| Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta. [STANDARD] |
By Amos Kareithi
Conventional wisdom has it that lightning never strikes in one place twice. However, it appears that this tenet has been turned on its head by some happenings in Kenya, which are separated by 50 years.
An examination of the circumstances surrounding Kenya’s transition from a colony into a republic in 1963 and its current march into the third republic reveals some startling similarities.
Transition
Kenya transited from a colony into a republic in 1963. It later developed into what can be termed as the second republic in 1992 after it became a multi-party state. The promulgation of a new Constitution in August 2010, marked the march to the third republic, where the unitary system of government has been scrapped in favour of devolution.
The March 4 General Election was supposed to usher in a new era, after Kenya shed off the half-century-old Constitution, which was crafted during two successive conferences held at Lancaster House in London in 1961.
The current constitution heralded in a new era of devolved government, an idea first mooted in 1961 by Peter Okondo of Kadu and popularised by the party’s president, Ronald Ngala.
There are other numerous similarities, which make a keen observer experience a feeling that this country has been going in a circle.
Although most of the key architects in the laying of the foundation of the first republic are long gone, the two main actors, Jomo Kenyatta and Oginga Odinga, have, however, been replaced by their sons.
As if enacting the 50-year-old script, at least judging by the current political happenings, these sons, Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga, whose fathers were the president and vice-president, respectively, appear to be reliving the roles predetermined by their elders.
A closer look at the election of 1961, where Africans participated fully and charted Kenya’s destiny onto the path of freedom and self-determination, provides some interesting titbits.
These polls held in February of that year were, according to Charles Hornsby, author of Kenya: AHistory since Independence marked by a historic voter turnout of 84 per cent, representing 885,000 voters.
The contest then was between the Kenya African National Union (Kanu) and the Kenya African Democratic Union (Kadu), which were diametrically opposed on the fundamental issue of land.
Contention
The two parties could also not agree on whether Kenya should embrace a devolved system of government or retain the unitary system.
Shortly before this election, the predominant Kanu had been torn apart by internal strife arising from the thorny issue of land. This conflict happened against a backdrop of the cold war era, when the viewpoints of either the capitalistic West or the communist-leaning East Europe dictated the world’s geopolitics.
In Kanu, James Gichuru, who had been elected party president in an acting capacity, was sympathetic to the West and was willing to strike a deal with the colonialists.
Under this arrangement, European-owned farms would be bought by the incoming government to settle the landless Africans in a willing-buyer-willing-seller system.
On the other hand, Kanu’s socialist-leaning vice-president, Odinga, was opposed to this ideology, as he and compatriots Bildad Kaggiah and Paul Ngei wanted all white-owned land to be seized and redistributed to Africans.
Buoyed by these radical politicians, some peasants decided to take things into their own hands. At a time when the Mau Mau was underground and nobody wanted to admit belonging to the outlawed organisation, the landless in Rift Valley revived the Kenya Land Freedom Army (KLFA), also known as Kiama kia Muingi (the party of the masses).
There are some unnerving similarities between KLFA, Mau Mau and the dreaded Mungiki in terms of operation in utmost secrecy and readiness to use arms.
KLFA also cultivated close ties with some radical Kanu politicians and, in September 1962, invaded some white-owned farms in Rift Valley. This led to a police crackdown, which saw hundreds of dissident party members expelled.
Within Kanu, the disagreements between the moderates and the radicals motivated Gichuru to suspend Odinga from the party, even as Tom Mboya called for his expulsion.
As the Kanu heavyweights were duelling, Kenyatta, who had been sentenced to seven years of hard labour for managing an illegal organisation (Mau Mau), was still in confinement even though he had already served his time.
Competition
During this time, the colonial government considered Kenyatta an extremely evil man who could not be trusted with the affairs of leading Kenya, owing to his perceived links with the Mau Mau, which was considered a dangerous society.
However, Kanu won the elections by securing 67 per cent of the votes cast and 19 seats compared to Kadu’s eleven. The party declined to form the government, insisting that Kenyatta be released.
Interestingly, Uhuru Kenyatta was born that year on October 26, at a time when Kenyans were dizzy with excitement as they contemplated their impending freedom (uhuru).
Two months earlier, on August 1, 1961, Kenyatta, now a free man, had assumed the presidency of Kanu from Gichuru, a seat he would occupy for the next 17 years until he died in office on August 22, 1978.
The build up to the election also partly fuelled the rivalry between Oginga and Mboya, with each sponsoring candidates to oppose his rival. It was this rivalry that saw Dr Munyua Wayaki sponsored by Odinga to compete against Mboya in Nairobi.
Coalitions
The germs of the political coalitions, which featured prominently during the just concluded elections, can be traced to this period. This is because when Kanu refused to form a government, insisting that Kenyatta be freed, Kadu entered into an alliance with the New Kenya Party (NKP) led by Michael Blundell.
NKP then convinced Peter Okondo of Kadu to propose a new system of devolved government where the regional assemblies would oversee taxes, local government, education and the police. The national government was to control defence, foreign affairs and the national budget.
When Kenya gained independence in 1963, it was under the Majimbo (devolved) system of government, which was, however, trashed in favour of a unitary system soon after.
Kenyatta became the prime minister of Kenya and later the president, while his ally at the time, Odinga, served as his vice-president until 1966, when the two parted ways.
Constitution
It is interesting that when Kenyatta’s long-serving vice-president, Daniel arap Moi, was preparing to retire from the presidency after 24 years, he picked on Uhuru as his successor. Moi’s announcement of Uhuru as his preferred presidential candidate inadvertently renewed the Kenyatta-Odinga rivalry, this time through the sons.
Raila, who was then leading the National Development Party that had formed a coalition with Kanu, left the party to form the Liberal Democratic Party.
In 2005, like their fathers, Uhuru and Raila joined forces during the making of the new Constitution. However, unlike in 1962, they were campaigning against a draft that would have overthrown the Lancaster one.
After the draft was resoundingly defeated, for a short time they worked towards removing President Kibaki from power, but parted ways before the December 2007 polls.
The aftermath of the 2007 elections brought the two sons of founding fathers of Kenya together in the government again.
Alteration
Raila, who had complained that his presidential victory was stolen, was the prime minister while Uhuru, who had supported Kibaki against Raila, was appointed deputy prime minister. This was a reversal of 1963, when Kenyatta was president and Odinga his deputy. Interestingly, at this time, Uhuru was the chairman of Kanu.
Uhuru and Raila have been embroiled in a titanic battle that was preceded by the making of alliances and political coalitions as happened in 1962.
Uhuru, who is leading his own political party, The National Alliance, has been demonised by some western capitals as he is facing criminal charges at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Unlike in 1963, when Kenyatta chose the West, Uhuru seems to favour the East, and specifically China.
Raila, on the other hand, appears to have no problems with the West.
History does have a strange way of repeating itself.
Have any comments? Reach the writer through amoskareithi@yahoo.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment