KENYA IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT DEVOLVE

Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe

It is not sheer coincidence that the increase in levels of poverty in former colonial states of Asia Africa and Latin America closely followed the demise of the generation of great thinkers that spearheaded the anti colonial struggle.

One of the most enlightened and prophetic among that generation was Kwame Nkrumah (1909–1972) who oversaw independence of the Ivory Coast, as Ghana was known then, from British colonial rule in 1957 and became first President and the first Prime Minister of Ghana from 1951 to 1966. Nkrumah, in addition to fighting for independence of his country, conceptualised the evil of global colonialism comprehensively, and prophetically predicted the new forms it would take after the forced collapse of empires.

In his book Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialism (1965), Nkrumah wrote: “in order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries it is necessary to study, understand, expose and actively combat neo-colonialism in whatever guise it may appear. For the methods of neo-colonialists are subtle and varied. They operate not only in the economic field, but also in the political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres.”

An examination of the various dogmas of Western origin that influenced the world in the form of “concerns” through the auspices of the UN and propaganda assistance of the Western corporate media that came to dominate global discourse since the 1960s confirms Nkrumah’s prediction: action agendas ranging from the Green Revolution of the Ford Foundation, the NGO movement that evolved into civic society activism, export of human rights and democracy, and even climate change can be seen as some of the “subtle and varied” entrapments the neo-colonialists have deployed in the scientific, ideological and cultural spheres.

Over the last half a century or longer, the global action agenda fashioned by such “megatrends” have kept the focus on desperately needed poverty alleviation out of the domestic agendas of developing nations.

Mwai Kibaki

Kwame Nkrumah

Daniel arap Moi

Internecine conflict flaring in to civil wars in many developing countries, arising from issues of sharing of the scarce economic fruits borne by the empty shells of economies they inherited after centuries of colonial stripping, provided a vast opening for neo-colonial intervention of the type Nkrumah foresaw. The transfer of the concept of power devolution, through offers of help, advice, and assistance, as a remedy for addressing simmering internecine disputes in desperately poor nations was one of the more ‘naked’ of such campaigns.

The Western idea generating machines came up with the plan of break-up of central governments in to smaller regional units to be administered by small ethnic, language and religious groups as the universal prescription against such intractable disputes.

The remedy is based on the promise that ‘power-sharing’, through the creation of goodwill and feelings of dignity and ‘equality’, is bound to ultimately assuage feelings of acrimony. The lack of innate potential of this particular solution to address the underlying problem of poverty caused by the fundamental scarcity of resources is glossed over at best, and not discussed at all in many cases; The policy is imposed through the careful ‘management’ of ethnic disputes by a mythical ‘international community’ made up of a mere handful of Western nations, and through pressure from international money lending organisations.

The recent and on-going examples of Kenya and Uganda in the African continent provide classic cases of implementation of policies that pulverise established nation states through the devolution ‘panacea’.

The aggressive foreign advocacy of these policies, led by the US, complete with threats of action against the political leadership at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in Kenya provides the best example as to why the developing world should reject this disintegrative Trojan Horse being sold as power-sharing arrangements.

Kenya – a political history sketch

As a country with more than 40 ethnic groups, with the Kikuyu group being the largest, ethnic issues are not uncommon in Kenya. President Mwai Kibaki came to power in 2002, after 24 years of rule under Daniel arap Moi who became president in 1978 following the death of Kenya’s first Presidnet Jomo Kenyatta.

In 2005, National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) overhauled the Constitution and the first draft was tested, but defeated, during a referendum, leading to a political crisis that continued to the December 2007 general election.

Civil unrest followed when the result of the December 2007 presidential election won by the incumbent President Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU) was rejected by the opposition candidate, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leader Raila Odinga, complaining of rigging. Like in many developing nations, animosities between Kibaki, an economist who served under the country’s first President Jomo Kenyatta, and Odinga, son of an opponent of Kenyatta, ran deep.

It is on record that the US played a key interventionist role in Kenya’s 2007 Presidential election - Ken Flottman, country director for Kenya at the International Republican Institute (IRI), a CIA front funded by USAID, the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy told media that the US Ambassador Michael Ranneberger presented rigged opinion poll results. Following the election, Ranneberger announced on December 31 that “the US would accept” Kibaki’s win, but the European Union raised concerns about election rigging.

The post-election protests degenerated into violence, causing the deaths of more than 1,200 people and displacing some 350,000 people. As it inevitably follows, the “humanitarian” needs opened doors for wholesale neo-colonial intervention and manipulation, beginning with a new constitution.

Charges of human rights violations are always a good trump card

In parallel with the new political designs being forced on Kenya, in July 2012 The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that allies of President Mwai Kibaki, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of Kenya’s founding father Jomo Kenyatta and the former Higher Education Minister William Ruto, will be charged with crimes against humanity. The country’s Cabinet Secretary was also charged.

The timing of the trials fixed for April 2013 was uncanny - just a month after the Presidential election, the potential winner Kenyatta and his deputy face charges of crimes against humanity, including murder and rape. The trials, set to begin on April 10, could also coincide with the second round vote within a month from the first round scheduled for March 4.

Both the charged have proclaimed their innocence and have promised to cooperate with the ICC.

The two most powerful of the accused, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, look set to contest the elections on a single ticket (Kenyatta for President, Ruto for Deputy President).

The African Union protested strongly against ICC action on the Kenyan government.

In continuing demonstration of the arrogant and high-handed neo-colonial intervention in Kenya, in late December 2012, the Danish ambassador, British High Commissioner, and US Embassy chargé d'affaires accompanied the country's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission chairman to oversee voter registration centres.

In the meantime, Kenya is being turned in to a nation of rural committees

In parallel with the ICC pressure, the unrelenting pressure on political change leading to devolution was maintained - Kenya will adopt a new government structure following the forthcoming election in March 2013.

The structure announced in the new 2010 constitution adds a new upper house of parliament, but divests political authority away from the central government to 47 devolved "counties" with 1,450 "wards".

The new system essentially constitutes the re-implementation of a failed concept that was incrementally intensified over half a century in Kenya, this time in a more aggressive form.

It vastly expands an already existing system of local government - the thousands of new minute administrative units will receive guaranteed share of national revenues, comprehensive law-making powers, some exclusive taxing powers, and local public servants - a recipe for mismanagement corruption, and future indebtedness, and loss of sovereignty of Kenya as a country.

The World Bank and other money lending agencies have required decentralisation in a number of countries in Africa. This nonsensical drive for devolution in Africa is being imposed through the erroneous and baseless attribution of every economic, fiscal and political crisis in the 1970s and 1980s to a failure of "centralised" public sector management infrastructure.

The cost implications of this new structure would have a debilitating effect on the Kenyan economy, seeking the government to seek IMF and other loans, just to keep this particular version of democracy functioning - the current costs of running the Parliament which only amounts to 6.6 billion Shillings is estimated to rise to at least Sh36 billion, excluding the staffing costs, salaries of MPs, Senators and County representatives, and the infrastructure required for regional governments.

The annual running cost of the 47 county assemblies will amount to an additional Sh21.75 billion.

Counties are no solution to Kenya's problems

This expensive solution cannot redress the problem of regional poverty in Kenya - the perennial problem of higher levels of poverty in the North-Eastern areas of Kenya was not due to overt discrimination, but due to factors, such as poor natural endowments including fertile soils and distance to ports, essential for driving economic activity.

Such factors prevent people agglomerating to the region, creating a vicious circle.

Devolution has been tried - the 1963 post-independent constitution of Kenya provided for a system of devolution through elected regional assemblies with executive authority over government functions including health, education, agriculture, and part of the police forces.

The system was abolished in 1964 and replaced by provincial and district administrations, with administratively rather than constitutionally assigned powers. Following constitutional amendments in 1982 further structures of devolution were introduced to achieve equitable sharing of resources. Funds were earmarked geographically for functions such as roads maintenance, rural electrification fund, and constituency development.

USAID is a major enforcer of this "new" policy under claims of "broadening" citizen participation and strengthening grass roots organisations, capacity building and improving linkages among citizens, their elected representatives, political parties and local governments.

The neo-colonial objective here is to force the hapless African nation to adopt decentralisation as a means of gaining economic and political control for themselves through their lackeys, including the diaspora elements, with secessionist mentality.

The break-up of the country will allow money lenders to approach, influence and corrupt the small county administrations so that Kenya will not have effective central administration. Any attempt by the central government will be portrayed internationally as violations of civil liberties and human rights by paid lackeys.

Kenya is a good reason why Sri Lanka needs to not rush in to the devolution idea as recommended by our many 'friends' in the international community.

As Samuel Johnson pointed out, fraud and falsehood dreads examination, and this idea needs to be examined with all the vigour of the nation.