Threats to sack Hassan cowardly and display of arrogance

By Billow Kerrow

The recent article by Hassan Omar titled ‘What do Kibaki men know or what are they planning?’ that has elicited absurd condemnations from some quarters deserve my support. It is the kind of candid, revealing and wholesome opinion piece that should generate healthy debate on ethnicity, but which political midgets embracing yesteryears sycophancy ethic deride. A formal complaint is before the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, and a case has been filed in court. But rather than wait for the due process of law some people have politicised the matter.

For a start, Hassan’s article opined that ‘it is highly unlikely that Kenya’s next president will be a Kikuyu’ and went on criticise the unacceptable institutionalisation of ethnicity’ under the Kibaki regime.

Citing 2007 General Election as ‘ethnically charged’ he warned that, unlike in 2002, ethnicity will impact on the 2012 elections too. It is a fair comment, meaning it is not actionable in law as it is an opinion on a matter of public interest. Nothing he said in that article is divine revelation, rather it is a pedestrian view.

Ideally, the central Kenya politicians offended by the piece should have responded similarly to discount the view. Resorting to threats to sack Hassan is cowardly and a display of arrogance. Ironically, Hassan wrote a piece titled ‘Why not? Kibaki can still be Kenya’s next president’ on February 20, in which he expressed ‘unwavering position that a Kikuyu can still be Kenya’s next president’. He postulated as a human rights activist that any other Kikuyu could vie and be the next president because ‘Kibaki does not equal other Kikuyus’.

Other Kenyans were not rattled, nor deem it hate speech or ethnic discrimination. He expressed his personal opinion on a matter of public interest. As one of the most distinguished human rights crusaders, he does not warrant such a sterile reaction. For some, his role as chair of the Police Service Commission frustrates their interests. In others, his role in The Hague process is a bitter experience.

While such opinions as the one under contention are common in our media and the Internet, it is not surprising that only Hassan’s article pricked their conscience. Only recently, our media carried Wikileaks revelations that Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka told Ambassador Rannebarger ‘Kenyans would not accept a Kikuyu president immediately after Kibaki in 2012’. There was no hullabaloo from central Kenya.

On September 9, a leading Standard columnist wrote a revealing piece on Kikuyu dominance during the Kenyatta regime and argued that although Kibaki was a ‘very keen and faithful student of Kenyatta, in terms of tribal or regional appointments’, one thing he ought to take from the former’s legacy is discourage ‘another of his tribesmen to succeed him’ as Kenyatta did when he blocked the ‘Change the Constitution’ group. Such opinion pieces are many.

Several Kikuyu elders have been vocal in the media in recent years that they should support another candidate from other ethnic communities in 2012. Progressive leaders such as Paul Muite and Maina Kiai wrote ‘Challenging the Kikuyu oligarchy’ in 2009 which confronted stereotypes and exhorted inward-looking approach to common perceptions of the community.’

The group, ‘Kikuyus for Change’, challenge the status quo and usually urge Kikuyu leaders to embrace nationalism. The secretariat states in its website that ‘Kikuyu politicians respond to issues often with arrogance that confirms the stereotypical thinking on Kikuyus, and make provocative statements that illustrate ignorance and the resultant negative consequences’.

Tribalism in politics resonates with most Kenyans. We must address fundamental issues that feed this innate thought, not by marvelling over the shameful statistics the NCIC keeps churning out are, but by engaging in social discourses such as Hassan has remarkably done.

—The writer is a former MP for Mandera Central and political economist