Yes, that is how democracy is established either by force of arms or frightening its opponents into withdrawal.
Would you agree, first, that people will be free? There is liberty and freedom of speech in plenty, every individual is free to do as he likes?
That’s what they say.
Then in democracy, there is no compulsion either to exercise authority if you are capable of it, or to submit to authority if you don’t want to; you need not fight if there is a war, and you can wage a private war in peacetime if you don’t like peace?
It often seems like that.
We said that no one who has not exceptional gifts could grow into a good man unless he was brought up in a good environment and trained in good habits. Democracy with its grandiose gesture sweeps all this away and doesn’t mind what the habits and backgrounds of its politicians are; provided they profess themselves to be people’s friends they are duly honored?
All very splendid.
These then and similar characteristics are those of democracy. It is an agreeable anarchic form of society, with plenty of variety, which treats men as equal whether they are equal or not?
That description is easy to recognise, isn’t it? Democracy has not changed much since Plato wrote this Socratic dialogue two-and-a-half millennia ago. It is not about to.
The resurgence of political activity of the Opposition has elicited various responses from the political establishment. One is that dialogue should be conducted within the established institutions, Parliament in particular. Yet another is that Jubilee government has an electoral mandate and should be left alone to get on with the job.
There are also fretful exhortations from some business leaders, diplomats and even media to lower the political temperature.
A Bill of Rights is the centerpiece of democratic constitutions. Among the most fundamental of these rights are freedom of expression, of assembly and the right to protest. The megaphone is the weapon of democracy.
These political contrivances are not devised to be used to agree with the government or to maintain ambient political temperatures.
One of the most interesting political theories to emerge in recent years is the idea of deliberative democracy. This idea has been enshrined in our Constitution by adopting participation as one of our national values and principles of governance.
Deliberative democracy is the idea that reason rather than interests is the primary source of legitimate governance. This difference is not trivial. Decisions reached by voting in representative institutions such as Parliament, or by the public through referenda are based on interests.
In a voting democracy, a majority is obtained by mobilising the interests closest to one’s cause, horse trading and bribery or blackmail if necessary. Rarely will one vote against one’s self-interest because the other side has a more persuasive argument.
Deliberative democracy on the other hand—dialogue if you may—seeks to arrive at what is fair, or just, or for the greater good. In Gikuyu, we call itkihooto. Literally, it means “being defeated by reason”.
Ni kihooto means that I have accepted that you have the superior argument.Kihooto is a basic tenet of Gikuyu governance. It is kihooto that carries the day, not the majority, or authority. Tyranny of numbers is an abomination ofkihooto.
I have three matters that I would like us to seek kihooto for: leadership, elections and nationhood.
Leadership: In the run up to the last elections, I found myself in the midst of a conversation of captains of industry passionately rooting for UhuRuto. I asked them a simple question.
If you were given their CVs, for which position would you hire either of them in your organisation? That was the end of the conversation. We played dice with the leadership of the country. So here we are.
Four years ago, we enacted a Constitution with a whole chapter on leadership and integrity. We went on to populate the government with scoundrels. Should we turn around and start whining when liars lie and thieves steal?
We did not elect Uhuru and Ruto on their leadership track record—neither of them has accomplished anything of significance before assuming office. On what basis are we now demanding that they perform?
Do we not understand that choices have consequences?
Elections: We have had five elections since reverting to multiparty politics. Only one, in 2002, election was undisputed. Two have been peaceful, 2002 and 2013.
These two peaceful elections happen to be the ones when the incumbents, Moi in 2002 and Kibaki in 2013, were not contesting. The undisputed 2002 election was unique in that it was the only one in which both the presidential frontrunners were from the same ethnic group.
NEGOTIATION WITH HOST COMMUNITIES
The next presidential election has the prerequisites for violence. The incumbent will most likely contest, and it is unlikely that his strongest challenger will be another Kikuyu. In fact, it is not inconceivable that his challenger will be none other than William Ruto.
Let us think of the following scenario. Uhuru Kenyatta wins a disputed election against Ruto. Rift Valley explodes and probably the Coast as well. What happens next?
Are we going to address our flawed electoral process or are we going to sit back and be hostages of fate?
Nationhood: We have written in our Constitution that every person has a right to be a candidate for public office and, if elected, to hold office; every citizen has a right to reside anywhere in Kenya, and every person has a right to acquire and own property in any part of the country.
We know this is constitutional fiction. The reality is that every person can enjoy these rights collectively only in his or her tribal homeland, clan territory or major urban area. Elsewhere, we are “visitors”.
Our enjoyment of these rights is subject to negotiation with “host” communities. Are we going to continue to maintain this constitutional fiction?
Then let us look at the corresponding individual. Should we first look at his origin as we did with the society?
Yes.
Won’t it be like this? Our mean oligarchic character may have a son, whom he will bring up in his own ways?
So far so good.
Let’s go back to the question how the democratic man originates from the oligarchic. This generally happens, I think, as follows.
How?
When a young man, brought up in the narrow economical ways we have described gets a taste of the drone’s honey and gets into brutal and dangerous company, where he can be provided with every variety and refinement of pleasure, with the result that his internal oligarchy starts turning into democracy.
That’s bound to happen.
And I take it that if the oligarchic element in him gets support from a counter-alliance of the remonstrances and criticisms either from his father or of other members of his family, the result is a conflict of factions and a battle between the two parts of himself.
True enough.
And sometimes the democratic element gives way to the oligarchic and some of his desires are destroyed and some are driven out; and a certain sense of decency is produced in the young man’s mind and internal order restored?
Yes, that sometimes happens
Alternatively the exiled desires are succeeded by others akin to them, which are nursed in secret because of his father’s ignorance on how to bring him up properly, and grow in number and strength.
This is the normal course of events.
These drag him back to his old associates, and breed and multiply in secret?
True again?
In the end they capture the seat of government, having discovered that the young man’s mind is devoid of sound knowledge and practices and true principles, the most effective safeguards the mind of man can be blessed with.
Far the most effective.
The vacant citadel in the young man’s mind is filled instead by an invasion of pretentious fallacies and opinions.
Very much so.
Let’s talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment