Robert Zoellick told Africa's leaders the World Bank wanted to expand its "efforts to help countries produce their own food, instead of relying on imports.” This would represent a complete reversal of Bank policy which has focused thus far on encouraging Africa to devote more land and resources to growing commodities, and to rely on international markets to purchase the food they were no longer growing.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_01_wahdah.gif discusses the Arabic language and how it influences “Arabic political and cultural discourse” and considers whether the “explosiveness and poetic” nature of the language leads to “radical Islam”.
..... This [those educated in classical Arabic] in no way led to the creation of radical ideologies or ideologies; but it did influence the way in which those ideologues express themselves. And the themes expressed in much classical literature likely make it all the more unacceptable for such a set to accept being ruled by aliens (or those under alien influence).

This is my thinking. I could be reaching too far back, as is Dr. Lewis when he explains that the roots of modern terrorism lay in some back room Anglo-Ottoman-French-Austrian-Icelandic treaty or in the conduct of the 18th and 19th century corsairs. Or when someone tells us that the the Arabic language itself leads to "radical Islam".

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_02_wordsbody.gifWordsbody comments on Obamamania and takes us through his celebrtory supporters and detractors from Spike Lee and Toni Morrison on the one hand and Maya Angelou and Whoopie Goldberg on the other. The split within the Black community is obvious – one of the choices being do you vote on racial lines or because you sincerely think Obama is the man?
“Uncomfortable as I am with the role of the great O in this campaign, I actually welcomed her statement above. Because the converse is also true. I am free as a black person to support Hillary Clinton if I want.”

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_03_psycherevolution…African Renaissance: A Revolution of the Mind? poses some thoughts on the question of borders in Africa which cut through linguistic and ethnic groups as a way of controlling the “natives”.
“This got me wondering about how borders have exclusified languages or dialects...I hope there is such a word as exclusify, but what I mean is if a Shona person spoke Kalanga with a Shona accent in Botswana they would probably get flak for it, and if I as a Kalanga speaker have taken flak for speaking Shona ''funny.'' Shona and Kalanga are in some respects like Texan English and the English one would find in Wales, so they are not completely dissimilar. Once upon a time, they were the same language but a border ran through it and now it lives between them.”

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_04_chippla.gif Chippla’s Weblog reports on recent talks between the Russian gas multinational, Gazprom and the Nigerian government on the development of gas fields.

“What about Gazprom? What does it have to offer? The Financial Times report (referred to in the first paragraph of this write up) provides next to nothing on this, though it quotes a Nigerian government official as saying:
"What Gazprom is proposing is mind boggling. They are talking tough and saying the west has taken advantage of us in the last 50 years and they're offering us a better deal."
Until such a deal is made public (should the talks between Gazprom and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation bear fruit) this blogger remains deeply skeptical. Gazprom, like any other energy conglomerate, is simply strategically positioning itself for global growth beyond the shores of Eurasia. Already a key player in the European gas market, in addition to being 'the' key player in the Russian gas market, it now has its eyes set on a region of the world in need of exponential growth”

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_05_sotho.gifSotho links to the 25 most important films on race and the lack of recognition of Black actors by Hollywood.
“Look around, and you’ll see how African Americans have emerged as the big screen’s most reliable stars. Will Smith is the one demonstrable megastar. Morgan Freeman’s quiet dignity gets him designated as the face of God and the soul of humanity. ...........And the achievements of blacks are regularly honored by Hollywood. In the past seven years, blacks have won Academy Awards in every acting category. Halle Berry took Best Actress for Monster’s Ball, Freeman Best Supporting Actor for Million Dollar Baby, Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls.”

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_06_cairofreeze.gifCairo Freeze, an Egyptian weekly cartoon editorial, posts a cartoon on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent speech suggesting that aspects of the Sharia Law to be officially recognised in the UK.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_07_civilexpression.g… No Longer At Ease has an excellent series of updates on the fighting in Chad between the government and rebels. The updates are very informative in this very difficult to understand conflict.
“The rebels took off just five days ago from the East of the country, near the Sudanese borders. Chad and Sudan have been exchanging accusations that each is supporting the others' rebels. Chad supported and armed rebels in Darfur and so did Sudan with Chadian rebels. In 2006, the rebels reached the outskirts of the capital N'Djamena but they were pushed back with the help of the French troops. There is no doubt that Sudan will be delighted with a change of leadership in Chad.

It also seems that the EU, and particularly France, sees president Idris Deby as a liability; he has presided over fraudulent elections and changed the constitution so he can have a third term. His ongoing rivalry with the Sudanese government is also making the deployment of UN troops in Eastern Chad and Darfur much more difficult.

The African Union, already overloaded with the crisis in Kenya, Darfur and Somalia, has said that Chad will be suspended from the organization if president Deby is deposed and "until normalcy and democratic rule is restored in that country".

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_08_kubatanablogs.gifhttp://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/345/blogs_09_blacklooks.gifBlack Looks reports on the link between the Israeli billionaire and settlement magnate, Lev Leviev’s diamond mining in Angola and building of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
“New York and Londoner’s campaign to boycott the jewellery stores of Israeli billionaire and settlement magnate, Lev Leviev on Madison Ave and Bond Street. Leviev is a major constructor of Israeli settlements on Occupied Palestinian land in violation of international law. He owns Alluvial diamond mines in Angola where thousands work in dangerous conditions, largely unregulated and often digging with their bare hands standing in dirty muddy water. [Alluvial diamonds are cheap to mine because the diamonds are just below the surface. ]”

* Sokari Ekine blogs at Black Looks and http://www.africanwomenblogs.com

Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding.

One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo-liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV –AIDS pandemic.

Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.

In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William “Kip” Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?

One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.

Why Now?

At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western ‘interests’ in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.

Central Command

After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).

At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.

Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI “plans” to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in “peacekeeping” operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.

Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East

After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.

What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.

The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.

African Oil -The real objective

The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been “fabricating terrorism” in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of “intelligence sharing to fight terrorism.” It is in the Sudan where the neo-conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.

Challenging the European Union and China in Africa

The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.

In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar.
It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America.
This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.

African responses

Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest “partners’ of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 “distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.

For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for ‘security cooperation.” Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition.
More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.

One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia.
Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.

In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.

Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.

In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.

The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror. Racist images of war and “anarchy” and “failed states” are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.

We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written, ‘The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.’ [1]

[1] Thomas Friedman, ‘A Manifesto for the Fast World’, New York Times Magazine, March, 1989.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.

** Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

I dressed for the occasion.
Put my cute fanny in lace nickers,
Gave my breasts some serious gravity (EJ Win always
says wear new, matching underwear on important days,
that’s why she got me stuff from Bravissimo).
I was already sizzling
Rainbows around my waist, beads, and beads, and beads
of them from Codou and Roses in Dakar.
She’s also sent me incense. Intoxication is critical.
I wasn’t just sizzling, I was leaving a most musky trail.
Layering: Vanila bath what what from Sisonke, coconut
oil something wafting.
Slipped my pink pedicured feet into slinky sandals.
Shells on the rim.
A trade we did with Alice from Rwanda in Zanzibar,
plotting Feminism
Needed some bling. Hooked in amber and silver earrings,
Muthoni Wanyeki style. Off of Biashara
street in Nairobi, necklace from Hope Chigudu, a
talisman from Thailand — Awid, Bangkok, Massage - Men
in our movements, masquerading comradeship, turning our
voice to footnotes.
Pulled back the dreadlocks. One side like Sylvia.
Now the war paint. Eyes the way Jessica Horn taught me -
intense, serious, sparkling. Mac to the Lips - pout,
shimmer, shine: Pat Made put this in my purse (need
to text Thoko Matshe to stop by the counter next time
she’s in London - I got to have another one).
Stand tall like Bisi, this is an election year after
all:
But my name was not there: Not on the voters roll,
where it had been 5 years ago. Vanished. Disappeared.
My name was not there.
Who took my name? I hollered, vagina twitching with
rage. I said - who took my name? Ziii no answer other
than stares of intimidation from some twobit cop
representative of rigging. Txt message to Teresa
Mugadza - most kicking lawyer in Town. Woman wrote
Domestic Violence Legislation surely this is a
piece of cake for her!
Someone took my name Tere I howl, mad as ever. So get
it back girl, she croons. Get it back. You know you
got to vote. Right?
Zimbabwe: hurting and burning. Rage.
Straight up. I am taking it back. And today I am going
back. War clothes and all. This V is my Day.

*To read more of Isabella Matambanadzo, please visit where this poem was first posted.

***Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Historical and political dimensions

Recent political problems that threaten to tear Kenya apart require analysis that goes beyond ethnicity as portrayed in the media and current analyses that attempt to explain the situation. More correctly, emphasis and focus should be placed on the interpenetration of historical and current political developments whose origins can be traced in the early stages of state formation in Kenya. In 19th century the area that became Kenya could be described as stateless, but was made up of various nationalities (currently considered sub-nationalities if seen from the eye of British Historians and ethnographers). Some commentators have claimed that peoples' civility, and ethnicity was shaped by their subsistence farming or herding, or some mixture of both".

However what ethnographers and Eurocentric commentators ignore is that there was clear territorial ownership of space by each “nation” even though at times there were conflicts over pasture and adventurer expeditions into the regions occupied by other groups. In the late 19th century most of the people of Kenya resisted British conquest, and land grabbing when white settlements began in the fertile highlands of Rift Valley and central province. Administrative structures were designed and to-date, have been effectively used as part of state machinery to impose illegitimate authority on the people. Besides land, there were conflicts over forced “labour” (basically Africans and latter Indians) and hut tax. These conflicts led to the 1923 Devonshire White paper, which stated that ‘Kenya is an African country and the interest of the natives must be paramount’. The Africans especially the Kikuyu in Central province, Masaai and Kalenjin in the Rift Valley, lost much of their best land to the white settlers and the growing population meant increasing land hunger and discontent. A new land redistribution scheme was introduced under Lyttleton constitution of 1954 followed by other constitutional changes however these scheme did not adequately address the land question.

Nationalism in Kenya begun as early as 1922. Violence and armed struggle was led by the Mau Mau and by 1955, 13,000 Africans had lost their lives (see Anderson, 2007). In the early 1960s, Moi, Muliro and Ngala of KADU supported regionalism against Kenyatta, Odinga and Mboya and KANU's nationalism (associated with the centralised system). By 1960, two national parties were formed (what could be described as the first multi party era in Kenya). These two parties were already divided over the type of system that would serve the African interests. Alliance by leadings lights from various groups which made up KADU and KANU respectively, also played out in the struggles for release of those in detention and efforts to form the first government. The British were forced to retreat from Kenya and subsequently, release Jomo Kenyatta from detention at Kapenguria.

When Kenya gained “independence” from Britain in 1963, it inherited non-democratic institutions and cultures, which later fell into the hands of corrupted politicians and governments. This exemplifies the de-colonization programme that retained the colonial apparatuses of security forces and political repression in the post-colony (see Anderson, 1998) and compromise over the land question. Post-colonial “officials” lavished themselves with political and economic favours in a pattern that has extended into the post-post-colonial era (Moi who was a member of KADU and later KANU, Kibaki who was technocrat in KANU from 1963, Michuki the Internal Security Minister, Njenga Karume, the Defence Minister among others). This process has been captured by some analysts who have pointed out that these developments mirrors what was a distinctly colonial view of the rule of law, which saw the British leave behind legal systems that facilitated tyranny, oppression and poverty rather than open, accountable government(Elkins, 2007/8)

Ethnic composition and competitive politics

While national level political competition in Kenya is often misunderstood and shallowly interpreted in terms of a competition between the Kikuyu and the Luo, most commentators on Kenya’s politics do ignore the position and role of the Kalenjin, Luhya, Kamba, Kisii, Coastal peoples (Mijikenda), Swahili, Arabs, Indians and Europeans who live in large farms/ranches and important urban areas in Kenya. Each of these groups subsumes a number of smaller ethnic units that become relevant bases of social identity in more localized settings. The groups hardly mentioned are the Ogieks, and the Jemps who are the original occupants of some parts of present Rift valley but have since been displaced or evicted to create room for current occupants. What is however neglected in the debate about Kenyan politics is the reality that all groups have a stake in the running of the Kenyan polity, but due to systematic exclusion of some groups from the national leadership, competitive politics in Kenya is bound to have an ethnic dimension

When Kenya became a one-party state in 1969 Kenyatta ruled the country with a clique around him mainly from his ethnic Kikuyu, who eventually alienated other groups in Kenya from the political and economic order for his entire reign (1963-1978). Although Kenyatta did not instigate ethnic clashes, he targeted eminent persons from ethnic groups that he felt were a threat to his leadership. Many people were assassinated including Pio Gama Pinto (Kenyan Indian), JM Kariuki (Kikuyu) Tom Mboya, D.O Makasembo, Arwgings Kodhek (all Luo) Ronald Ngala (Mijikenda of Coast), Seroney (Kalenjin) among others. This was a strategy that Moi also adopted at the height of his reign when prominent persons were assassinated or died in mysterious circumstances. They include, Robert Ouko, Owiti Ongili, Otieno Ambala, Hezekiah Oyugi (all Luo) Bishop Kipsang Muge, (Kalenjin), Adungosi and Muliro (all Luhya,). Many students, journalists, lecturers, and politicians like Raila Odinga, Charles Rubia, Keneth Matiba, Martin Shikuku, among others were also detained and tortured. What is also missing in most analyses is the role of other communities during the struggle for independence, while the Mau Mau has been presented as the epicentre of everything around impendence struggle, but historical facts point to other contributions but because this ignorance has been presented as the truth, coupled with arrogance and superiority complex, Kenyan liberation history has been constantly distorted.

The struggles for political ascendancy begun immediately after the postcolonial government were formed. While the first cabinet was quite representative of the face of Kenya, soon ideological difference, impact of cold war and betrayal on key issues cropped in, thus dividing the original personalities in the independence struggle; the Mau Mau veterans were sidelined and politics of exclusion and elimination begun with earnest, sometimes combined with assassinations. Electoral politics never took shape in a democratic sense since Kenyatta who ruled mainly through the provincial administration, outside the KANU framework, rendered the party system that could have rallied the people around issues and programmes meaningless. Fears of ethnic ascendancies, power-hungry ethnic political elites, undemocratic processes and institution, which are all hallmarks of today's Kenya, begun to play out; a confirmation of the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along. The 2007 election fiasco has exposed the deliberate stoking of ethnic tension by power-hungry elites, feeble democratic traditions and institutions in Kenya, one that threatens to consume it if not adequately addressed.

Electoral politics

Electoral politics in Kenya can also be understood best by looking at the role of the process and institutions charged with overseeing such a process. The electoral system in Kenya is based on constituencies whose boundaries are congruent with the boundaries of tribal areas. These boundaries have been used to manipulate democratic outcomes. The constituencies are represented by a member of parliament and a number of local authority representatives at ward, town and urban council levels. Their election takes place at the same time as that of presidential and parliamentary ones. The boundaries are determined by the electoral commission if there is evidence that populations have outgrown the current demarcations. This decision is however made by the electoral commission without consulting the local communities and in most cases at the directive of the president. The president without parliamentary approval appoints the Commission. However the problem with numbers in Kenyan politics is that they are never correct or close to truth. This originates from history of manipulation of constituency population numbers during the single party era, but also lack of regular census and update of births and deaths records. It is therefore not surprising to see “ghost names” in voter registers (not deleted even after a whole five year preparation and multibillion investment in the process) or to see number of registered voters increase during presidential vote tallying contrary to the actual number at constituency level or previous attempt to create extra constituencies in the incumbent friendly regions in order to meet the 25% constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility.

But the problem with the electoral process did not start in recent years; the political competition that followed immediately after independence gave birth to the mechanisations, manipulation of the institutions responsible for electoral process and the blatant rape of the constitution to suit those in power. This begun with the erosion of the party system, when immediately after independence in 1963, the political alliances begun to fall apart with KADU joining KANU and internal struggles within KANU leading to the formation of KPU. Although the fall out between Kenyatta and Odinga has been described as ideological, the actual cause was the feeling that Kenyatta had betrayed his colleagues and the entire nation on three crucial promises at independence, namely eradication of poverty, illiteracy and disease. Kenyatta betrayed this cause by allocating huge parcels of land left by white settlers to himself and cronies, including large tracts in the present Rift Valley province.

Upon Kenyatta’s death in 1978, Daniel arap Moi, a member of the Kalenjin, assumed power in 1978. During his 24 year reign, Moi exploited the Kenyan diversity and politicised ethnicity to levels where he could instigate clashes in districts and provinces with mixed groups, a practice he perfected in the 90’s in order to discredit the onset of multiparty democracy in Kenya. Politically motivated ethnic clashes were used to disrupt and displace populations and groups that supported the opposition (mainly the Kikuyu in Rift Valley, Luo in the slums of Nairobi and Mombasa). He also used divide and rule tactics, pitting on group against another and at times bought politician through patronage in order to have more support in parliament. These tactics ensured that that the opposition lost the elections of 1992 and 1997. It was not until 2002, when his constitutional terms in office expired that he had no options, but also due to the unity of the opposition through NARC (Rainbow coalition of Kijana Wamalwa FORD- Kenya, Raila Odinga of LDP, Charity Ngilu and Kibaki of NAK/DP) got together and managed to defeated Moi’s preferred choice of successor, Uhuru Kenyatta (the son of Jomo Kenyatta). Moi was voted out of office in 2002, and Kibaki became president.

Anger against Kibaki’s leadership is real and genuine and it stems from the fact that Kibaki was elected on a platform of reform, in the sphere of constitutional change, end to corruption, tribalism and establishment of an equitable system that could uplift the living conditions of all Kenyans regardless of their ethnicity and other background factors. Kibaki’s failure to grasp these genuine concerns, self imprisonment from reasoning and lack of desire to leave a legacy in Kenya, caused a great anger in the majority of Kenyans whose hopes had been dashed by Kibaki’s conduct, corruption and arrogance of people around him. For instance People’s disgust with Kibaki’s regime was expressed at the 2005 referendum in which the Wako Draft (a diluted version of the Boma’s draft, which was a constitutional product of a people led process) was defeated. Seven provinces made up of diverse ethnic groups voted for “NO” while the Yes vote was only represented by central province. This outcome reflected the wishes of the majority and cannot be seen as a vote against the Kikuyu since the vote was for a devolved system or a unitary system. But then, one cannot lose sight to the ethnic dimension the vote took during the campaigns, when people of central province were told to vote for “Yes” because it meant protecting “their presidency”. This anger and frustration was captured in the 2007 elections in which Kibaki lost his close allies from his own backyard (central province) and high profile lieutenants from other regions who were rejected at grassroots level. The 2007 elections also saw a new trend of ethnic alliances, which were formed for political expediency, even though hidden behind critical issues. Some groups could however identify with each other in terms of political and economic marginalisation than others, thus the divide the has been reflected in the post ethic conflict even if some analysis attempt to reduce it to the work of political leaders as the ones behind the ethnic divide. In the current situation, old wounds have been revived but the degree of suffering under previous regimes differ from group to group, while frustration also exists within the groups themselves, whereby, Kalenjin rejected their own, in Moi and his sons, while the Kikuyu rejected the cabal that have surrounded Kibaki since 2002. The same was witnessed in Nyanza where Luo and Kisii Nyanza voted out MPs that they thought did not deserve another parliamentary mandate.

* Antony Otieno Ong’ayo is a researcher at the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Introduction

As part of the Grand Debate on the Union Government, the Accra Summit in July 2007 took two important decisions, among others. Firstly the Assembly set up a Ministerial Committee of ten to look into the different aspects of a possible Union Government; and Secondly the Assembly requested an Audit of the African Union. For this purpose, a High Level Panel of 13 Africans were appointed by the Chairperson of the African Union to conduct the Audit. Both the Committee and the Panel worked under severe time constrain . The Panel met four times between 10th September and 18th December 2007. The Audit Report was submitted to the President of the African Union President Kuofor of Ghana on 27th December after which copies were distributed to Heads of states and Governments. According to AU procedures, the Report was then put on the agenda of the Executive Council to meet on 29-30 January. The Council would then submit the Report with its recommendation/comments on the Report to the Assembly meeting on 31stJanuary and 1st February 2008.

After submission, the Audit Report (AR) became an instrument to be manipulated (opposed, delayed, supported etc) by different forces within the AU for their different agendas. The Panel had little or no say on the fate of the Report after its submission. The panel attended both the Executive Council as well as the Assembly Meetings. The chairperson of the Panel gave a lengthy briefing to the Foreign Ministers of the Executive Council. But the Council hardly discussed the AR on the grounds that they had no time to study it and therefore needed three months to study the report and then discuss it at an extraordinary meeting of the Council. This recommendation to the Assembly of Heads States was discussed very briefly and, in its wisdom, the Assembly decided to refer the AR to a Committee of twelve Heads of States set up mainly to discuss the issue of the Union Government.

The Panel was rather disappointed at this outcome – its expectation was that the AR will be discussed seriously by both the Ministers and Heads of States and Governments and at least some of the recommendations for immediate implementations would be approved. However in the AU culture, being referred to a Committee, is not a positive message.

The Panel’s disappointment was deepened by two happenings. Firstly the AU Commission ( the Secretariat of the AU) issued an unexpected written reaction to the AR while the Report was still being distributed to Governments. It disagreed with some important aspects of the Panel’s analyses and recommendations. This document was disseminated to the Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers and thus encouraged a negative reaction to the AR. This was a reaction to the Panel’s overall finding with regard to the Commission that it is characterized by internal institutional incoherence and disarray, with a dysfunctional working and managerial culture at all levels. In fact 40% of almost 160 recommendations of the AR are on the AU Commission. They are designed to rationalize, strengthen and improve the Commission. Clearly any critique from the Panel however constructive was not taken kindly.

Secondly, an important recommendation of the Panel designed to avoid the kind of problems besetting the AU Commission at the cabinet level, was that the January Assembly should elect the next President and his/her Deputy only and that the Commissioners be appointed by the President in July on the bases of their qualifications. It seems that this important recommendation was not well received and the Commission as well as the Executive Council proceeded to put on the agenda of the Assembly the election of all Commissioners. The election took place and four of the Commissioners were re-elected as a result of intense lobbying at all levels. Was this a message that changes in the Commissioned are not welcomed?

The Audit Report

The AR is about 225 pages and contains 159 recommendations. I will not try to summarize or attempt to describe the Report. I will however highlight what the Report refers to as “accelerators”. And the suggested Benchmarks. The Report suggests that if the accelerators are injected into the process of implementing the AR they will speed up and deepen the socio-economic and political transformation towards African Unity and eventual Union Government.

1. The accelerators are:

i. Free movement of people;
ii. Building inter regional and transcontinental infrastructures especially in the fields of transport, communications and energy;
iii. Promotion of African multinational private investment companies for financing integration projects including infrastructure, and;
iv. The early establishment of the financial institutions as provided for in the Constitutive Act. “To assure progress, there is need for constant and regular monitoring. Accordingly, eight broad but measurable benchmarks have been proposed. It is on these that the project of African unity, integration and transformation will stand or fall over the long run.

The benchmarks will, therefore, serve both as radars of hope and the barometers of progress towards a future Union Government and towards the United States of Africa”. The Benchmarks are. Institutional revamping so that the organs and institutions of the AU, particularly the Commission which has a central role, will accelerate the integration process, not only by prompting pro-pan-African policies, programmes and projects, but also in implementing them diligently and fully; Internalising the Values of Pan-Africanism by genuinely promoting pan-African consciousness through the values that are enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitutive Act; Engagement of the people by moving away from a unification and integration process that is driven from above by political leaders into one that is infused with energies from below and which is provided by the generality of the people – a kind of Public-Peoples-Partnership Paradigm; The free movement of the people.

The year 2010, which marks the golden jubilee of the independence of many of the countries of Africa, and the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Constitutive Act, will be the symbolic occasion to commemorate the dismantling of all the restrictions on the free movement of the African citizens on the continent; Rationalisation, strengthening and dynamising the RECs with a view to achieving synergy among the 8 AU recognised RECs and between them and AU Commission; Creation of the African Common Market and the establishment of the African Economic Community, through an effective harmonisation of the integration process throughout the continent using the instruments outlined in the Abuja Treaty; Acceleration of monetary and financial integration through the establishment of continental, financial and monetary institutions, and; The mobilisation of African entrepreneurs to become engaged in investing in transcontinental and inter-regional infrastructure and pan-African enterprises, by providing them with favourable and enabling environment, thus freeing Africa from the capital shortage illusion which cultivated a culture of dependence on foreign capital and foreign aid.

All the recommendations – 40 per cent of which are on the AU Commission – are intended to rationalise, strengthen and improve the functioning of all organs and institutions directly involved in the integration process in the continent. These recommendations, if approved and fully implemented, will enable the AU to provide a higher level of service and thus pave the way for the achievement of the political and economic integration in the shortest time possible. Many of the recommendations have far reaching implications both in the short and medium run. There are, however, recommendations that require the urgent attention and decision of the Assembly. They are identified in the Report. The Panel strongly believed that their adoption in a form of decision by the Assembly would contribute to releasing the potential of our continental organisation for a better service to the peoples of Africa, their governments and to the continent as a whole in its stand in the world community. But alas! So far no such decision has been taken by the Assembly!

As I have intimated earlier, I personally doubt if there are strong enough forces (representative of States) in the AU which are committed to support drastic changes in the AU – changes which are likely to speed up the process towards African Unity. Hence I believe that significant pressure for change must come from the African people and those CSOs which represent them and fight for them. Such pressure for the implementation of the AR recommendations can be exerted on national governments and through ECOSOC and PAP. More importantly the African people if mobilized on this issue, will become a significant force in exerting pressure for change. For the Audit itself is entitled “Audit of the African Union: Towards a People-Centered Political and Socio-Economic Integration and Transformation of Africa”.

I sincerely believe that these pressures – from the CSOs and the people - will help the small but committed force within the AU struggling to bring about change in the AU as a step towards African unity. Once again I urge all those who are committed Pan-Africanists and who are also interested in the process and movement towards African unity, to read this important document carefully – the whole Report. The Report is not perfect and there are several areas on which, in my personal view, the Report is weak or silent. Nevertheless, given the time constraint, the Report’s analyses, findings and extensive recommendations, makes it the best document available on the AU. Indeed some people believe that this is a historic document in that it did carry out a serious and objective audit of the AU.

*Abdalla Bujra is Executive Director DPMF Member of the Audit Panel.

**For the full audit report, please visit titled "Towardfs a People-centered Political and Socio-economic Intergration and Transformation of Africa, please visit Fahamu's AU Monitor at

** Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

We the undersigned African intellectuals wish to add our collective voice to those who have been calling for an end to the slaughter currently taking place between our Kenyan brothers and sisters. Our continent continues to be ravaged by systematic exploitation of its natural and human resources by the new forms of Empire which still have scant regard for the welfare of our people. Our people have historically resisted such exploitation and oppression, yet there have always been some who have played the game of the ruling powers in our societies. Under colonialism it was the colonial power which fomented ethnic divisions which it named tribes and tribalism in order to divide and rule. Since independence it has been African politicians and elites who, schooled in the politics of their Western masters, have continued to foment ethnic divisions and wars. Nigeria, Uganda, Algeria, Cote D’Ivoire, Rwanda, South Africa are among the many countries which have experienced inter-ethnic turmoil since overthrowing the shackles of colonialism and apartheid. And now Kenya. The press and most academic analyses continue to insist on the tribal nature of Kenyan and African society much as the colonialists had done before. This racist argument must be rejected with contempt. African society is no more tribal or ethnic than Germany, the ex-Yugoslavia or Belgium. At the root of the problem in Africa is not ethnicity or nationality, but a form of politics in which "winner takes all", for which those who "win" electoral or other contests exclude the losers; where those who "capture" power exclude those who have not captured it and pack their supporters into government jobs and state committees. While this happens in most countries including in the USA, in Africa it is these jobs and posts on committees which enable access to resources and hence accumulation for the elite along with survival for the poor. The losers are left out, their elites survive on a reduced income and power, while their poor become destitute. Access to power then becomes a matter of survival, literally of life and death. It is this kind of politics and not ethnicity which must be condemned. Whether the political cleavages are organised around ethnic, religious, regional or party lines makes little difference. It is the sectarian and exclusionary politics on our continent, which African thinkers such as Franz Fanon condemned long ago, which constitute the main obstacle to economic progress and political unity, which must also be condemned and transformed today. A genuinely democratic politics can only be founded on a maxim of equality for which everyone without exception must be treated the same, by the state, by governments, by parties, by NGOs. Without the constructing of such a politics there will be many more Kenyas to come.

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” – Abraham Lincoln

It would seem to me that there are certain moral limits beyond which no one can cross without forfeiting one’s honour and human dignity. Our seemingly voluntary decision to invite and to entertain a hated war criminal for four days in our beautiful land will probably go down in history as marking the darkest moment in our political history so far. I recall, not without pride, that in 2003 as members of the University of Dar es Salaam Academic Assembly [UDASA], we prevented the then U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania from visiting the Mlimani main campus. The university’s long-standing intellectual tradition was too noble to be soiled by a representative of a war criminal who was, and still is, butchering innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is as it should be. Intellectuals should keep the beacon of freedom and justice burning even during the darkest night of unbridled tyranny.

And now, Kwame Nkrumah’s worst fears have come to pass. Tanzania, a former Frontline State, is feverishly preparing itself to participate in a macabre dance with the deadliest twenty-first century harpy, “a monster who entices its victims with sweet music.” Tanzania is apparently following the footsteps of Uganda and Ethiopia. In whose interest? Let us begin by listening to the sweet music as performed by the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania and sickeningly echoed by some of our leaders.

The Sweet Music of Economic Gain

According to the American Ambassador, Mr. Mark Green, President Bush’s visit to Tanzania will stimulate investment because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania. Of course, Mr. Green dismissed claims about Bush’s keen interest to station AFRICOM in Tanzania. Instead, Bush’s noble intentions include intensifying the fight against malaria and Aids. To this end, Tanzania will receive $818.4 million to fight Aids. During the visit, Bush would also highlight his country’s commitment to improving health in Africa. In summary, the iron spine of the argument justifying Bush’s trip is economic gain, both, actual and prospective.

Unless if Tanzanians wish to fall prey to racist reasoning, Mr. Green’s story is nothing but an attempt to disguise ignoble motives beneath a glittering façade of altruism. Why should Mr. Bush be so concerned about improving the health condition of Tanzanians and at the same time use the most sophisticated weapons to kill and maim, with zest and ruthlessness, the Iraqis and Afghans and now the Somalis? Why? Is it because we are black and they are Arab? In his recent State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush, amid cheers from his sycophants, vowed to heighten his hawkish policies world wide. And yet, Mr. Bush is so kind and altruistic to Tanzanians. Why? Of course we know from history that even the sordid intentions of tyrants are always dressed up in glowing principles. Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia because he wanted to promote peace and social welfare for all; Mussolini invaded Ethiopia because he wanted to liberate the savages; Japan invaded China to create an earthly paradise; the US and UK invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; and so on and so forth.

Thomas Jefferson on Profession of Noble Intent

Commenting on the famous claim by the British Imperialists that they were fighting for the liberation of mankind, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, as quoted in Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, "We believe no more in Bonaparte’s fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain’s fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth, and the resources of other nations."

“A century later,” writes Chomsky, “Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of state, Robert Lansing, commented scornfully on ‘how willing the British, French or Italians are to accept a mandate’ from the League of Nations, as long as ‘there are mines, oil fields, rich grain fields or railroads’ that will make it a profitable undertaking.’ These ‘unselfish governments’ declare the mandates must be accepted ‘for the good of mankind’: ‘they will do their proper share by administering the rich regions of Mesopotamia, Syria, & c.’ The proper assessment of these pretensions is ‘so manifest that it is almost an insult to state it’. (p. 48)

To their credit, American leaders saw through such pretensions, and dismissed them for what they were. They knew the real motive was to grab the wealth and resources of other nations. We should apply the same standard in assessing the noble intent of Mr. Bush.

The Transparency of American Motives

Since the Americans know that their real motive is to pillage and loot the wealth and resources of other nations, they have often demonstrated by their behaviour that they must have unhindered access to all resources of the world. To achieve this end, they have stationed military bases all over the world. The goal of their grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the power, position, and prestige of the United States. Since securing the supplies of oil enables the Americans to have power over her rivals and competitors, successive US governments have bombed, occupied or controlled countries with rich oil deposits. According to a government daily newspaper Habari Leo of 21 July 2007, an American oil company Helvey International and Petronet International of South Africa have signed a $313 million oil exploration contract in Tanzania. In view of how American oil companies have fleeced other oil rich countries like Ecuador, this does not augur us well. No wonder, suddenly, Bush, loves Tanzanians! Why not invite the Chinese who need no military bases, who have invaded no country and who give the best offer? If what has befallen other countries is any barometer, the Americans will need a military base in Tanzania. Military presence is necessary to ensure total control of this vital resource as well as the continued pillage of our gold mines.

Of late USAID has increased its activities in Tanzania. Commenting on the role of USAID in promoting the American Empire, John Pilger notes in Freedom Next Time:

Illuminating how America exported ‘democracy to the world’, the head of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described ‘aid’ as ‘a key foreign policy instrument’. Wishing to leave no doubt about what he meant, he said, ‘Foreign assistance helps developing and transition nations move toward democratic systems and market economies; it helps nations prepare for participation in the global trading system and become better markets for U.S. exports. (p.265)

John Perkins has lent to the same verdict the weight of his considerable weight as a professional Economic Hit Man [EHM]. He says the job of an EHM is:

To encourage world leaders to become part of a vast network that promotes U.S. commercial interests. In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty. We can draw on them whenever we desire – to satisfy our political, economic, or military needs.

Acccording to John Perkins, EHM “funnel money from the World Bank, UASID, and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources” (p. ix).

Bush’s Visit and AFRICOM

The U.S. Ambassador has repeatedly and vehemently dismissed the disquieting reports that one of the objectives of Bush’s visit to Tanzania is to persuade our leaders into accepting to host the hated AFRICOM. Still, the signs and portents are too consistent to brush aside. According to Assistant Secretary of Defence for African Affairs, Theresa Whalen, the mission of AFRICOM will be to promote diplomatic, economic and humanitarian aid for African countries. In recent months, the U.S. Ambassadors, Michael Retzer and Mark Green have conspicuously [ and somewhat undiplomatically] attempted to show the shiny face of the U.S. Army. On 20 July, 2007 the US Ambassador opened a primary school in Chake Chake, Pemba. The school was built with the support of the US military base in Djibouti. The U.S. Navy Captain Wright from the U.S. CJTF-HOA, and the Country Director of USAID attended this important humanitarian function! Mwananchi of 10 November 2006 reported about a Tshs. 3.2 billion U.S assistance to the police laboratory. Habari Leo of 28 November 2007 reported that our police force received 100 hand-cuffs, 50 tape-recorders, 2 laptops, and a camera. Mwananchi of 8 December 2007, reported about the U.S. pledge to increase military assistance to Tanzania to the tune of $70 million under the Acota programme. Mwananchi of 6 December 2007, the U.S. Ambassador addresses students of Kinondoni Secondary school who are under USAID’s Stay Alive programme. Mwananchi of 22 November, 2007 the U.S. Ambassador visits and assists an orphanage in Arusha. Mwananchi of 22 November 2007, the U.S. Army helps a Handeni Hospital with equipments worth Tshs. 6 million. The U.S. Army stationed in Tanga involves itself with helping in the repair and rehabilitation of schools, dispensaries, bore holes and other social activities. Mwananchi of 12 January 2008, an American Army officer distributes toys to school children of Mbagala. Mwananchi of 17 January 2008, USAID officials give academic prizes to outstanding science students. Mtanzania of 10 January 2008, USAID praises the educational achievements of Zanzibar. USAID was handing over text books for Zanzibar secondary schools published by the University of South Carolina. The ceremony was part of the celebrations to mark 44 years of the Zanzibar Revolution. The Zanzibar Minister of Education did not seem to notice the tragic irony of the entire ceremony!

It may be instructive to recall that on 6 November 1933, Hitler responded to his political opponents by saying, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” Four years later he said, “This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” Yes, new textbooks were written and new curricula developed.

After 44 years of Independence we are delegating this role to USAID. And USAID has nothing but praise for us!

The Boomerang Effect of the Global Media

The prediction that Tanzania would benefit economically because for four days the world media would focus on Tanzania is nothing but a cruel hoax. If this claim were true, Bush himself would have been the first beneficiary. He enjoys the publicity of the world media throughout the year. Yet, he is probably the most hated leader alive today. He is so hated that he becomes a huge security risk wherever he goes. In their book, America Alone, Harper and Clarke note that America’s militarism has brought about such a rise in world-wide anti-American feeling that:

When the president travels, he must do so in a locked-down security bubble: eight hours here, sixteen hours there, never more than thirty minutes from an airport, no press conferences, no meeting the people, no seeing of the sights. American representative overseas tell us that in many small ways their jobs have become more difficult…(p. 311).

Tanzania under Mwalimu Nyerere received very negative publicity from Newsweek, Time, The Economist, and other leading Western magazines and newspapers. And yet, as a nation we commanded respect throughout the world. The U.S. print and electronic media had nothing but praises for Tony Blair. And yet, unlike the leaders of Germany and France who took a principled stand against America’s unprovoked military aggression in Iraq, Blair’s enduring political image is that of a contemptible poodle of Uncle Sam and his otherwise great country as the 51st State of America!

In 2001 the U.S. Congress passed a bill which directed the government to cut off military aid to all countries which ratified the International Criminal Court treaty, unless they pledged never to surrender American criminals to the International court. Tanzania took a principled stand. It refused to bow to American pressure. Uganda bowed to the U.S. Bush praised Museveni as a shining example of African statesmen. To the rest of the world, Museveni had metamorphosed from a revolutionary African leader to a docile American pupil. In this regard, for some of us, it is a huge embarrassment when the number one war criminal in the world, who should be facing charges in the Hague, showers praises on our leader. No amount of positive media coverage may possibly help Senator Obama win votes in the U.S. if he were for four days to dine and go sight-seeing with Osama bin Laden in the beautiful land of Afghanistan! The situation would certainly be far worse if Osama were to shower praises on him. Likewise, Tanzania will irreparably tarnish her image by allowing the blood-drenching Bush to land in Tanzania, let alone to entertain him for four dark days.

When Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela visited Tanzania, the country virtually came to a standstill. Thousands upon thousands of Tanzanians braved the rain and the scorching sun to welcome them at the airport. The rest thronged the streets out of respect and admiration. What a contrast with the forthcoming visit of Mr. Bush. For the first time since Independence, a state visit by a foreign head of state is greeted with fierce debates about the wisdom of allowing him to come! His presence is not an asset but a political liability.

Ominous Signs on the Wall

One ominous result of our close association with the American Empire, which may not be intended but inevitable, is the radical shift in our foreign policy. You cannot unequivocally support the rights of the Palestinian people against the Zionist occupation of their land and at the same time win the praise of Mr. Bush as an exemplary statesman. America is backing Israel to the hilt. We used to support the Palestinian people. To this day there is in Sinza area a hospital named after Palestine. The Palestinian people provided us with their doctors in appreciation of our political solidarity with them. We have to make a choice. We either maintain our stance against oppression and foreign occupation and court the displeasure of Mr. Bush or join the oppressors and win the unqualified praise from Mr. Bush and his so-called world media. It seems we value the empty praises of Mr. Bush more. This is a political tragedy.

The clearest example of this shift was observed when in 2006, the Israelis with the open support of the U.S. and UK launched their ill-fated war against Hezbullah in Lebanon. Tanzania was at a loss. The incompatibility of running with the hare and hunting with the hound confronted us. As country after country issued statements to condemn Israel, Tanzania kept quiet. And when we could no longer keep quiet, we issued a feeble and disappointing statement which provoked the anger of most Tanzanians. For the first time, Tanzania spoke with an uncertain voice. We condemned both, the aggressor and the victim! Even that feeble statement was eclipsed in virtually all print and electronic media! The Americans were happy. We were on the side of oppressors. We qualified to send a peace-keeping force to Lebanon! This, again, is a very bad omen indeed.

On the question of Somalia, once again, Tanzania is supporting the war-lords who were recruited and funded by the U.S. The Somali people rejected and defeated them. Peace returned in Somalia. The U.S instructed Ethiopia to intervene militarily. As a result, the biggest humanitarian crisis now is not in Darfur but in Somalia. However, since the principal architect of the crisis in Somalia is America, the suffering of the Somali people is not covered in the so-called world media. Uganda has dutifully sent her army to Mogadishu to give political life support to the American puppets. Tanzania has accepted the role of training the police force of Bush’s henchmen in Mogadishu. We are allowing America to divide us. In whose interest?

In short, as we go closer and closer to the armpit of the U.S. we shall quite inevitably, recede further and further from our former Third world allies. Americans and Europeans are granted visa at the airport here in Dar es Salaam. Egyptians, our long-standing allies and fellow Africans have to apply for visa and await clearance before they can travel to Tanzania. We invite investors from America, and we organize the Sullivan meeting. We discourage investors from the Middle East. America does not like them. The president has made many trips abroad. I do not recall if he has visited Iran, where we do not even have an Embassy. And yet, Iran bailed us out at a very critical moment when the country had no fuel. When our president was in Cuba to attend the NAM conference, he did not pay a courtesy call to Fidel Castro! From Cuba he went to the U.S. These are ominous signs on our political wall.

The Hawk and the Pigeons

In the Fables of Aesop there is a story of the hawk and the pigeons which is worth recalling as we invite Bush in Tanzania:

Some pigeons had long lived in fear of a hawk, but since they had always kept on the alert and stayed near their dovecote, they had consistently managed to escape their enemy’s attacks. Finding his sallies unsuccessful, the hawk now sought to use cunning to trick the pigeons.
“Why,” he once said, “do you prefer this life of constant anxiety when I could keep you safe from any conceivable attack by the kites and falcons? All you have to do is to make me your king, and I won’t bother you anymore.”
Trusting his claims, the pigeons elected him to their throne, but no sooner was he installed than he began exercising his royal prerogative by devouring a pigeon a day.
“It serves us right,” said one poor pigeon whose turn was yet to come.

The moral of the story is that some remedies are worse than the disease itself.

Let me end as I began with a quotation:

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
--Abraham Lincoln.

*Hamza Mustafa Njozi is a Senior Lecturer in Literature and current Chair in the Department of Literature at the University of Dar es Salaam.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

It is easy – indeed tempting – to dismiss the violence that has engulfed Kenya in the last one month as an unfortunate, though not totally unexpected, resurgence of African atavist ontological disposition. Many analysts, particularly in the West, have argued that even though the breach of peace and mutual existence was triggered off by the stealing of the presidential election by the incumbent, what followed had nothing to do with electoral fraud in particular and politics in general, but an excuse by neighbours who have lived in an artificial harmony while harbouring pathological disdain for each other based on petty nationalism to settle scores with each other. This could be true. But only partially. The stark reality is that the crisis in Kenya has exposed the class tensions that have been peppered over for over more than one hundred years.

For full essay, please visit:

Through an unexpected confluence of events Kenyans currently find themselves faced with a political conundrum. The spectacular abdication of responsibility by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), Mr. Samuel Kiviutu, has perpetuated a general sense of confusion, anxiety, anger, hatred and ultimately violence. The fact that Mr. Kivuitu has cast doubt on the final tally of the Kenyan presidential vote, held on 27 December 2007, means that the country is no longer faced with a situation that can be resolved through adjudication and arbitration by national judicial institutions, since they tend to favor the status quo. The situation now demands a process of political dialogue that should be conducted through negotiations, including at the very minimum, the Party of National Unity (PNU), the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), and the Orange Democratic Movement – Kenya (ODM-Kenya). These negotiations should be assisted by Pan-African and international mediation in the form of African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN). The recent intervention by Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a welcome step in the right direction. On 4 January 2008, Tutu indicated that the incumbent and self-declared President Mwai Kibaki of the PNU would be prepared to explore the establishment of a coalition government...

* For the essay, please visit:

In a follow up to her pre-election piece on Kenya, Wangui Wa Goro looks at the various ways democratic institutions have been challenged and charts a way forward.

On December, I wrote a piece for Pambazuka News reflecting on the pending elections entitled THE LONG ROAD TO DEMOCRACY. As in the 2002 elections, I was wary that Kenyans would be taken for a ride again.

It is chilling how soon the almost prophetic words I wrote came into play, not for the reasons that I had anticipated, in relation to people exercising their right to vote, but in what happened in the aftermath of what was an impressive election turnout. The inconclusive electoral process, particularly the tallying of the presidential elections and the subsequent violence, loss of life, damage to property, the fleeing of many Kenyans, the near collapse of the state and the fragile thread by which the state institutions are still held have left Kenyans and the world in deep shock because many did not anticipate such contested outcome and of that scale. The fabric of what has held society together has ripped severely in several places and in some places, very badly.

Kenya has been very lucky that the call to the international community was heeded through the intervention of the institutions and governments such as the Africa Union, the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America, Canada and Britain amongst others. This responses has included His imminence Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former African heads of States, President Kuffour of Ghana and then head of the AU, Jendayi Fraser, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs and the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki Moon and Kofi Anan, former Secretary General of the UN, the East African Community, and many other governments, institutions, organisations and individuals who wish Kenya well, including many Kenyans. It would be very impervious leaders who would fail to notice the depth which the Kenya is in, nor should they fail to heed its urgency and the importance that Kenyans and the international community are attaching to its resolution because we all know that if it spirals out of control, it will be a intractable as the last few weeks have demonstrated.

Many critics and observers, journalists including, members of the Kenyan and international civil society and many human rights activists, academic, scholars and several individuals have come out strongly to state that the current crisis in Kenya has long roots which date back to the colonial and post colonial era and should not be simplified to “tribal warfare” which it clearly is not. They observe that the electoral crisis has unearthed these simmering ills for several reasons including political manipulation, as well as genuine pent up frustration and anger over long festering hurts as well as outrage at the electoral crisis and the ensuing turmoil which has left Kenya in an unresolved situation where there is no clarity as to where power lies. Key to this is an outmoded constitution, a catalogue of violations including economic and human rights violations which although widely debated has not been resolved. Other concerns include real and perceived inequality and marginalisation, discrimination and the breakdown of the rule of law and mechanisms of democratic accountability.

As many have pointed out some of the key urgent issues include the finalising the constitutional review, entrenching multiparty democracy, equality, fair and proportional representation, equal opportunity and access to services, goods and resources, protection of the citizen and fundamental rights, intercultural understanding and the issue of devolution of power amongst others. For instance, on the land issues, the Rift valley crisis in the 1992 – 1998 left many people homeless and many others dead. During this time, over 1500 people lost their lives and over 300,000 people displaced including internally and internationally. Many of these people have never been able to return to their homes and this issue has never been dealt with conclusively despite the production of the several reports with strong recommendations which have been left collecting dust. Similarly are issues of corruption and human rights violations. The international community too undertook considerable amounts of work on these issues so Kenya does not need to go to the drawing board on it. Others issues of concern include the past violations of human rights, gross inequalities and discrimination such as that of women who over several years have been considered as unequal citizens and worse, they continue to suffer various forms of discrimination and violence, including sexual violence which has now extended to the public sphere and is also being used as a political weapon including against boys and men. Many communities in Kenya also feel marginalised and therefore the question of devolution of power and resources is one which must be addressed as a matter of urgency as much as the cultures which allow such impressions for form. Most important, however, at present, is how we move out of the immediate crisis.

As can be seen, the question of how Kenya is to get out of the crisis is one which is occupying most Kenyans and the world and resolution needs to be found sooner rather than later as it may be too late. Some of those concerned, including the UN and its members, the AU, Kofi Anan and his team of imminent mediators Graca Marcel and Benjamin Mkapa and others such as the civil society and the business community agree that some of the issues require short term solution and others a longer term solution.

The immediate concerns include resolving the question of peace, dealing with the humanitarian crisis, the electoral crisis, which has unfolded leaving over 1000 people dead and over between 300000 and 600000 people displaced. The country has also come to a standstill and normal life such as economic engagement, medical treatment, schooling etc. have become impossible and these need to be resolved urgently.

The longer term issues include resolving the constitutional issue, the distribution of resources, including land distribution, issues of poverty, inequality and justice and the processes and mechanisms for achieving these. It has also become abundantly clear that confidence in the key institutions that uphold democracy including the presidency, the Parliament, the Judicial System, and the Executive has taken a hard knock and this will have to be rebuilt through demonstration.

The question of how to deal with past injustices which has led to the disquiet and loss of life, including human rights violations has become a significant one. Further, the role of the state institutions in safeguarding the constitution, protecting Kenyans and upholding the rule of law and justice have emerged as areas of weakness.

In terms of the political mandate, Kenyans have come a long way in winning multiparty politics as a mode of expression of political will and it is one which many will want to safe-guard. Multipartism was touted as the model for democracy but this has not proven to be helpful on its own without clear reforms of the powers of the presidency, the constitution and the supremacy and independence of the key institutions of governance and state management including the Judiciary, the Executive and the Parliament. Therefore, most people are agreed that new constitution needs to be put into place urgently. One way that has been suggested is the formation of a transitional coalition government to allow the key processes and mechanism to be put into place before fresh elections can be held. So far, this has been talked about in terms of parliament and the current political players.

Many are weary, however, owing to past failures of power sharing in the post 2002 elections and the fact that the key players are the same ones, Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki. This has cost Kenya several years and the current crisis has only exacerbated our impatience. It does seem that the idea of a coalition government of National Unity is seen as unsatisfactory in the long run as it leaves the question about the presidential election outcomes unanswered and therefore the question of trust. The hope is that this matter will be addressed squarely.

Kenyans have fought long and hard to break the deadlock of single party rule which led to dictatorships (in most of Africa and Kenya was no exception) in the belief that oppositional politics would enable accountability. It seems clear that a model or method which is acceptable to Kenyans needs to be found to place the instruments of democracy on a right footing so that we do not become appendages to any individual or party. The legacies of dictatorship still abound and Kenya has been dogged by inequality, corruption, lack of accountability, transparency and fair meting out of justice. For instance, at present, only the president has the powers to open, prorogue, recess or close parliament. This has shown that social practice is difficult to break without explicit expression, training and commitment to transform society from the bottom to the top and vice versa and without mechanisms for accountability to the people. The importance of the institutions and mechanisms which enable a healthy societal engagement in the democratic process is therefore critical including the fundamental rights of assembly, representation, association, life and freedom of expression.

The Kofi Anan led mediation is pointing to the importance of institutionalising democracy rather than leaving it as a promise of words on paper. This he is doing through placing the mediation process for endorsement and deliberations to Parliament as the appropriate arm empowered by the constitution to do so on behalf of Kenyans.

Many are calling for a transitional government of national unity to see through some of these processes by bringing together the various parties to work in what is called as a grand coalition, in a departure from the traditional model of looser takes all, given the current crisis. This power sharing may be useful if it is accepted with honesty and transparency and if it is allowed to tap into dialogue and consultation with the ordinary mwananchi either through their elected representatives through a broader coalition or through other fora. It will also need to takes advice from others who are experienced or those who may have insights into how the process can work through neutral or independent positions such as Kofi Anan and the imminent persons group and other international independent bodies such as the UN. Many hope that their involvement will continue through the transitional phase and beyond.

As well as the dialogues taking place, Kenya does have several instruments which can be used in search of justice and peace. Since the discussions of power sharing came up with the drafting of the new constitution and also the power sharing arrangements that were anticipated after the elections in 2002, many Kenyans are concerned that positions should not be created to appease individuals and that unprincipled peace which covers up crisis whether corruption, human rights violations or electoral crisis without resolution should not be sought. The critics argue that constitutional matters are for the country not for individuals or parties. However, these should not be so binding that people’s attainment of democracy is held to ransom and therefore the flexibility introduced by the mediation mechanism, underpinned by international support is important.

The use of existing instruments such as the Electoral Commission, the Courts and Parliament should not be selective and where these need strengthening, this is the opportunity to do so. These can be strengthened to function to acceptable standards for instance, the courts, the electoral commission, parliamentary representatives, the police and armed forces and the citizens themselves though tighter regulation, monitoring and evaluation . As Maina Kiai pointed out in a recent interview, for instance, in relation to the police: “The police have always been a problem in Kenya because they're colonial police. They were structured by the colonial regime not to be a police force to fight crime, but to repress the population against standing up against the colonial government”.

In another instance of selectivity, some have argued that if local elections are being run as the regime in power has proposed, then it should be possible to use the process to resolve the presidential election gridlock. Other instruments available to the citizens include the referendum, should the parties fail to agree on fundamental issues. The transition can also be buoyed by existing and new mechanisms such as a recall of BOMAS or a reconstituted BOMAS (body involved in the constitutional review ) or even a National Convention as some have suggested. Kenya is also a signatory member to many international instruments and so international support can be sought to ensure that Kenya stays within universally accepted mandates and standards.

Much hope is therefore pinned on the success of the negotiations which are taking place, although many are sceptical about the good will with which the parties have entered the negotiations and their capacity for staying power once the mediators have left. Kenya as a long history of betrayed promises and the danger is that if these talks and their outcomes fail, Kenyans will take the law into their own hands and there may be no turning back. Peace and fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly etc. need to be restored and protected so they are not withdrawn at will just because they do not suit one party or the other.

Over and above these, there have been calls for a Truth and Conciliation mechanism which would allow the past ills to be addressed. This has to be worked out carefully because many fear that such a process could come with impunity, take too much time and may not in itself finally resolve the issues satisfactorily, particularly where a constitution and legal system have been violated.

Most people are however, agreed, that whatever happens at all levels of society needs to happen quickly and it is useful to see that the Kofi Anan initiative is placing a programmed agenda on the table, because as cynics fear, left to the various parties, they may continue serving their own vested interest to the detriment of processes and peace in such a volatile context.

Many are asking what the international community can do and here too, schisms have opened up because some of the failures point to the kinds of relationships that Kenya has had with the some members of the international community. It is therefore important that the international community continues reading from the same script and applying the same measures by working together on the basic issues and within acceptable international frameworks. Beyond the immediate goodwill in the humanitarian and democratisation process, here too, deep questions about the real kinds of relationships that Kenya has had with the some in the international community need to be examined and transformed. It is clear that some of the past injustices have taken place with the knowledge and sometimes connivance and complicity of the international community and this need not continue. All it will do is continue to harm Kenya’s chance for peace and jeopardize those common interests which are claimed by those players. A forward looking robust agenda which engages Kenya as a partner would greatly assist the processes on the ground because it would send the message that Kenyans are worthy global citizens like any other citizens of the world with equal right to fundamental rights. Different standards have been applied to Kenyans, Africans and many in the developing world and this has got to stop.

As ordinary Kenyans, we too have deep soul searching and facing up to do and it will not be easy or pain free. We should be brave and face our demons together and find ways of laying them to rest. We have in the past opted for denial and this has now exploded in our faces. Only when we face ourselves individually and collectively, that is assuming that most of us want to, can peace, truth and justice prevail.

* Dr. Wangui wa Goro: Kenyan human rights activist, writer, translator, academic and public intellectual. Currently Associate Fellow at the Institute of Human Rights and Social Justice; London Metropolitan University.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

L. Muthoni Wanyeki, executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, recently spoke to AllAfrica.com about a wide range of aspects of the crisis that erupted over Kenya’s disputed presidential election.

On the elections:

The position of my organization, and the coalition we've been working in, has been that the anomalies, malpractices, and illegalities witnessed with respect to the counting and tallying of the presidential vote were substantial enough to alter the outcomes... You have to understand that Kibaki may not be in office legitimately or legally.

On forms of violence:

It’s important to understand this violence not in the way it’s being presented, as though it's... people resorting to deeply-felt innate feelings of tribal hatred and resentment. Actually, the violence has taken very specific forms, the worst of which are highly organized. We've said consistently that we initially saw three, then four forms of violence, the first two of which have mutated and intensified.

The first form was disorganized, spontaneous protest at the announcement of the result – or the supposed result – across the country. That has largely died off or been suppressed. The second form was organized militia activity, beginning in the Rift Valley but then spreading out from Central [Province] in particular. In the Rift it took the form of deaths, destruction of property, displacement of people and so on, but has been responded to by the reactivation of existing militia organizations – like Mungiki – that are now moving out from Central trying to recapture territory that they believe has been lost or ceded, given the displacements that have happened.

Mungiki is an organized militia organization. It began really as a sort of genuine social movement out of internally displaced people from the politically-instigated clashes in the early 1990s. It was very quickly co-opted however by [former President Daniel arap] Moi, by different elements within the regime, to act during times of elections and political organizing. The problem is what you do with a group that's armed, that's trained, once you no longer need them for political purposes. They then took on the form of a protection racquet or mafia within low-income areas of Nairobi and other cities, basically providing protection to citizens and business people within these areas for a fee.

The third form of violence that we saw was the really extraordinary use of force... in trying to contain the protests... largely in Nyanza Province, where most of the deaths that have occurred have been through extra-judicial killings. There's been a very uneven pattern of police response [to protest]... a very heavy deployment around Nairobi in Uhuru Park, where they were trying to prevent ODM [the opposition Orange Democratic Movement] from mobilizing their rallies. Very insufficient security was provided to IDPs [internally displaced persons] and... extreme [police] presence in the stronghold of ODM.
The fourth form of violence is more recent and it has to do with a kind of communal response to the return of IDPs - people hearing their stories, then getting incensed and organizing revenge or retributive attacks on minority communities in the Central and Nairobi areas.

On economic sabotage:

Now the militia that was active in the Rift seems to really have shifted its activity to economic sabotage. They’ve blown up bridges that would connect the transit trade from the [coast] into Uganda; they've blocked the border. They’re allowing people but not goods, services, [or] oil to get through. And obviously the Rift valley is our agricultural breadbasket and the harvest has totally been lost.

Meanwhile, the militia coming out from Central to meet this group are not just carrying out revenge cleansing, they are also... as you leave ethnically homogeneous groups behind, resorting to protection activities. The Kikuyu, for instance, in Central, who have tried to harbor people from other communities, are being forced to pay protection fees for that. But [now] even if they're not harboring anyone, they are having to pay protection fees. So there's an upsurge of that kind of criminality, now outside of the low income areas where it used to be contained.

On police harassment:

With respect to the extraordinary use of force by the police, that seems to have shifted to harassment of human rights defenders, so far... intimidation more than anything else. But there's clearly cooperation between them and a higher level of organized activity or professional activity among the militia.

It’s a very complicated kind of situation, but it is for the most part organized and that's the important point to get across. Most Kenyans, left to their own devices, even though they may be upset and polarized over the election results, would not resort to hacking their neighbors to death. We’ve heard too many stories of people from across communities either providing security or trying to organizing safe passage [for those under threat] to allow us to buy into the myth that Kenyans have ended up descending into our primal ethnic selves.

There are very high levels of organized propaganda, to which people are, I think, responding out of a genuine fear and alarm, not realizing that they are playing into ideas that are being created about this myth of descent into civil war. [It] could happen, but if it did happen it wouldn't be because we descended into it of our own accord, it would be because [some forces] intended to do that.

On the international mediation of the crisis:

The mediation is extremely critical... We hold to our position about [Mwai] Kibaki being in office illegitimately and illegally, not so much at this point in time [to say] that Raila [Odinga] should come in but just... [for Kibaki] to recognize [his]... illegitimacy... and... that even were he legitimate, we have a country that is politically divided 50-50.

In terms of effective governance, in the sense of control over territory, PNU (Kibaki’s Party of National Unity] essentially controls Nairobi and Central province, ODM (Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement] controls everything from Nairobi to the coast, including our port, and everything from Nakuru West, right up to the border. ODM also controls parliament, despite the killings of two of their parliamentarians recently.

In that kind of situation it's ridiculous to try and hold on to power at all costs. Some sort of power sharing agreement has to be reached, but not power-sharing in the sense that PNU has presented it. They have presented it as if they are legitimate, they are in charge, and if they give power-sharing it will be a matter of one or two cabinet seats. That can't work. It can't work in the sense of long-term preparations for [the] 2012 [election].

But it also can't work in terms of the economy. We all know what it was like to go through the period of 1997 to 2002 where, with the threat of the Moi succession hanging over our head, nothing happened... We went into decline.

On reforms:

What we need is an interim power-sharing transitional arrangement in which several things get done. First, obviously, electoral reform, based on what we have called for - an independent audit and investigation into the counting and tallying of the presidential vote to let the whole country see what happened and regardless of the outcome, just to lay that matter to rest except in the sense that it would inform revision of our electoral process.

Second is constitutional reform, particularly around powers of the presidency.
Third would be the beginning of real processes of addressing historical grievances and inequalities and so on.

Fourth would be resettlement and re-enfranchisement of the IDPs.

We think that all of that can happen in a maximum of two years and we need a re-run [election]... The real sticking point is the PNU accepting that there was a problem with electoral fraud. We think that everything that can be done to keep PNU at the table should be done and that would include continually questioning their legitimacy and legality.

On threats to human rights defenders:

Several things have happened. First we received information from four different sources within the police and within intelligence that all of us involved in this coalition that is stressing electoral truth as well as justice around violence were targeted in one way or another and particularly Maina Kiai [chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights]... We all took precautions... Whatever is done will obviously be made to look like ordinary criminality so [we are] careful driving alone, being alone, especially at night, [and with] security in our houses, that sort of thing.

Secondly, when we were releasing our electoral findings, which was meant to be to a closed media briefing... the meeting kept getting flooded by all these young men [from the Kibaki camp], which was a bit intimidating because we did not know what would happen. We alerted hotel security, but then hotel security as it turned out had already been alerted by the police. The place was surrounded by police – it was just an intimidation effort basically. There were people supposedly from the IDP camps protesting outside, you know, calling Maina Kiai, “msaliti, msaliti,” which means “traitor, traitor” because he happens to be Kikuyu, the same ethnicity as the president. The hotel we were at is only a few meters from Uhuru Park, where people weren't allowed to demonstrate but [here] other people clearly were.

Then when we were leaving, there was this heavy [police] presence checking every car supposedly for guns. It was ridiculous, as if any of us would carry arms. Then some of us felt we had been followed. So that was alarming but again it seemed to be an overt kind of intimidation rather than anything else.
[Thirdly] a list was released of supposedly Kikuyu traitors that included many of us, saying we should be targeted in the way Mau Mau targeted traitors during the independence struggle. The implication was that we have not been concerned about the violence – about our own people bearing the brunt of the initial militia attacks – and we are targeting this man who is supposedly our president and representative of our interests. That was scary because we were named and these groups operate outside the law. So that was probably the most disturbing thing.

[Most recently] somebody, purportedly from the General Services Unit, which is a paramilitary unit used for riot control, called the office, asking for a list of names of everyone who had ever provided training for the police and the GSU – supposedly to give us back-paid benefits. Of course the deputy director refused to give the list, and said if they wanted the list they could check their own visitors’ book. They insisted, referred him to someone who was supposedly higher up, and he still refused. Ten minutes later a policeman in uniform on a motorbike was at the office to collect the list.

None of the other organizations that provide human rights training to the police force had this request made of them. Also, in Kenya, the only people who use motorbikes are the traffic police and the presidential escort, so we actually believe this wasn't from the GSU, it was from presidential security somehow.
That is very alarming because in situations like this when security services are polarized, you don't know who is commanding what and what is coming through what kind of controls. Our belief is that NCIS, the intelligence service, knows exactly what we're doing. There is nothing illegal or threatening or seditious about what we're doing. It's what we always do. But it's doubtful whether NCIS's intelligence is being used to inform decisions that are being taken around a situation that is so highly polarized.

On what concerned outsiders can do:

Raise questions with your own governments about non-recognition of the Kibaki government,  about travel bans for people, particularly on the PNU side, about asset freezes, on both sides but particularly on the PNU side, mainly to keep people at the table. People have to realize this is serious, it's not going to die away, and for us this mediation has to work.

Also make it very clear to protagonists within the state, not just in the political parties but in relevant ministries, that the protection of people is critical: from IDPs to human rights monitors on the ground, to leadership of the human rights movement and of the media. You can't have people being exterminated or intimidated just because they are doing their work in a legal fashion.

*L. Muthoni Wanyeki, is the executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. This interview was conducted by AllAfrica.com and first appeared at:

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Nairobi, 4 February 2008; On the last day of the year 2008, we sat previewing a wedding video I had made for my fiancée’s brother, Martin, who was leaving with his bride Sally for South Africa a few days later. Like bad movie editors, we constantly switched from footage of elegant Maasai dancers from the bride’s family and Gikuyu dancers from the grooms family, to television news of paramilitary police in their jungle fatigues keeping rowdy crowds from the Electoral Commissioners of Kenya announcing the election results.

The opposition’s huge lead narrowed and flipped in favour of the incumbent. Suddenly, commotion: brutal force as the Electoral Commission Chairperson was shielded out of the hall. Then he popped up at the Kenya Broadcasting Company, and announced Mwai Kibaki the winner of the presidential elections. Even faster, the president was sworn in.

Cell phones went crazy, everyone calling each other and asking if what we were seeing was true. Then a call: a Luo neighbour had sent his Gikuyu wife packing, ostensibly because the Gikuyus had stolen the presidency from Raila Odinga, a Luo. Then we began to hear the news of mass killings and burning of properties against rival tribes.

The next day I rushed to the supermarket to stock up on food and airtime for my phone. Gunshots and smoke from the neighbouring Kibera slums numbed my stomach. In this forced eviction and ethnic cleansing, where would I go? Hadn’t people like me, mothered by a Taita from Coastal Kenya and fathered by a Luhya from Western Kenya, been Kenya’s pride?

I needed to call mom and ask if she is safe in Western Kenya. It took me two hours of queuing, only to get to the till to find out I could not call my mum. There was no credit. My heart sunk.

In Kisumu, spouses were kicking their Gikuyu loves out. In retaliation, Gikuyus in Central province started hitting back at wives and husbands of the “enemy” tribe. Marriages and relationships are breaking, and with them, the myth of national unity.

In June last year, I accompanied my friend Machogu in his wedding negotiations. His wife is from a different community. “We hear you guys love beating your wives, please treat our daughter well in our community we aren’t known to beat women” “Ha ha! We hear your people steal money please never send her to steal from our son!”

We had laughed it off saying it is only the old people and that they were just joking. Now, our age mates are the ones unleashing their youthful energies in disemboweling and chopping of heads of the rival tribes. Were we naïve to the reality of the hatred in the rest of our country?

The Happy New Year calls from friends are strange this year. “I don’t even know what I saw in Mercy. It is over from today. She can go marry Kibaki.” “John is horrible. If his tribe performs the way he does in bed, no wonder they lost!” Oh? Were we just engaging in intellectual necking when in college we dated across tribes, while in reality when the tribal war drums throb, we dance to the rhythms?

Munene calls. We try to laugh as we muse over the sad situation in our country. “My friend, imagine if you had gotten married to that Kale chic you used to date in college. Now you’d be dodging arrows in Eldoret as your in-laws chase you down the valleys!” The laughter screeches to an uneasy silence. Such jokes are now walking straight out of people’s lips and hacking people to death.

As we talk, my cousin’s wife calls from her rural home where she had gone to spend Christmas with her family. “Is it safe to come back to Nairobi?” She asks. “Yes it is,” I tell her. “Well, here things have gotten tense; people are kicking out all foreigners to revenge what has been done to our tribesmen!”

I sigh. In Taita, some excited youths hounded a particular tribe to the football stadium and told them to “go back to their ancestral land.” My cousin’s wife, if she had been up country, would have been among those - especially now that the husband is far away in Darfur, a soldier keeping peace there!

I go back to bid Sally and Martin goodbye. In South Africa, there are no Gikuyus and Maasai to harass their marriage. Maybe there, they shall build a generation of children like me who can proudly say they are truly Kenyan.

Here it is now a matter of walking in groups where you find solace in speaking the same mother tongue, knowing you can fight off attacks from gangs of the other tribes. However, for some of us, true Kenyans, where do we run?

* Simiyu Barasa is a Kenyan filmmaker and writer. This article is part of the Gender Links Opinion and Commentary Service that provides fresh views on everyday news.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Steve Kibble argues that the upcoming elections in Zimbabwe are tilted to a ruling party victory and will be marred by serious political and technical problems.

The unilateral declaration by President Mugabe of March 29th 2008 as the date for Zimbabwean elections (presidential, house of assembly, senate and local) was followed by the president’s reported statements at the recent African Union summit that he would never accept an opposition victory. This means that the negotiation process between the ruling party Zanu PF and the opposition parties (two fractions of the MDC) undertaken by Zimbabwe’s SADC neighbours is dead. Even if SADC itself publicly applauded this mediation as successful, it privately acknowledged failure. It was widely predicted to fail especially by civil society and progressive church personnel, given the unlikelihood of the ruling ZANU-PF party relinquishing power. It did, however, for a time give some hope as it provided for the first time since 2000 an opening up in an otherwise blocked situation.

South African president Mbeki, charged with bringing a solution to the crisis, staked his reputation on solving the Zimbabwean crisis, even recently telling visiting Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern that a solution was near. But he has been unable to persuade ZANU-PF to take the supposed negotiations seriously. The ruling party, despite concessions by the divided opposition party the MDC, refused to recognise the necessity for a free and fair electoral process and a new democratic constitution to be in place before any elections.

The actual electoral process has not only been geared to a ruling party victory but marked by serious political and technical problems, as well as intimidation. The electoral commission has no independence or impartiality, and the judicial process has still to hear petitions relating to the unfree and unfair elections of 2005. The constituencies have been increased in number and altered to favour the rural population – more under the control of ZANU-PF - and the delimitation exercise was opaque. The voter registration process has been problematic with many left off the register and unable to rectify this within the seven days allowed for inspection of the new roll. Even those who are registered have little or no idea where they are supposed to vote. Independent international election observers and foreign media will not be allowed in.

These elections are taking place in a dire economic and humanitarian situation amid reports of politicisation of food aid The local independent media whilst still alive is fighting for space and due to shortages of paper and power cuts even the state media, has found it difficult to publish its own biased information about elections, for which they are noted. The opposition having said earlier that it would not contest a skewed election, has now decided to stand, although with rival candidates. It acknowledges it will not win under current circumstances but also want “a piece of the small cake”. It will however have massive problems in getting sufficient candidates in place in time and with any access to the population.

This all means that energies are now directed towards a ruling party victory (including the reported hiring of Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, to help them do so) whilst the economy contracts, infrastructure collapses and the population is surviving on a day to day process, even worse failing to, or leaving the country. Some see the presidential electoral challenge to Mugabe by former Finance Minister, Simba Makoni, as opening up a little democratic space and opening up the cracks within the ruling party. Whilst popular in urban areas and amongst the international community, it seems unlikely he can seriously challenge ZANU-PF’s rural hegemony, even if he is supported by powerful ruling party Mugabe opponents such as ex army chief Solomon Mujuru. It may be that his sole impact is to split further the opposition vote.

What other pressures for necessary transformation remain? It is useful to distinguish here between transition and transformation. The SADC process was aimed at the former – with the hope that a reformed and re-elected ZANU-PF minus Mugabe could hope to attract international support for re-engagement and reconstruction. More necessary now, though is a complete overhaul of the repressive, corrupt and ineffectual system of governance. At present neither the opposition party/ies, nor civil society, having been under constant attack, have the capacity to bring about such change and there seems little international or regional support for them to do so. Church leaders have never seemed sure of their role, preferring quiet diplomacy with the government, alleviated by the occasional critical statement, rather than attempting to provide alternative leadership and solutions to the crisis. With former Catholic archbishop Pius Ncube silenced, there are few voices except groups like the Christian Alliance coming forward to lead such a process. Of paramount importance in such a transformation process will be the need to work at and include the grassroots level. Not only in advocating for a people driven constitution – but supporting peoples organising themselves, particularly in the rural areas.

It seems likely that Zimbabweans faced with a 6% shrinking of gross domestic produce last year and 50% decline since 2000, inflation officially at 27,000% and according to the IMF at 150,000%, employment at 8% with formal incomes depreciated by 90%, constant food, crops, fuel, transport and power shortages and continued repression face a disastrous future. The elections will do nothing to halt this spiral of decline. As Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said after his recent visit ‘The economy no longer functions, the health service and education systems have collapsed, most of the skilled workforce has left the country’. Zimbabweans are going to need all the international solidarity and support they can get.

*Steve Kibble is a human rights activist. This article wasriginally commissioned by NigrIzia the Italian faith-based development magazine.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Tanzania Prime Minister Edward Lowassa told Parliament Thursday he had tendered his resignation to the president after being implicated in a corruption scandal over an energy deal. "Because I have been linked to this scandal, I have decided to write to the president asking to be relieved of my duties," the premier told lawmakers during a session of the Dodoma-based Parliament broadcast live on television.

Artisanal fishing provides a critical source of food and income to thousands of Mozambicans, but the ever-increasing local and international demand for fish, combined with rapidly depleting stocks, is putting increasing strain on this way of life. The UN Food and Agriculture Programme (FAO) has estimated that small-scale fishermen, who caught 84,065 tonnes of fish for the domestic market in 2000, will need to catch 171,040 tonnes to help meet local demand by 2025.

A senior official of the ruling Zanu-PF party and former Finance Minister of Zimbabwe has been expelled from the party a day after he had announced to contest against President Mugabe in the 29 March polls. Simba Makoni, an ex-ally of Mugabe, on Tuesday revealed his presidential ambition at a press conference. He pledged loyalty to the party, although he wants to run as an independent candidate. He also wants to un under Zanu-PF colours.

Africa's traditional fruits could boost nutrition, environmental stability and economic development if given the right scientific and agricultural support, says a report. The report, by the National Research Council of America, was released last week (30 January) and is the third in a series by the council called 'Lost Crops of Africa'.

A dispute between the United Nations and the government of Eritrea over fuel supplies has virtually grounded the eight-year-old U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE). The mission was mandated to monitor a peace agreement in the aftermath of a border dispute between the two countries. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned that unless UNMEE, which is based both in Addis Ababa and Asmara, receives fuel "immediately", he will be forced to relocate the peacekeeping mission, and move troops out of the Eritrean capital.

A re-run of the elections without fundamentally changing the constitution of Kenya would simply lead to a re-run of violence .

Power sharing among the political elite would not necessarily translate into a resolution of the problems at the grassroots which is where the crisis is.

Kenyans need massive devolution of power (to tax and spend, resolve and control land issues) to the provincial level and even lower levels. This is what would really let off the political steam.