ugnet_:

[Mulindwa Edward]

The forces behind Uhuru The prospect of Uhuru Kenyatta succeeding Daniel arap Moi as president of Kenya remains unbearable for many. But despite widespread disbelief and fury, President Moi has pressed on with Project Uhuru in characteristic zeal and defiance of public opinion. The raw determination by Moi and his minders to see the younger Kenyatta occupy State House has ignited emotive questions about the real intentions of the cartel behind the project. Public scepticism is based on Mr Kenyatta�s rather obscure past and brief CV in public service. The legacy of his late father, as well as the suspect motive of his proposers have combined to work against Uhuru�s bid for the presidency. Because he is unknown, it has been difficult for his critics to fight him politically without appearing to be fightingPresident Moi, although it is for the same reason that they have dismissed him off-hand. The failings of his father, Jomo Kenyatta, and the phenomenon of anti�Kikuyuism that his regime fomented, have blossomed once again into a thick cloud of ethnicity that envelopes the country on the eve of Moi�s exit. Uhuru�s forced candidacy is likely to hurt more than heal the fragile nation that Moi will bequeath to his successor. Analysts wracking their brains to understand Moi see an ulterior motive in his choice of Uhuru as successor over, for example, George Saitoti, Raila Odinga, Katana Ngala, Musalia Mudavadi or Kalonzo Musyoka. When he attended the Queen of England�s Golden Jubilee celebrations in June this year, it was not immediately apparent to keen observers that he could have received a direct personal invitation from the royal family. It was assumed that he was merely representing President Moi. But it has emerged from high-placed sources that, in fact, Uhuru could have been invited directly by the British royalty in anticipation of his expected ascendance to the Kenyan throne. The British Royalty and government, which have deep connections with the Kenya government, was therefore acting with Moi�s nod. Still, this could have passed as a minor event were it not that Britain, the former colonial power is increasingly playing an influential role behind the curtains in Kenya�s transition politics. A source at the British High Commission in Nairobi, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that even before President Moi made public his plans, the matter had been the subject of discussion at high levels of the British government. Britain is Kenya government�s most trusted foreign ally. It has substantive secret economic, military and political (diplomatic) interests that it seeks to protect from unfriendly political forces. The experience with Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe has been repossessing huge tracts of land owned by White farmers, has sent shivers of potential repercussions in other former British colonies in Africa where land continues to be a thorny issue. Western donor countries are wary of any developments that will undermine a peaceful transition in Kenya, one of the few countries in the region that has avoided the pitfalls of open civil strife. Moi�s choice of Uhuru would appear to have either been endorsed by the foreign interests, or they are willing to kowtow to Moi�s wily schemes to facilitate his exit from the scene. At a public rally in July President Moi found it necessary to reiterate that he would stick by his pledge to British premier Tony Blair and U.S. President George Bush to quit. But the question, of course, still remains, why Uhuru? The objective of self-preservation strongly advanced by various analysts is driving Moi�s management of the transition. The transition arithmetic revolves around the desire of the ruling elite to protect their fabulous property and conceal the retinue of irregular deals by both the Kenyatta and Moi regimes. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa�s handling of his predecessor, Fredrick Chiluba, has fired the resolve of the Kenyan leadership to tighten any loose ends. While Kenyatta was accused of encouraging an acquisitive spirit that laid the foundation of the run-away corruption in the country, Moi has been accused of running the nation aground through reckless nepotism and accumulation of property by a few to the detriment of the country. �While Kenyatta will be remembered for his contribution in liberating the nation from the colonial yoke,� it is claimed in the Economics of the World edited by Nita Wattas, �when Kenya became independent it acquired new problems�tribalism, nepotism, greed, bribery and corruption. Opportunities were offered and eagerly seized by a few individuals who were concerned only with accumulating as much wealth as possible.� With recent Transparency International statistics showing that corruption is festering, many Kenyans are yearning for a clean break with the ignominious past. Uhuru Kenyatta, they reckon, is a creation of Moi and the clique around him to perpetuate the plunder and the legacy of British control. Both Moi and Kenyatta were products of conservative English grooming entrusted with the protection of British interests. While those interests may be preserved in furtherance of diplomacy, the land question will require radical solutions from the next president. Land featured prominently in the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission hearings and will not be cured by palliatives such as the slow-punctured Njonjo-led Land Commission. Both the Moi and Kenyatta regimes have used land as a political incentive for loyalty. The ruling class accumulated huge tracts of land initially owned by White settlers but taken over by the State for resettlement of the squatters. The British government gave � 50 million to a land transfer scheme from settlers to African squatters, but Kenyatta used the money to buy land from settlers and either dish it out to his closest cronies or apportion to himself. That caused a rift between Kenyatta and the late J.M Kariuki who was later assassinated. According to a Kenyan legislator who knows the Kenyatta family well, the land on which Kenyatta and Jomo Kenyatta Universities are built initially belonged to Basil Criticos. The government bought the land from him under the above scheme, but transferred it to Kenyatta on the same day Criticos transferred it to the government in 1972. It was through such fraudulent processes that Kenyatta family and close associates acquired much of the prime land in the country. The land owned by the Kenyatta family includes Taita Taveta farm (74, 000 acres), Kahawa Sukari farm (29, 000 acres), Gatundu farm, Thika farm, Brookside farm, Muthaita farm, Green Lee Estate, Njagu farm in Juja, Kasarani farm (9, 000 acres), Nakuru farm in Rongai near Moi�s home, a quarry in Dandora, Naivasha Ranch and several farms in Nairobi. Government sources say that KPLC is currently under pressure to buy the family�s Karen farm at Ksh. 350 million to add to Uhuru�s campaign kitty. The combined acreage of all the land owned by the Kenyatta family is equal to Nyanza province, sources at the Lands Ministry say. Close associates of Kenyatta such as Mbiyu Koinange, Kihika Kimani, Isaiah Mathenge, Eliud Mahihu, Jackson Angaine, Paul Ngei, Daniel Arap Moi, Njoroge Mungai, Charles Njonjo, Mwai Kibaki, Njenga Karume among other power brokers of the time, were encouraged to acquire, and did acquire, as much land. The Moi government has more or less followed similar policies. The political clique around Moi, for example, is known to own huge chunks of land round the country, much of which is lying fallow while the production that it is meant for has ceased. In the North Eastern Province, for example, the current crop of politicians in government owns chunks of land that, according to official sources, they do not even know the location. The land is used for collateral mortgage for bank loans. Having acquired land in this manner, the Kenyatta government lacked the moral authority to effect any fundamental land changes. The white settler community had trust and confidence in him. Jeremy Murray Brown writes in his book, Kenyatta, that the white community was happy when Kenyatta showed that he was not going to push hard for land transfer and, instead, acquired huge chunks of land for himself and his cronies. It was for the same reason that the minority but influential Britons in Kenya impressed upon their home government to support Moi�s ascendancy to power. Above all else, Moi was seen as a moderate who espoused Western capitalism that glorified wealth accumulation. Moi had been assimilated into the British system early when they plucked him from his teaching career to make him a representative in the colonial Legislative Council and he was a major plank of the colonial administration in the suppression of the struggle for independence. Through the then powerful Attorney General, Charles Njonjo, and cabinet minister, Mwai Kibaki, Britain covertly and overtly supported Moi�s ascendance to power while Moi gladly embraced them when he eventually took to the throne. London remains the Kenya government�s overseas capital. This background is crucial for understanding the undercurrents of the transition. It is not a coincidence that Njonjo is today the Chairman of the Land Review Commission formed by President Moi. He is also one of the prominent figures behind the Uhuru-for- President campaign. The British government has since the eruption of the land problem in Zimbabwe been actively sponsoring civic groups to advocate for peaceful resolution of the Kenyan land problem. Uhuru Kenyatta is an acceptable candidate because he would not undermine the status quo without undermining himself. He is anointed by both his economic class and history. Beside the land question, it is the economic upper class in the country that is determining the course of the transition politics. The country�s tiny economic �and largely political - elite owes its mostly irregularly acquired fortune to proximity to power during the Kenyatta and Moi regimes and it is determined to frustrate any change in leadership that might introduce radical changes in governance. Hence, while Raila, for example, may have the support of many ordinary citizens because of his populist agenda, he does not enjoy favour among the influential economic elite and Moi�s close allies. Raila�s earlier socialist ideological leaning is still considered by the capitalist economic elite and Western countries as his undoing. Kibaki is viewed as the more acceptable compromise by some Western countries and lending agencies like IMF and the World Bank. While these countries and agencies purport to be disgusted by corruption, they have not been forceful where it matters most. Hence although all indications are that Moi succession plan is aimed at perpetuating the corruption that his government has presided over � his government has been fighting to stave off pressure to prosecute those implicated in corruption � the western agencies will not apply their influence in the interest of change. The bill on prevention of corruption has failed to sail through parliament due to the vested interest of influential government officials trying to obtain amnesty. The prospect of a less �clean� president is viewed as a risk lest he unleash anti-corruption dogs. Given Uhuru�s inexperience in the management of public affairs (Moi has stated that he picked on Uhuru because he can be �guided�) he would be vulnerable to manipulation. Indeed, significant opposition to Uhuru is purely because he represents a bid by Moi to extend his rule by proxy. Moi would rather have a less glamorous successor than one who would outshine his legacy. It is against this background that Biwott�s resolve �to do everything in his power to make sure that Moi�s choice of President wins,� should be understood. The statement implies that the forces behind Project Uhuru will pull all stops to succeed themselves, and sets the stage for a bruising political duel. Will they succeed?        The Mulindwas communication group "With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"