Of what value to Kenya are ethnic outfits?

 SHARE BOOKMARKPRINTEMAILRATING

By GILBERT MUYUMBU
Posted  Thursday, April 5  2012 at  18:59

In his latest book, The Origins of Political Order, in which he tries to posit a theory of political development, Francis Fukuyama identifies three elements that must merge in forming successful states.

These elements are a reasonably strong State, rule of law and accountability. The purpose of a strong State under this arrangement is to have an institutional arrangement that is impersonal, giving everyone equal opportunity to advance in the struggle for survival.

The purpose of the rule of law is to prevent the State becoming too powerful as to threaten the very survival of the people it is meant to protect.

The purpose of accountability is to enforce a culture in which those in decision-making positions account for all decisions they make to those they rule.

How successfully each of these three elements interact is responsible for the type of societies that emerge, whether dictatorial or democratic.

Now, trying this theory on Kenya, it should be able to tell us what the contribution of groups like Gema has been to our political development.

Going for the first element, has Gema contributed to the formation of an impersonal State that offers everyone equal opportunity, which is necessary for the inclusivity that makes everyone feel they are part of the national project? Has Gema made the State stronger or weaker?

Given its well-documented history of championing the “Change-the-Constitution” campaign of 1976 in which they were opposed to Vice-President Moi succeeding President Kenyatta, what does this say about Gema and the weakening of the impersonal attribute of the State?

Share This Story

Share 

And given that the current endorsement of Deputy Premier Uhuru Kenyatta is based on nothing except blood-ties, does this not encourage a non-merit based system in public office?

Turning to the rule of law, in the theory of political development, this is where social actors outside of the State stop it becoming dictatorial.

In the 18th century Western Europe, the Catholic Church played this role effectively by making the kings live within the law inspired by Christianity.

In Kenya’s case, could Gema be counted among the social actors that forced Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki to exercise executive power in a manner that was within acceptable law?

Is there any landmark event that Gema pushed to recall the State to acceptable ways of behaviour?

And, by calling for the postponement of justice to allow its preferred presidential candidate to contest the coming election, would one say that Gema respects the rule of law?

Finally, when it comes to accountability, this is where those exercising executive power account to those they rule.

In Kenya’s political evolution, could we count Gema among groups that have asked the State to account for decisions it made?

And given that the most decisive factor for Gema in determining who gets into public office is their ethnic origin rather than history of public performance, what does this say about its contribution to a culture of lack of public accountability?

Answers to these questions will help us place, not just Gema, but all the ethnic outfits in the context of their contribution to Kenya’s political development.

Mr Muyumbu is a technical adviser on public governance with ActionAid International, Kenya.