Leaders shamed by their
misdeeds should bow out
No political system can endure unless it translates its central tenets into the people�s zeitgeist, or public consciousness. It matters not whether the political system is a monarchy, theocracy, or one-party rule. In a democracy, a key tenet is the bundle of cultural values known as constitutionalism. Innocuously hidden in that bundle is the concept of shame in public life.
On the face of it, constitutionalism, without which political democracy is impossible, is a tableau that evokes certain images. The doctrine of separation of powers. Popular sovereignty as the basis of state power. Frequent, genuine, and openly contested multi-party elections. Judicial independence. The guarantee of individual rights in a bill of rights. But these norms would still orbit in space in spite of the institutions that anchor them.
That really is the question. Why would these norms that define constitutionalism orbit in space, even when anchored in institutions? What we must understand is that it is not enough to merely promulgate the norms and create the structures that scaffold political democracy. Thus a democratic constitution, a popularly elected and accountable executive, a representative and freely elected legislature, and an independent judiciary do not a democracy make.
Make no mistake about it. You cannot have a democracy without the normative edifice and the requisite institutional architecture. But you can have the latter without the former. In other words, you can have the normative and institutional appearance of democracy but in reality have a dictatorship. This means that between the norms and institutions there is a missing link. That missing link is the thing I am calling the 'zeitgeist', or public consciousness.
Please allow me to give you a rather mundane example. Suppose you have come to a four-way intersection that is normally controlled by automated traffic lights. As you approach the intersection, the traffic lights malfunction, and the police are nowhere in sight. What do you think is likely to happen?
There are two likely scenarios. In some societies, things, to echo a famous novel, will fall apart. Each motorist will head for the intersection, determined to get through, no matter who is ahead of him, or has a better angle. Chaos and gridlock ensue, a fact that makes it impossible to get through. Before you know it, horns blare incessantly, curses become the norm, a few fender benders and fistfights follow, and the traffic comes to a complete standstill. Everyone is stuck.
In other societies, which are rare, a more orderly approach to the intersection will define the mishap. To be sure, the tripped lights will upset the motorists, but mayhem need not be the response. Ingrained in them by rote is the purpose of the traffic lights, that is, the orderly easing of vehicles through the intersection. But in the absence of the lights, the motorists reflexively queue and take turns to go through. No curses, fistfights, car horns, or fender benders. In fact, life goes on rather normally despite the hitch.
The differences between the two societies are simple. In the first, there is a missing link between the purpose of the traffic lights and the fact of their existence. The people have not fully internalised why automated traffic lights were installed. Nor do they appreciate that the existence of the traffic lights does not take away the critical element of human agency and responsibility. In the second society, the missing link has been supplied. Inculcated in the people is the traffic light as a cultural value, a zeitgeist. Now, fellow compatriots, which society do you think best describes Kenya?
The point is that societies work best where the populace domesticates and internalises the values that are implied by the political norms and structures on which they are founded. Let us be clear about one thing here. I am not talking about fairness or equity. I am only interested here in cohesion and stability, and how societies establish them. Thus very unfair and inhumane societies cohered for long periods because citizens � or subjects, for that matter � believed in the ethos of the state. That is why monarchies, slave or caste societies, and one-party states survived for so long. Sure, there was coercion. But there was widespread acceptance and obedience, too.
In most societies, deviation from widely shared and internalised norms invites censure, public sanction, shame, stigma, disgrace, or dismissal from high office. The manner in which a society responds to a such deviation speaks volumes about the degree of the internalisation of the norms that ostensibly guide it. Moreover, it signals how seriously the society takes those norms. Are they simply nonsense on stilts? Or, are they instruments of convenience and hypocrisy, in which the ruling elite say one thing, and then do another?
In my view, shame ought to be an indispensable value in the public life of any political democracy. It should be one of the key links between norms and institutions, so that norms do not simply float in the universe, unanchored in the psyche of the populace. If political democracy is to become real � and not hortatory or rhetorical � then public officials must believe that they hold a public trust in their offices. This means that once public trust wanes � or is withdrawn � then the public official in question ought to step aside, in shame.
In a political democracy, where public officials hold office because citizens either directly or indirectly put them there, the endurance of constitutionalism depends on the society�s understanding of the concept of public shame. First, the populace should not throw mud lightly or vindictively. But when the mud is thrown � and barring any sleight of hand by political actors � then public officials ought to bow out. What is more, they should do so gracefully, with their heads hung in shame. They should not have to be dragged through the streets, kicking and screaming, their mouths loaded with invective.
No one can doubt that the Kanu state � in its 40 years of dirty rule � never understood or practised the notion of shame in public life. In fact, it encouraged shamelessness. It was none other than Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya�s founding President, who asked Bildad Kaggia, the celebrated freedom fighter, what he had done for himself. You could not accuse old Kenyatta of being subtle. He wanted to know how much Mr Kaggia had stolen � and accumulated for himself � from the people. Do you wonder why Kenya�s democracy never took off?
Where Kenyatta lacked subtlety, Daniel arap Moi, his successor, was equally crude. In his 24 years in power, Mr Moi cultivated a kleptocracy � a government by a syndicate of looters. Corruption was celebrated in harambees. Election to Parliament was for the biggest public thieves. Appointment to public office was a reward for loyalty to the kleptocracy. Corrupt public officials were moved around to hoodwink the populace that they had been punished.
The lack of shame in public life is the albatross around President Mwai Kibaki�s neck. Although he has taken some steps to stem shamelessness in public life, President Kibaki is hamstrung by the legacy of the Kanu state. For example, wealth declaration, though a noble idea, is meaningless unless the people know what public officials own, and how they acquired it. Knowledge is the only tool that inspires public shame. Elsewhere, we have seen ministers and other senior officials in the Narc Government linked to shady or corrupt dealings. Yet none has enough shame to resign.
Several months ago, we witnessed the sad spectacle of Bernard Chunga, then Chief Justice, as his services were disgracefully terminated after he refused to shamefully and voluntarily bow out. More recently, disgraced judges have headed for the door, rather than await public humiliation. This is as it should be. But because public officials do not understand the notion of public shame, President Kibaki ought to teach it by summary dismissals of ministers and public officials who are credibly linked to corrupt deals.
The Kenyan democracy will not mature and endure unless we internalise the cultural values � and public ethics � that underpin the concept of constitutionalism. Key to the success of this typology of state is ethical conduct by public officials. Systems of governance do not run themselves. They rely on humans to function. In the Kenyan case, humility, candor, and public shame ought to guide public officials and define the boundaries of their actions. President Kibaki is uniquely placed to lead the country to a new ethical plateau. He must not fail us.
Comments\Views about this article
Makau Mutua is Professor of Law at the State University of New York and Chair of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
