If you are not keen on the music scene then the words 'We are Young' wouldn't strike a lyrical tune immediately on seeing them in the title but these words as immortalised by the American band Fun, capture the symbolic transition of this great nation in these interesting times. Allow me to explain.
Kenya is by no means an old State in the history of independent nations. Turning 50 this year, this country has by far achieved much socially, economically and politically. But no other riveting sphere is there than the political having gradually progressed from Colonisation onto independence multi-party system, single party rule, back to a multi-party 'democracy', a grand coalition government and now a 'digital' nation. Indeed the history of Kenya reads quite fascinating to any novice in African affairs.
The term Jubilee is on that has been on the lips of every Kenyan over the past four months, from the toddlers to the elderly, who were enchanted into believing that the term is of Kenyan political origin rather than Judaic religious tradition which in every sense encompassed a political and social dimension.
In the Biblical times Jubilee was marked on the 50th year after seven cycles of Sabbatical years (seven in number) known as shmita years. In this year, it has been argued, the Israelites were meant to return property to its original owners or their heirs and also free slaves. To some it is considered a year of restoration and which the coming three years are meant to be of plenty. Using this understanding politicians in Kenya have used the term during the campaign period to promise government of plenty or government of restoration depending on the contexts that was favourable.
Present day, Kenya is about to celebrate its 50th year and indeed its can be said its Jubilee year and it has a Jubilee Coalition Government in place. The throne of Government have been restored to the Kenyatta family, the independence politicians have seized the reigns of power to a new generation restoring that youthful vibrancy that the nation had in 1963. Indeed its a year of Jubilee.
However, with all these analogies that could make any religious devotee or political analyst jump to their unknown conclusion, one thing is for certain, Kenya has began on a new exciting path. We have chance again to define our nationhood and aspirations that will chart the course for the next 50 years of this country.
In this Jubilee year we are still not at our Everest economically but have made major gains politically. Socially, we are still crawling towards an integrated and cohesive society. However, with a new Constitution barely three years old and a President barely three days in office, Kenya is optimistic.
What the Jubilee Government under Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto can offer this nation in this Jubilee year is the hope that they will set this country on a trail blazing path to a future where all citizens will be proud to be called Kenyans, where it will not be naive even when you are 50 to dream of a country so technologically adept that 6 year old's go to class with laptops or where every child comes into citizenship not as a burden to the mother but a blessing.
The task lies on the President and his Deputy to make every young person proud to have a country run by its young and yes, we are young.
To watch the Video Click >>> We are Young by Fun
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Election Watch: Party Nominations
In every sense the Kenyan electoral process was reborn after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution. We had to set up a new electoral commission, register political parties and voters afresh. Now the electoral wheel has been set in motion. With less than 54 days to go till the start of the elections, there still remains a number of critical aspects that need resolution before Kenyans can go to the Ballot.
The electoral process in Kenya allows for two avenues for citizens seeking elective politics are to engage. First is through the institutions of political parties and the second is through independent candidature provided under Article 85 of the Constitution. The former, being the most prevalent in Kenya, is one that has undergone a series of transformation since 2010. First was the de registration of parties which were not able to meet a new stringent set of conditions that were lined up under a revamped Political Parties Act. Second was the approach to general elections under coalitions. Previously in the past, coalition agreements were purely a private affair and which brought much acrimony on claims of reneged agreements made before elections. With the new Political Parties Act, all pre election agreements are required to be deposited with the Registrar of Political Parties. The third transformation is one albeit not so expressly provided for but one envisioned is one that demands internal democracy in the nomination process for candidates within a party. Indeed at the party primaries is where the litmus test of democracy is undertaken. These last two facets have been the cause of great political unease as politicians try to find mechanisms to be able to have a smooth process that assures a formidable matrix ahead of the elections.
The Elections Act demanded that all pre-election agreements need to be deposited by December 4th 2012. Several parties entered into coalitions and had their agreements deposited. Others lost for time ended up formulating agreements that are addendum to the formal coalition agreements. The benefits of pre election coalitions is the ability of the parties involved to negotiate for power sharing prior to the election and to have its constituent candidates be viewed as part of a larger political force to the electorate. Post election coalitions are mainly about galvanising power once elections are over especially when it comes to aspects to do with legislative control and influence in the Parliament and the county assemblies. These however can only be recognised upon deposit to the Registrar
Weeks after the formation of the various alliances the key question has remained as to what becomes of the nomination exercises for the various parties within the coalitions. A new political creature has evolved known as joint nominations which essentially entails bandying all political partners into a single nomination exercise for one position with the winner of that being the candidate bearer and all the constituent parties are not allowed to field candidates on their individual party ticket. Indeed this suggestion has left a sour taste in the mouths of constituent parties especially those that could be termed as the junior coalition partners. The big partners argue that the areas where joint nominations are to be held are regions where either the core parties have equal footing or little footing at all and thus a combined competition would yield the best result. In the areas where the core parties have dominance then the strongest party would be the one to solely undertake nominations under the coalition ticket. In finality no other constituent party can field a candidate under the coalition once the nominations are decided.
The truth of the matter is that neither Elections Act, Political Parties Act and The Constitution mention joint nominations and only assert that each political party needs to carry out nominations ahead of the elections. The constituent parties opposed to scenarios such as joint nominations or other mechanisms are by law free to go ahead and carry out nominations in areas where they see fit. Whether such action offends their coalition agreements will be a matter for the parties to decide. It can then be foreseen that parties within the coalitions upon realising that they have been aggrieved will look to seeking recourse either through internal dispute resolution mechanisms or through the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal. But is this even possible?
Practically speaking for the parties who have agreed to being in coalitions that have decided to hold undertake their nominations on the 17th of January 2013, they will in all reality have one day to undertake their nomination before close of the deadline. If they are to seek redress in the event that there is seen to be acrimony then the time frame to do so will be practically impossible unless the lodging of complaint and resolution process within the coalition is undertaken within 24 hours.
In the end, the nomination process will indeed be a true test of whether Kenya has matured in its quest for democracy. The nomination process will be the first step in testing suffrage in a country that once employed a 'mlolongo'(line up) system to undertake nominations and direct nominations in parties prevalent until recently.
As one observer has mentioned before, the days of January 17th & 18th 2013 will be critical to showing Kenyans whether they think they should be part of the electoral process or not and be a true show of whether the country is even remotely ready for an election as it all depends on whether the processes can be adjudged free and fair and whether the losers will accept defeat when it stares at them in their face.
What is your take?
The electoral process in Kenya allows for two avenues for citizens seeking elective politics are to engage. First is through the institutions of political parties and the second is through independent candidature provided under Article 85 of the Constitution. The former, being the most prevalent in Kenya, is one that has undergone a series of transformation since 2010. First was the de registration of parties which were not able to meet a new stringent set of conditions that were lined up under a revamped Political Parties Act. Second was the approach to general elections under coalitions. Previously in the past, coalition agreements were purely a private affair and which brought much acrimony on claims of reneged agreements made before elections. With the new Political Parties Act, all pre election agreements are required to be deposited with the Registrar of Political Parties. The third transformation is one albeit not so expressly provided for but one envisioned is one that demands internal democracy in the nomination process for candidates within a party. Indeed at the party primaries is where the litmus test of democracy is undertaken. These last two facets have been the cause of great political unease as politicians try to find mechanisms to be able to have a smooth process that assures a formidable matrix ahead of the elections.
The Elections Act demanded that all pre-election agreements need to be deposited by December 4th 2012. Several parties entered into coalitions and had their agreements deposited. Others lost for time ended up formulating agreements that are addendum to the formal coalition agreements. The benefits of pre election coalitions is the ability of the parties involved to negotiate for power sharing prior to the election and to have its constituent candidates be viewed as part of a larger political force to the electorate. Post election coalitions are mainly about galvanising power once elections are over especially when it comes to aspects to do with legislative control and influence in the Parliament and the county assemblies. These however can only be recognised upon deposit to the Registrar
Weeks after the formation of the various alliances the key question has remained as to what becomes of the nomination exercises for the various parties within the coalitions. A new political creature has evolved known as joint nominations which essentially entails bandying all political partners into a single nomination exercise for one position with the winner of that being the candidate bearer and all the constituent parties are not allowed to field candidates on their individual party ticket. Indeed this suggestion has left a sour taste in the mouths of constituent parties especially those that could be termed as the junior coalition partners. The big partners argue that the areas where joint nominations are to be held are regions where either the core parties have equal footing or little footing at all and thus a combined competition would yield the best result. In the areas where the core parties have dominance then the strongest party would be the one to solely undertake nominations under the coalition ticket. In finality no other constituent party can field a candidate under the coalition once the nominations are decided.
The truth of the matter is that neither Elections Act, Political Parties Act and The Constitution mention joint nominations and only assert that each political party needs to carry out nominations ahead of the elections. The constituent parties opposed to scenarios such as joint nominations or other mechanisms are by law free to go ahead and carry out nominations in areas where they see fit. Whether such action offends their coalition agreements will be a matter for the parties to decide. It can then be foreseen that parties within the coalitions upon realising that they have been aggrieved will look to seeking recourse either through internal dispute resolution mechanisms or through the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal. But is this even possible?
Practically speaking for the parties who have agreed to being in coalitions that have decided to hold undertake their nominations on the 17th of January 2013, they will in all reality have one day to undertake their nomination before close of the deadline. If they are to seek redress in the event that there is seen to be acrimony then the time frame to do so will be practically impossible unless the lodging of complaint and resolution process within the coalition is undertaken within 24 hours.
In the end, the nomination process will indeed be a true test of whether Kenya has matured in its quest for democracy. The nomination process will be the first step in testing suffrage in a country that once employed a 'mlolongo'(line up) system to undertake nominations and direct nominations in parties prevalent until recently.
As one observer has mentioned before, the days of January 17th & 18th 2013 will be critical to showing Kenyans whether they think they should be part of the electoral process or not and be a true show of whether the country is even remotely ready for an election as it all depends on whether the processes can be adjudged free and fair and whether the losers will accept defeat when it stares at them in their face.
What is your take?
Monday, January 7, 2013
Elections Watch: Voter Register Inspection
In every sense the Kenyan electoral process was reborn after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution. We had to set up a new electoral commission, register political parties and voters afresh. Now the electoral wheel has been set in motion. With less than 54 days to go till the start of the elections, there still remains a number of critical aspects that need resolution before Kenyans can go to the Ballot.
Even with the IEBC being able to register 14.3 Million voters, which was about 4 million shy of its target, it is vital that the registered voters are able to confirm the details retained by the IEBC to prevent the eventuality of them being turned down from voting on election day.
This very important undertaking is yet to take off three weeks since the close of the voter registration exercise. Even worse is the fact that Kenyans have no idea that the process of voter register inspection and verification exists. Many Kenyans assume that with them having gone through a registration process that utilised the much hyped Bio Metric technology, then the accuracy of the process is assured to the highest degree. All this is indeed quite to the contrary. Voter register inspection is still very important regardless of the confidence levels in the technology employed especially considering that this is the first time a newly established commission has employed the technology relied upon. Every voter needs to verify that the details entered into the IEBC system correlates with their own personal information and the particular centres they intended to take out their vote.
Before the Elections Act was amended the Principal Register of Voters was meant to be opened for inspection within a span of 30 days. However, with the Elections (Amendment) (No.4) Act, 2012 becoming law, this process has been shortened to a record 14 days. Whether the IEBC can be able to actually be able to inform the 14.3 Million Registered voters of their need to inspect the Register for anomalies and have a substantial majority of them undertake the verification exercise in the 14 day period is a question that needs to be answered. Up until the date of publication of this post, there has been no word as to when the exercise is set to begin.
The only information available is the information contained in law and The Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 regulating the voter register inspection exercise. The regulations under Part V provide for avenues to follow especially when one needs to make a claim in the event that their name is not included in the register after having undergone the registration exercise. One is meant to submit a claim to the registration officer however according to the regulations Section 17(2), one cannot make such a claim within 90 days to the election. In keeping with this such a claim can only be made before the 4th of January. Unless the regulations are revised, then making of any such claim would be illegal.
As an engaged citizen it is important that you seek out information on the modality of confirming your voter details and the channels of redress. Once you know, help to let others know too.
Act of Convenience: Assessing the Amendments to Kenya's Elections Act towards the General Elections
When Kenyans adopted a new Constitution on the 27th of August 2012, they hoped that all the sins of the past would be left in the pages of history and thus mark the beginning of a new chapter for the Republic.
One of the key transformations hoped for was in the manner in which the electoral process would be handled in the future. It all began with the assessment that the election preceding the adoption of the constitution as being so fundamentally flawed that it would have been impossible to assert who may have won the Presidential election as other electoral positions.
What followed after the institution of the new constitution was the establishment of the successors to the disbanded Electoral Commission of Kenya, largely blamed for the bungled elections. These were known as the Interim Independent Electoral Commission and the the Interim Electoral Boundaries Commission which were later merged into the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission through a Statute. Additional to these changes was the enactment of two key pieces of legislation that would act to complement the work of the electoral commission these being the Political Parties Act and the Elections Act.
The Political Parties Act was enacted and came into operation on the 1st of November 2011 to instil discipline in what was a chaotic organisation in how parties were established and governed. Upon its enactment there were well over one hundred parties. After its enforcement only 51 parties could meet the tighter registration criteria. The Elections Act was a statute enacted and came into force on the 2nd of December 2011 to streamline the conduct of elections, general, referenda or otherwise.
Since their enactment the two pieces of legislation have have been targeted by legislators for a number of amendments many of which have been to cater for their interests ahead of the 2013 general elections. The Elections Act has seen a number of changes to it occur within a period of 13 months of its existence for purposes of politicians expedience as pointed out in a blog by political information website Mzalendo. The key changes that are catered to the politicians are those touching on the timelines that would allow the MPs to hop from one Party to another. Frankly, these changes have enabled the MPs to remain in their parties until the 14th of January 2014. The space between that date and the final allowed date for the carrying out party nominations is only four days. This is a clear example of politicians clinging to power to the very last straw.
Politicians however are not the only culprits in this game of mutilation of the Elections Act. Through the hand of Parliamentarians, the IEBC has been pushing for amendments to the Act in a manner that favours its haphazard operations. The latest has been in facilitating the period of voter register inspection from 30 days to 14 days and increasing the period within which IEBC is to make compilations from not less than 30 days to the election to read "at least 14 days to the election" This means amendments can even be done to the very last date.
It is sad that the 2013 elections are going to be an example in ill preparedness and expediency for large parties and incumbents. So far, IEBC has used the legislative process to seal loopholes in execution of its mandate working at the behest of the political elite. Kenyans must be vigilant to ensure that they monitor each of the activities of the politicians and IEBC and ensure that they conform with the law especially now that Parliament is in its dying days.
One of the key transformations hoped for was in the manner in which the electoral process would be handled in the future. It all began with the assessment that the election preceding the adoption of the constitution as being so fundamentally flawed that it would have been impossible to assert who may have won the Presidential election as other electoral positions.
What followed after the institution of the new constitution was the establishment of the successors to the disbanded Electoral Commission of Kenya, largely blamed for the bungled elections. These were known as the Interim Independent Electoral Commission and the the Interim Electoral Boundaries Commission which were later merged into the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission through a Statute. Additional to these changes was the enactment of two key pieces of legislation that would act to complement the work of the electoral commission these being the Political Parties Act and the Elections Act.
The Political Parties Act was enacted and came into operation on the 1st of November 2011 to instil discipline in what was a chaotic organisation in how parties were established and governed. Upon its enactment there were well over one hundred parties. After its enforcement only 51 parties could meet the tighter registration criteria. The Elections Act was a statute enacted and came into force on the 2nd of December 2011 to streamline the conduct of elections, general, referenda or otherwise.
Since their enactment the two pieces of legislation have have been targeted by legislators for a number of amendments many of which have been to cater for their interests ahead of the 2013 general elections. The Elections Act has seen a number of changes to it occur within a period of 13 months of its existence for purposes of politicians expedience as pointed out in a blog by political information website Mzalendo. The key changes that are catered to the politicians are those touching on the timelines that would allow the MPs to hop from one Party to another. Frankly, these changes have enabled the MPs to remain in their parties until the 14th of January 2014. The space between that date and the final allowed date for the carrying out party nominations is only four days. This is a clear example of politicians clinging to power to the very last straw.
Politicians however are not the only culprits in this game of mutilation of the Elections Act. Through the hand of Parliamentarians, the IEBC has been pushing for amendments to the Act in a manner that favours its haphazard operations. The latest has been in facilitating the period of voter register inspection from 30 days to 14 days and increasing the period within which IEBC is to make compilations from not less than 30 days to the election to read "at least 14 days to the election" This means amendments can even be done to the very last date.
It is sad that the 2013 elections are going to be an example in ill preparedness and expediency for large parties and incumbents. So far, IEBC has used the legislative process to seal loopholes in execution of its mandate working at the behest of the political elite. Kenyans must be vigilant to ensure that they monitor each of the activities of the politicians and IEBC and ensure that they conform with the law especially now that Parliament is in its dying days.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Mischief on the Finance Bill 2011 (Letter to Business Daily Editor)
The Finance Bill has been one that has invigorated much debate both within Parliament and in the public domain. Since its introduction on budget day 2011, there has been much intrigue going on about the Bill. On Friday's April 6th Business Daily Letter titled "Law empowers KRA to collect taxes prior to enactment of Finance Bill", the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the Kenya Revenue Authority correctly asserted that even though the Finance Bill 2011 has not been passed, the enforcement of tax collection by KRA stands legal by virtue of The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act Cap 415 Order 2011 in which the Finance Minister invoked on the 8th of June 2011. However, it must be noted that the Act in itself does not envision a scenario as the one that is being played out at present. In fact the act explicitly provides under section 3 that such an order invoked by the Minister would cease to be valid if the Bill is not introduced into Parliament within four months after order is made, on the expiration of six months after the order is made, on passage of the Bill or if the Bill is either rejected by Parliament, withdrawn or on consideration of the Bill by the National Assembly, the bill is adjourned sine die (without delay).
It is quite evident that the order has been in place for more than six months but what KRA could be banking on to maintain the order is the aspect of the various adjournments by the National Assembly on debate of the Bill. However, it must be noted that the adjournments have not been "without delay" seeing that four months into the new year, 2012, the Bill is yet to be effectively debated. The last time the Bill came to the house for debate on 15th of March 2012, the Deputy Speaker deferred discussion on the Bill espousing that it was not the role of the Chair of the National Assembly to move Bills but rather the Government. In fact, the Deputy Speaker went as far as asking the members of Parliament to go to court or amend the law.
The Government has erred in not fulfilling the law and indeed on the basis of the fact that much of the adjournment has been due to lack of pro-activity by Treasury to move the Bill then indeed it is quite clear there is mischief involved. But then again, unless Kenyans go to court to stop this mischief, there can be pretty much little that can stop the KRA from collecting these taxes.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
49 Years on...
Am not proud to say am glad the Kenya is finally 49. We are a disgrace. There exists a huge illusion of democracy and rule of law. Quiet anarchy is what exists and although as a nation we can be proud to have one of the best Grundnorm's in the planet, we still have individuals who still trod on the liberties that are envisioned to be esteemed and espoused.
We have a citizenry that's so beaten that it fails to take its place in running the country and is instead either apathetic or plain left to be spectators in the theater of decadence that is our politics.
We have a nation with leaders who play economics from the lavish greens of Kenya's top golf courses with tee off times taking priority over serving their ultimate employers, the people of Kenya.
All I can say to this end is that the keen responsibility lies with the people of Kenya. Frankly I wish I can have hope in a demographic but unless they can look beyond their blog spaces, mailing lists, walls and their tweets and take to seeking a vote based revolution that looks to selective choice of leadership that is visionary and one that gets to get the job done, our remaining hope lies with the pulpit speakers, collective gender organisers and political hawkers & mercenaries for hire who know no better than to look close to safety of the known than demand change that they have no time to ever come to believe in because they have become creatures of habit cultured over election cycles spanning a one party rule and mediocre paper democracy.
I rest my case but trust me am patriot enough to be standing at Nyayo stadium come the 12th because love for my country behooves me to recognise our 49 years of state-hood. Nitakuwepo!
We have a citizenry that's so beaten that it fails to take its place in running the country and is instead either apathetic or plain left to be spectators in the theater of decadence that is our politics.
We have a nation with leaders who play economics from the lavish greens of Kenya's top golf courses with tee off times taking priority over serving their ultimate employers, the people of Kenya.
All I can say to this end is that the keen responsibility lies with the people of Kenya. Frankly I wish I can have hope in a demographic but unless they can look beyond their blog spaces, mailing lists, walls and their tweets and take to seeking a vote based revolution that looks to selective choice of leadership that is visionary and one that gets to get the job done, our remaining hope lies with the pulpit speakers, collective gender organisers and political hawkers & mercenaries for hire who know no better than to look close to safety of the known than demand change that they have no time to ever come to believe in because they have become creatures of habit cultured over election cycles spanning a one party rule and mediocre paper democracy.
I rest my case but trust me am patriot enough to be standing at Nyayo stadium come the 12th because love for my country behooves me to recognise our 49 years of state-hood. Nitakuwepo!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Middle Class 2.0
My dear friend Nancy Muigei @kenyangriot only yesterday got me thinking on whether our middle class does in any way hold the key to unlocking the indifference that exists in our society. She went on to mention that its alarming that while the middle class is the most heavily taxed, it does not relate such huge tax deductions to scandals such as those involving the Free Primary Education and in that sense rise up to demand better accountability and responsibility. The lingering question is should we leave the quest for social justice to a handful of activists or should it be the battle led by the middle class?
Frankly, it is disappointing to see that little or no effort is made by the middle class to play a role in shaping the future of this country. Ten years ago we could have blamed it on a stifled political environment that hindered engagement but now the space is as wide as it can ever be. In just three years we have experienced not only a a wider engagement space but we have also seen the doors burst open to a world of information. We are now a society that has free and unrestricted access to information. Now with space and information access why is the middle class still not playing its part?
I have a hunch. The gains we now have indeed are far much better than those that existed in Tunisia and Egypt. We are now a true democracy (at least in the purely theoretical sense excluding the free and fair polls part which is yet to be put to the test next year). But still we are too young. We are like a techie who just stumbled upon this amazing new gadget and is still fumbling around about how it works, adjusting settings and all the amazing features, reading reviews and all before they actually get on to adapting it to their day to day lifestyle and using it as a solution tool. That's what I see our middle class grappling with. A new Constitution, open space to now picket & demonstrate, new justice dispensation, social media to learn share and vent, access to media and content, discovery and adventure. But soon this should change, at least that's what am betting on.
Demographics are plain and obvious. 40 Million Kenyans of which 14 million are aged between 18-35 and are taking up technology with speed. With 25 Million Mobile phone subscribers , there is indeed time and chance to see a new middle class evolve. Soon we will be done being amazed about internet access on our phones and wherever we go and begin to ask how can we use these tools to improve our lives and well being. Already there have been pacesetters such as the good folks at ushahidi.com who have made technology work for this country and the world over and now with the many new innovations coming up we will soon see that the middle class will find in technology an engagement tool. But my question then becomes how do we drive people from tech advocacy to action. Or is tech enough?
The opportunity does lie, as has been witnessed with the jasmine revolution, in the ability to move from agonising (in social media spaces) to organising on the ground and making our voices heard.
So is there anyone out there with skills enough to code Middle Class 2.0?
Twitter: @mwakesi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)