Saturday, February 03, 2007
KIBAKI AND GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT
Of late there has been talk that Kibaki broke a ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ arrived at prior to the 2002 elections. It is possible there was such an agreement among the parties involved. It is also possible that one of them is not telling the whole truth. It is even possible that all parties are not telling the whole truth. But that is a matter of conjecture whose veracity is very circumspect. What is now evident, and should have been all along, is that politics is a matter of convenience and expedience not about truth and facts. If politics was about truth, George Bush would be in prison over WMD, Saddam would still be lording it over the Kurds.
Politics is a matter of pandering the most good to suit the circumstances, not a matter of showing what a gentleman you are. Ask any Kenyan politician, none can make it in politics if they always told the truth. You have to promise heaven to the electorate and sacrifice your trueness to be relevant in the scheme of things political. Kenyans have been tuned to expect this of their politicians and gentlemen is not their title.
So what if Kibaki acceded to a gentleman’s agreement, this is a matter brokered by parties who can no longer sit down together and even share a cup of tea. Whether it was an agreement among individuals or among political parties, the field has changed drastically and is no longer feasible to enforce it, if at all this was an original intention.
When Raila, Kalonzo, and co walked out and formed different entities, the intent of the agreement was negated as the agreement could only work if the parties continued to be in harmony. By walking out on Kibaki, they walked out of all that held them together, i.e. the gentlemen’s agreement. This was not a social contract with the Kenyan people, who are the ultimate deciders on such issues, it was a matter of political convenience and expediency at a crucial moment in the change of political leadership in our country. The matter has not been in the public domain and the piece-meal nature of its release smirks of desperation and blabbering. If it was very crucial, it should have been hammered from the day Kibaki was sworn and we should have accepted it by now. Nevertheless, the politics of the day desires that Kibaki offer himself for re-election. Let those opposed to this convince the electors that he does not deserve a second term.
ODM-Kenya should learn from the events of 2002 agreement that boardroom brokerage, of political dispensation, is a fluid and volatile engagement acting as a bridge to the vast fertile plains of national largesse. When the people are not involved in the selection process of their flag-bearers, any backroom agreements are subjected to the whims of the selected leader, more so if they are unwritten. Such agreements become secondary to the wishes of the electorate. The selected leader will always fall back on the adage that it is the will of the people when breaking such agreements.
The elections should not be decided on the basis of who agreed with who about what, the elections should be about what has been done and what is going to be done. They should be about deciding who is capable and is best placed to lead the country to claim back its lost glory. They should focus on who is best placed to lead the fight against endemic insecurity, corruption, income inequalities, unemployment and poor infrastructure. The people should judge their leaders by their actions and potential to lead them from current social and economic morass to greater heights of prosperity and affluence. If in doing so, certain gentlemen’s agreements have to be broken, so be it.
Politics is a matter of pandering the most good to suit the circumstances, not a matter of showing what a gentleman you are. Ask any Kenyan politician, none can make it in politics if they always told the truth. You have to promise heaven to the electorate and sacrifice your trueness to be relevant in the scheme of things political. Kenyans have been tuned to expect this of their politicians and gentlemen is not their title.
So what if Kibaki acceded to a gentleman’s agreement, this is a matter brokered by parties who can no longer sit down together and even share a cup of tea. Whether it was an agreement among individuals or among political parties, the field has changed drastically and is no longer feasible to enforce it, if at all this was an original intention.
When Raila, Kalonzo, and co walked out and formed different entities, the intent of the agreement was negated as the agreement could only work if the parties continued to be in harmony. By walking out on Kibaki, they walked out of all that held them together, i.e. the gentlemen’s agreement. This was not a social contract with the Kenyan people, who are the ultimate deciders on such issues, it was a matter of political convenience and expediency at a crucial moment in the change of political leadership in our country. The matter has not been in the public domain and the piece-meal nature of its release smirks of desperation and blabbering. If it was very crucial, it should have been hammered from the day Kibaki was sworn and we should have accepted it by now. Nevertheless, the politics of the day desires that Kibaki offer himself for re-election. Let those opposed to this convince the electors that he does not deserve a second term.
ODM-Kenya should learn from the events of 2002 agreement that boardroom brokerage, of political dispensation, is a fluid and volatile engagement acting as a bridge to the vast fertile plains of national largesse. When the people are not involved in the selection process of their flag-bearers, any backroom agreements are subjected to the whims of the selected leader, more so if they are unwritten. Such agreements become secondary to the wishes of the electorate. The selected leader will always fall back on the adage that it is the will of the people when breaking such agreements.
The elections should not be decided on the basis of who agreed with who about what, the elections should be about what has been done and what is going to be done. They should be about deciding who is capable and is best placed to lead the country to claim back its lost glory. They should focus on who is best placed to lead the fight against endemic insecurity, corruption, income inequalities, unemployment and poor infrastructure. The people should judge their leaders by their actions and potential to lead them from current social and economic morass to greater heights of prosperity and affluence. If in doing so, certain gentlemen’s agreements have to be broken, so be it.
