sent by Iqbal Halani

END OF AN ATERERE ERA

The Sunday Standard, Nairobi
  December 16, 2007 
By Waikwa Wanyoike  
The writer is a lawyer based in Toronto, Canada
 
In 2002, when Kibaki was elected President, I believed he had an opportunity to emerge as a statesman. I thought I had enough good reasons to have such an expectation.

At 73, I assumed he would want to cap his career by leaving an unassailable legacy. He was a rich man, and had been so for sometime. Hence, I could not think he had any interest in using the Office of the President to enrich himself or his kin.

In addition, most of his known friends were independently wealthy men and women. As such, there was no expectation they would need more financial greasing from a Kibaki presidency.

Furthermore, Kibaki had served in several prestigious political offices.

I therefore believed because of his profile, the presidency would bring him little excitement, and as such he would maintain a nationalistic, sober, principled and focused leadership.

More importantly though, I thought Kibaki had seriously reflected on how he had won the presidency – through a concerted and nationalistic campaign, where, uncharacteristic of Kenyans politics, almost all Kenyan communities united to ensure his Narc party won the elections. Persons, who, conventionally, would not have been expected to campaign for him, spent their last iota of energy to ensure he became President.

The main motivation for Kenyans to vote in Kibaki was their genuine expectation that he would nurture and promote national reconciliation. They also believed he would oversee true social, political and economic prosperity.

Unfortunately, to my and I assume most Kenyans dismay, Kibaki proved all the foregoing predictions wrong. Five years into his leadership, the country is highly ethnically polarised, for reasons so well known to Kenyans. President Kibaki has excelled in creating an atmosphere that largely excites emotions of tribal nationalism.

True, he may have modestly succeeded in other areas, but Kenya can hardly afford another Kibaki presidency.

I contend that at the cradle of Kenya’s success, nothing is more important than nurturing genuine sense of nationalism.

I believe this country will only achieve true progress, when Kenyans appreciate they share a similar destiny and accept that any success predicated on tribal or regional identity is temporary and superficial.

Kibaki is the least qualified of all the presidential candidates to instill the desperately needed sense of nationalism.

The Kibaki’s administration, in the last five years, pursued a conscious and open tribal agenda. Kenyans felt their chance at national participation did not depend on objective credentials but on their ethnicity.

It is possible, though highly improbable that Kibaki has had a change of heart during campaigns. His various electoral pledges to make his next Government many not be genuine.

However, this cannot take away the fact that Kenyans, especially from regions that were ostracised and or ignored, view Kibaki very suspiciously.

President Kibaki betrayed the nationalistic dream many Kenyans felt on December 30, 2002. The mere energy needed to dispel these negative and suspicious feelings harboured by Kenyans against him, is enough to justify his dismissal on December 27. President Kenyans deserve

Kenyans deserve a president who they believe, or at least can give the benefit of the doubt that he or she will cultivate a sense of nationalism. But because of his record, it is foolhardy to expect Kenyans to give Kibaki the benefit of doubt on this front.

Without Kenyans’ goodwill, it is unlikely that whatever efforts, if any, that Kibaki may initiate in trying to achieve national reconciliation will yield results.

Worse still, Kibaki’s strategy for re-election raises serious doubts whether any national reconciliation is possible under his leadership.

The fact that Kibaki has conveniently promoted and courted tribal and regional political outfits for support, indicates his re-election would only heighten national fragmentation.

It is indeed telling that a President who assumed power through a national movement is clinging on, and in fact promoting, tribal and regional groupings for his re-election. It would be naÔve to expect him to have genuine commitment to nationalism.