By MIGUNA MIGUNA
Posted Saturday, August 27 2011 at 16:33
Posted Saturday, August 27 2011 at 16:33
IN SUMMARY
- Sycophancy: How does one “advise” the “king” without having independent thoughts and ideas?
“In any organisation, you have to determine your pathway to success and commit to it. There will inevitably be highs and lows. But you have to give your theory and strategy time to work. Maybe it won’t. Many endeavours fail. But without a clear sense of where you are headed, you will certainly fail”. – David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, in The Audacity To Win.
Although President Obama started off as an underdog whom virtually no pundit gave a chance, he eventually triumphed over the Clinton mean machine due to his philosophical clarity, single-minded focus and discipline.
As Mr Plouffe says in his book, “we tried to be fearless while also being disciplined and committed to our plan. It sounds corny, but we had become a family”.
In other words, the triumphant Obama electoral machine wasn’t constructed on some Machiavellian rhetoric or trickery. There were no cynical and hypocritical betrayals like Prof Makau Mutua prescribes in his article, “Why Miguna Miguna’s Sacking was Long Overdue” (Sunday Nation, August 21, 2011).
The Obama campaign juggernaut was built on honest pursuit of higher ideals. It defined and believed in “change”. It fearlessly and relentlessly went about explaining what that meant to the American voter. Whether it was foreign policy, the economy, race and health care issues, Obama did not fudge.
Obama did not adopt Prof Makau’s deceptive strategies. His campaign wasn’t about “winning an election through grand deception”, which is what I understand Prof Makau to be prescribing for Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Prof Makau asserts, without any explanation, that “Mr Miguna forgot why he was useful to Mr Odinga”. How was I useful to Mr Odinga? When and how did that usefulness end? Prof Makau needs to explain what my strategy was and how it differs with Mr Odinga’s.
Mumbo jumbo won’t do. Obviously, Prof Makau is good at making bald and unqualified statements. This is rich, especially when you consider that he has spent barely a year continuously in Kenya since 1981! And even then only from the safety of taking a “sabbatical” from his “lucrative” job in the US.
Virtually all his assertions have no foundation. It would be helpful for Prof Makau to explain which “big” words and phrases I use in my articles and how their usage establishes what he calls “academic insecurity”. These are curious and meaningless words, coming from someone I have only met once.
Prof Makau seems impervious. He expresses disdain on my attire as someone who hasn’t understood that the Constitution bars discrimination on all grounds.
The professor is preoccupied with the African “Big Man”. He thinks the “Big Man” is God and must be worshipped. He claims that I fell out with ODM MPs and Raila’s “secretariat” without caring to explain what that means.
What is “Raila’s secretariat?” Wouldn’t it matter to the professor what we might have “disagreed” over? That’s most irresponsible. He disdainfully states that it doesn’t matter whether my positions are right or wrong. Why not?
It seems Prof Makau doesn’t believe in democracy or the rule of law. He believes that one should be condemned unheard. He doesn’t care about rights and procedural fairness. And that coming from a university professor?
In the Nyayo tradition, Prof Makau thinks an adviser is worthless and not entitled to any legal or constitutional protection. He asserts that I deserve anything the “king” subjects me to no matter how inhumane or illegal. This is pitiful.
He also states that an adviser must have no mind of his own; that the “king” is the choirmaster and the adviser just one of the singers. So how does one “advise” the “king” without having independent thoughts and ideas? Isn’t Prof Makau simply prescribing psycophancy? How is that useful for our nascent democracy?
Prof Makau has a penchant for exaggeration. He has also exposed his callousness by reminding me of “the Chinese saying — the peacock that raises its head gets shot”. Is Makau threatening me or is he inciting others to harm me? Why should I be harmed? Because I have “disagreed” with the “king?”
It’s quite disappointing that Prof Makau who prides himself as a “distinguished” professor would refuse to see the fundamental violations I was subjected to.
Prof Makau asserts for the second time that “servants in the ‘king’s court’ don’t have public minds of their own...” This is the 21 Century professor. Transparency and accountability are values enshrined in the Constitution.
More egregiously, Prof Makau insists that I have disagreed with the PM and ODM publicly “on a daily basis”. Can he give us proof? When a presidential candidate sets out to woo voters, he must do so honestly and with integrity.
The campaign platform and manifesto cannot be based on lies. “Reform” and “change” aren’t words one should be allowed to use as subterfuges. A candidate must mean every word he utters. His character must be put on the microscope and judged based on both his words and deeds; not on propaganda and empty rhetoric.
Integrity. Trust. Honesty. Discipline. Commitment. Care. These are the core values that determine electoral success. Unlike Makau, I don’t believe that life is all about plots, schemes, conspiracies and tricks.
There is no reason why Kenyan politics cannot be based on honesty, trust and integrity. If Makau thinks that I’m guilty for insisting on these cardinal principles, so be it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment