findings Morocco’s weakening security environment was found to contribute to the country’s declining competitive position. The security situation in Kenya is also extremely worrisome, particularly in crime and violence, the potential of terrorism, and the prevalence of organized crime.

Unfortunately for small enterprise, there is no significant difference in the cost of security services borne by small firms compared to medium and large ones (in terms of share of sales), nor is there a difference between foreign and domestic firms. Africa’s export potential is further impaired as local exporters tend to spend more (almost 10% more) than non exporters.

Within Africa, individual country’s competitiveness is also adversely affected by the lack of security. For instance, Egypt one of Kenya’s major competitors has relatively high levels of security and a resulting low cost of crime and violence for business. In terms of interest from foreign investors to set up businesses in Africa, security makes many shy away from putting their cash in jeopardy in unsecure environments. Mauritius has been able to exploit insecurity on the continent, benefiting from significant inflows of FDI over the past years in part due to the fact that the level of security in the country is good, particularly by regional standards.

Within East Africa, Kenyan 75% of firms have to pay for private security services. This is 5% higher than the regional average. Kenya also pays the highest cost for these services. In turn government accountability data in East Africa indicates that government wastage of resources is highest in Kenya and the country also has the highest perception amongst its business community that the police are unreliable.

Security and accountability are two public goods that make economic development and growth possible. History has provided more than adequate testimony that civil conflicts in poor countries last longer than international wars. With such a looming dagger hanging over these countries, unless security and accountability to address wrongs are provided (not at cost!), the interest of entrepreneurs to venture into business will be lost. Somalia is a prime example of this where revenues generated from enterprise (whether legal or through illegal means such as piracy) are stashed away in foreign countries, further plundering the country into a failed status.

Finally as Collier states accountability is indeed a two way street between government and citizens. Thus standing up to demand security and accountability is required of us all in the democratic spirit of no taxation without representation!

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.