*Post-election crisis: Kenya can learn from flying geese* The writers of this article are empty tins. They are stupid, like Museveni says !!
Kibaki has been building Kenya's economy. The British do not like this !! Since Independence it was only they, not only to supply the Kenya military, but every other Govt contract. Kibaki stopped this nonsense. He brought in Chinese, French, Malaysians, Japanese etc.... He made Kenya self financing for recurrent expenditure !! No nonsense of the so-called 'donors' in Mwai Kibakii's Kenya !! To send a unit of data by cable in North America costs about US$ 9. The British companies based in South Africa wanted to charge Africans US$ 4,000. Kibaki refused this naked robbery and built an alternative under-sea cable from Mombasa to The United Arab Emirates and to the world. He is charging other African countries US$ 150. The British don't like this at all. So they decided on regime change, or ruining Kenya's economy. But the Americans continued to support Kibaki who had allowed the FBI to run around Kenya to arrest Muslims. The British want Oginga Odinga in State House Nairobi. They condone and stoke violence; as long as their Banks and companies in Nairobi don't go up in flames. Any African who pretends to explain what is happening in Kenya without factoring in external factors is just a buffoon. ======================================= Post-election crisis: Kenya can learn from flying geese AFRICA INSIGHT *Had Kenyan leaders effected an inclusive economic, socio-political and institutional culture change, the country wouldn't be on fire, write Betty Maina and Arthur Muliro* The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Society for International Development (SID) made public four stories in 2000 depicting future scenarios that Kenyans might have to face, whether they liked it or not. These stories were the outcome of Kenya's first ever public-interest scenario projection that took place between 1998 and 2000. To put these scenarios together, a multi-ethnic team of 60 Kenyans from different professions met several times to consider various outcomes for Kenya in the future. The team worked from a deep analysis of Kenya's social, political and economic dynamics and identified the forces that have shaped the past and were likely to determine the future. [image: truck-kenya.jpg] *DISTRESS: A truck full of displaced people leaves the Kericho area, west of Nairobi on February 3, 2008. Kenya's opposition called on the African Union on Sunday to deploy peacekeepers in the country as violence that has killed at least 900 people and displaced a quarter of a million continues to rage. Reuters photo* The team identified the source of livelihoods and the interplay between ethnicity and politics as the main driving forces. The analysis concluded that Kenya had reached the limits on its chosen political and economic models. Furthermore, the scenarios team concluded that if Kenya was to prosper, then it was inevitable that a comprehensive and inclusive political settlement needed to be reached and a new inclusive economic growth path charted out. According to the team, the future of Kenya would be determined by the interaction of two major uncertainties: When and how economic recovery would come about and when and how we would determine how we wanted to be governed and the basis of political legitimacy. These scenario stories were intended to stimulate dialogue about the future of Kenya, particularly in light of the critical transition period that was to climax in the 2002 general elections. The team foresaw four possible pathways into the future, not necessarily independent of each other. All scenarios were based on answers to the two questions on the nature of the economy and socio-political relations. Would confusion and inertia thwart efforts to transform both the economic and political models? If so, tension would be heightened and Kenya would fracture into regional and ethnic enclaves with new systems of government within them. This is a scenario of decline and disintegration that was labelled El Niño. Would the transformation concentrate on reviving only the economy and postpone agreements on needed changes in the political structures and environment? This would result in short-term economic gains that would be used to buy off demands for political reform. [image: raila-feat.jpg] *WAY FORWARD: Oppostion leader Raila Odinga (above)and President Mwai Kibaki (below). For fundamental change to occur, Kenyan leaders have to address political, social and economic dynamics. File photos* Nonetheless, the political tensions would eventually re-emerge and if not addressed, throw the country back onto the El Nino path. This scenario of initial rapid gains but full of inequalities and instability was labelled Maendeleo. Would the transformation be long drawn out, focusing on institutional reorganisation and the creation of democratic and locally accountable institutions? If so, though responsive institutions would emerge, Kenya would not achieve far-reaching economic transformation, and poverty might increase - a powerful ingredient for instability. This scenario on institutional reorganisation was labelled Katiba. Would there be a definite departure from destructive politics? Would the incumbents (rulers) realise that their position was untenable and reach a political settlement with key adversaries? [image: kibaki-feat.jpg] ** Would a reorganisation of the institutions improve representation and participation that reflected the diversity of Kenya's people? Would this be accompanied by radical transformation of the economy to spur growth and improve distribution? If all the major actors engaged in this transformation, Kenya could achieve inclusive democracy and growth. *Embracing national interest* This scenario of simultaneous and inclusive reforms of both the economy and major institutions was labelled Flying Geese. Each of the four stories as narrated presented significant challenges and none of them could be described as an easy accomplishment. Even though the obvious desirable scenario for most Kenyans would be that of the Flying Geese, the story is based on the assumption that there would be a visionary, disciplined leadership in the country that could and would look beyond partisan interests and embrace the national interest in defining its goals and policies. It envisaged a Kenya whose leaders rose to meet the challenges of the nation. The Flying Geese envisioned inclusive growth and fundamental institutional reorganisation. The term "flying geese" was chosen as an apt metaphor for what Kenya needed to become. Geese in flight normally maintain a 'V' formation, slowing down for those in the flock unable to keep the pace of flight (thus maintaining the formation at all times). One bird always leads the formation, with leadership rotating frequently. By flying in the 'V' formation, the whole flock is able to add substantially greater flying range than if any single bird flew alone. Furthermore, the geese behind honk to encourage those upfront to keep up their speed. The Flying Geese story explored a transformation of Kenya through a determined effort to reform existing social, cultural, economic and political cultures. A new leadership, armed with a vision and the conviction that Kenya deserved better and could be much more than what it currently was, would spearhead this effort. Today, the lessons of the Kenya at the Crossroads are as pertinent as they were when the scenarios were launched some seven years ago in 2000. In many respects, the fundamentals of the country remain unaltered. The country experienced a peaceful transition of power in 2002 on an overwhelming mandate for the multi-ethnic National Rainbow Coalition, Narc. This support was driven by two main promises - that of revival of the economy and conclusion of constitutional reform. The collapse of the Coalition's Memorandum of Understanding (among the coalition partners) on the sharing of political power, and therefore economic goods, weakened the multi ethnic and inclusive character of government. Now, it has had far-reaching implications on the winners and losers in the economic recovery in the past five years as well as the constitutional debate and conference. The issues that have surfaced during the raging post-election crisis bring to the fore latent tensions still present in Kenyan society. Such tensions revolve around equal chances to earn a living and the ability to have in place inclusive governance systems that capture the aspiration of many in the nation. In short, the scenario stories are just as poignant and compelling as they were when published in 2000. Kenya finds itself back at the crossroads after travelling briefly on the Maendeleo (improved economy) road over the past five years. The current crisis has yet to run its full course and it is perhaps too early to sign off on it, in spite of pretences by certain quarters that it's business as usual. For starters, the powder keg that is Kenya has been exposed in its destructive capacity. We cannot wish away the fact that there are several serious questions that need to be addressed urgently. The frayed social fabric that has held us together has ruptured and it is here perhaps that the greatest damage has been done. *Trust lost * Bringing Kenyans together and rebuilding trust again in one another is not going to be as easily done as it might be said. Those who have lost loved ones, property, homes and livelihoods in the recent violence might forgive with time, but they will certainly not forget. Now, the belief in innocence has come to an abrupt halt as Kenyans realise how easy and quick it is to slide into the dark pit of conflict and chaos. When we described Kenya in 2000, we did so with an image of a house built on a shaky foundation. We suggested that our economic and organisational institutions had reached the limits of their utility and that serious fundamental reform was inevitable if the house was to stand. We suggested that there were many elements that we could not ignore and that there were several uncertainties that needed to be addressed. We dared to explore what might happen assuming that nothing, a little or a lot was done to tackle this institutional malaise. The El Niño (chaos) scenario was considered to be unnecessarily alarmist and was not taken too seriously by many. Maendeleo and Katiba were seen as alternatives but punctuated with many qualifications. The Flying Geese story was deemed aspirational, perhaps utopian in its construction but yet a model of what we wanted to become and what we should become. Why did we construct scenarios and what do scenarios seek to accomplish? Scenarios are an alternative environment in which today's decisions may be played out. They are neither predictions nor strategies but descriptions of possible futures with an emphasis on events and trends. The Anglo American and Mont Fleur scenarios in the mid-1980s in South Africa are believed to have persuaded the National Party that apartheid had reached its sell-by date and was only going to precipitate more economic decline. Today, more than ever before, Kenya stands at the crossroads. The absence of an inclusive political settlement has resulted in much disenchantment, particularly amongst the poor, and punctured the gains that many considered excluded them. We have, through a short shrift, lost whatever pluses we had racked up in recent years. Eight years ago, we were told that although a Flying Geese scenario was aspirational, it was energy-sapping and unlikely to happen. On the contrary, it was what many of us Kenyans wanted to see happen - simultaneous economic and political transformation that would move this country to a higher plane. Whether or not we take the Flying Geese path or remain locked in a downward spiral that will lead us towards an El Niño type scenario, is now up to Kenyans and their leaders to determine. Indeed, anything less than a shift to the Flying Geese mode is but a stinging indictment of Kenya's politicians and their supporters as it is testimony to our collective lack of imagination and aspiration. The choice of which world to create is currently before all Kenyans. Which road shall we take? *Ms Maina, now Executive Director of Kenya Association of Manufacturers, then at the IEA, and Mr Arthur Muliro, Deputy Director of SID in Rome, were the project coordinators. For more on the Kenya Scenarios, visit, ** www.kenyascenarios.org* <http://www.kenyascenarios.org/>*.* *Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group's Africa Media Network Project.*
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list Ugandanet@kym.net http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
