What is now being praised as a “peaceful” election was in fact the connivance of racist global capital against the Kenyan people. The so-called victory of Uhuru Kenyatta is a victory of private business. Kenyans should expect the collapse of public institutions in the next few years and increased militarization to keep the people in perpetual fear.

Is President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya plain dumb? It is nearly a month since all public schools shut down following a strike by teachers. National exams are supposed to start next week. Kenyatta’s handling of this crisis, like his performance in previous instances, raises serious questions about the abilities of the man who won a bitterly controversial election two-and-half years ago.

The latest unbelievably thoughtless statements by President Uhuru Kenyatta about runaway insecurity in Kenya are testimony enough that the lives of citizens mean little to him. It was not their votes that put him to power, but his wealth and tribe.

Wambui Otieno, a 'solitary woman who fought against patriarchal values', may have 'struggled against oppression, but her story is simply a struggle for love and dignity,' writes Wandia Njoya.

cc It is ‘not enough for men to plead that they are not as bad as some of their brothers’, writes Wandia Njoya in reply to . Of course there are exceptions to the men I describe, says Njoya, ‘I simply used the male callers as icons of values I know to be still entrenched in Kenyan society after a century of colonialist, traditionalist and racist patriarchy.’ Airing Kenyan men’s dirty linen on an international stage may have been inappropriate but some sort of ‘collective responsibility for what some do in the name of an identity that includes many’ is necessary, Njoya argues. Concerns with ‘personal righteousness’ are largely irrelevant when talking about ‘structuralised oppression’, says Njoya. ‘Men who believe they treat women responsibly and humanely must tell their brothers and teach their sons to do the same.’

Though confessing that she was originally unconvinced about the call for a seven-day sex fast from the G10 women's coalition, Wandia Njoya discusses her surprise at the chauvinistic and hyper-masculined reaction to the fast from much of Kenyan society. Given that the majority of Kenyan men clearly do not expect sex from their wives every single day, Njoya considers what really informs the sexist outpouring of discontent, concluding that it is ultimately about power and domination. Essentially reflecting the absence of effective leadership on the national political stage, Njoya laments the inability of ordinary men to offer an alternative model of manhood to one which has simply exploited Kenya's people, resources and environment. Stressing that Kenya's men need to grow up for the greater good of the country, Njoya salutes the G10 for exposing the deep flaws of Kenyan masculinity.

I was greatly offended by Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem's article, which amalgamated complex political and historical situations in different countries into a faulty continuous fabric. I was at first shocked to read the one-sided statement that Kenyans "swore that Raila would never be president, not because of anything other than his being Luo...A 100% Luo is not good enough for them as President of Kenya but they are supporting a 5O% Luo to be president of the USA!"

Abdul-Raheem's statement is grossly skewed and full of contradictions. First, which "Kenyans" does he talk about, since both those who voted for and against Raila are Kenyans? Second, the majority of people celebrating Obama's Democratic party ticket were from Raila Odinga's core support group, not from outside that group as Abdul-Raheem suggests. This means that his accusation of hypocrisy does not hold. Third, many voters also swore not to vote Kibaki for the simple reason that he was Gikuyu, and women and children were burnt in an Eldoret church to reaffirm that promise. Were they not as myopic as those who swore not to vote a Luo president? Abdul-Raheem's condemnation is one sided, implying that evil is evil depending on the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The blame (and heroism) in Kenya during the turbulent period at the beginning of 2008 goes all round; there are no innocent parties but collective responsibility in the form of declining morality, decadent institutions and poor political leadership.

Perhaps the most offensive characteristic of Abdul-Raheem's article is the collapsing of the ordinary African voters with the African politicians. The politics of "ivoirete" in Ivory Coast, for example, was a largely political problem to suppress the candidacy of one candidate. The French government subsequently intervened in the crisis by arming the rebels, destroying the government's air-force fleet, and making a mockery of the country's sovereignty by summoning the principle protagonists like schoolboys to sign a peace deal in France. However, Ivoirians were more perceptive than Abdul-Raheem. They protested the deaths and casualties at the hands of the French army.

The argument that Obama celebrates his heritage which is not an impediment to his campaign lacks concrete evidence. If anything, the most worrying aspect of Obama's achievement is his distancing himself from Black American history. In his memoir "Dreams of my Father" Obama terms black nationalism as sustained by hatred. He makes ceremonial mention of the Civil Rights movement and gives no credit to Black American heroes for paving the way for his candidacy. While Obama has achieved a great feat, it has come at the cost of the moral integrity of African peoples worldwide. But as Kali Akuno has brilliantly argued ("Barack Obama and the New Afrikan Question"), the euphoria and unexpectedness of his victory mean that we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out a theory that still fights for the African poor without alienating them as they celebrate Obama's achievement.

Kali Akuno demonstrates that we need carefully balanced and meticulous reasoning to analyze and articulate a vision for Africans worldwide after Obama's victory. We cannot do this if we collapse history into simplistic formulas that deny the complexity of African societies worldwide. After all, we are the same ones who condemn racism for simplifying our histories and judging what happens in Haiti, the US and Zimbabwe on exactly the same historical schema simply because the people's complexion is similar. We should not do the same by blurring the distinction between Africa's political class and the ordinary voters across different national boundaries and historical peculiarities.

The focus of African women activists on gender violence and on women’s rights remains disconcerting. But before I get into the details of why this is so, I would like to highlight the historical figure named Mary Nyanjiru. Nyanjiru entered the local Kenyan legends in the 1920’s after she challenged the men in the crowds outside a colonial prison to exchange their trousers for skirts if they were afraid to protest the arrest of Harry Thuku.

The decision of the Nobel Literature Prize committee to name Doris Lessing as this year’s laureate should raise red flags in the minds of those concerned with the integrity and cultural autonomy of African literature, writes Wandia Njoya. The fact that Lessing has finally received one of the most prestigious literary prizes in the Western hemisphere comes as no surprise, since she has been proposed for this award before but has been bypassed by previous laureates. What should raise eyebrows, however, is the historical and political context within which the committee finally decided to recognize the octogenarian.