Is it coruption when it is about a particular individual/person at the
centre of the issues,and a welcome overdue gift if the same giver
chose a collective/a population to offer the samesome gift?.
The article below is about Kenya but by extension it cover the whole
of Africa and the World as such,especially so for those who have lived
and grown within the clutches of abject poverty and total deprivations.
It is time we use the same prism to analyse issues so that we are able
to winnow away facts from fiction and or perceptions or both.
Read on.
Thank you.
Kipenji.
=============================================================
Comment 
Saturday, September 6, 2003 

How much do we trust our leaders?

By WYCLIFFE MUGA

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's autobiography makes an interesting revelation. It is that Chequers, the PM's official country residence (i.e., holiday home), was not bought by the government.

It was a 20th-century gift to the nation by a Lord Lee. He felt that, while in office, a person should have a place in the countryside to spend weekends, far from the madding crowd at London's No 10 Downing Street. 

Even more surprising is that Chequers's "covered swimming pool" was also a gift � this time from a Mr Walter Annenberg, the United States Ambassador to the Court of St James from 1969 to 1974. 

The interesting point for a student of the psychology of Kenya's politics is: How would Kenyans have reacted if a situation like Chequers's had arisen in this country? 

What if, for example, State House Mombasa (the closest thing to a holiday residence for the our President) had been a gift to the nation from Lord Delamere or some other such titled British aristocrat who lived in Kenya? 

Many Kenyans might have considered this a disgrace, an affront to our national dignity. Would it not be viewed as unbearable that an official presidential residence should be the gift of a private citizen and that its recreational facilities should have been provided by a wealthy foreigner?

It can probably be stated with some certainty that, even if the great majority of Kenyans (typecast as peasants) were indifferent to the details of this matter, the political and media elite might view a presidential holiday home obtained and furnished by such private philanthropy as monumental national humiliation. 

And yet there are national monuments to which credit is given to foreign governments, with no pretence that we could have done it all on our own. 

The Chinese built the Kasarani Sports Complex. The Japanese built Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology and expanded Mombasa's Moi International Airport, among many other things. 

At Moi University is the large and modern Margaret Thatcher Library, which was put up by the British Government. 

Of course, a number of such large projects were not provided for by outright grants. But the "loans" given by rich states often have a 10-year grace period and a mere 1-per cent interest rate, and the loan is likely to be written off at just about the time the repayment schedule is about to be effected. 

Any businessman given "loans" on such terms would grow fabulously rich in a very short time. 

But what all these various examples illustrate is a curious conviction by many Kenyans that, even if they do not consciously articulate it. 

This is the conviction that the rich countries of this world owe it to us, to give us money for sports facilities, libraries, university campuses, research centre and the like. 

Nobody asks: "They have given us this large building: What do they want in return?" But consider this: If the new US ambassador happened to be a man of great wealth and were to install heated swimming pools and the like in all state lodges, would Parliament � or even the public � view such projects with the same casual indifference? 

It is more than likely that politicians, as much as the public, would demand Mr Bellamy�s immediate recall. Why? Because we would all suspect that he was "up to something". 

Why is he being so generous? we would ask. What is in it for him? 

For at the back of our minds would be the conviction that these "gifts" to the nation must carry a hidden price tag and that, in the end, the only winner would be this deceptively generous US ambassador and the state that sent him to beguile us. 

And yet, whether it be heated swimming pools or even private presidential golf courses in every province - such gifts would cost nothing close to what various foreign governments have spent on projects around the country. 

In all, it seems that any gift that benefits a politician directly is seen as evidence of corruption in Kenya. Yet a gift that benefits the public directly is considered due and nobody questions the giver's motive. 

Does it mean Kenyans have a paranoid conviction that our political leaders are not to be trusted, that any gifts received from foreigners are but proof of corruption? 

Comments\Views about this article

 
Copyright �2003, Nation Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved.
Front Page | News | Business | Comment | Letters | Sports | Cutting Edge | Feedback


Want to chat instantly with your online friends?�Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger

Reply via email to