REFORM PROCESS NEED NOT BE DRAMATIC,DEMAGOGIC

THE STANDARD
NAIROBI, KENYA
April 8, 2009
By Moses Kuria

The shenanigans being played out in the political arena may appear like a soap opera but, they involve issues that have a major bearing on the nation’s survival.

The reform train is being faced with stark dangers from two sources, both of which spell doom. On the one front are people who want to frustrate reforms for selfish ends. This group is not new. Since 1990, we have seen cyclical attempts at achieving reform. Unfortunately, all achieved little and were sacrificed at the altar of vested interests and myopic short-termism.

The second danger is from drama kings and queens. These are people who scream loudest about reform but think it is not in their interests for it to actually be achieved. For them, reform is a weapon to achieve political ends. They want to delay meaningful change as much as possible, because as long as there is no reform, they can continue claiming ownership of the reform agenda. They can claim to be reformers-par-excellence and portray their adversaries as dyed-in-the-wool demagogues and reactionaries. With friends like these, the reform movement needs no enemies. While genuine reform is frustrated by the first group, the second is even more dangerous.

Both have motivation for their resistance. Both are investors in the prevailing chaos, from which they reap handsome dividends. True reformists should be concerned about the real stumbling blocks as well as the high priests of pretence who shout loudest about reform while their real game is of musical chairs and splitting hairs.

To rescue reforms, we need to borrow from US statesman General Colin Powell, whose Gulf war doctrine had a clear objective, maximum force and a clear exit strategy.

SESSIONAL PAPER

If the reform movement’s ultimate objective is muddled with perceived one-upmanship and scoring of petty political points, it will fall like a house of cards. If sections of society feel reform is a euphemism for retribution and legitimising political ambitions, we are better off embarking on more achievable objectives like religious revivalism. To crystallise the national objectives of the reform initiative, we may need to develop a sessional paper. Economic Planning Minister Tom Mboya did not hold rallies and press conferences to articulate his reform aspirations. Instead, he published ‘Sessional Paper No 10 on African Socialism’, which served a generation.

Today, reform is marked by much motion and little movement. Those shouting loudest have no draft road map for debate. Instead, we hear of reforms and have no idea where they are to start. Judicial reform today is all about Gicheru resigning. This limited approach is also seen in talk of police reforms, land reforms, ‘historical injustices’ and regional imbalances.

Nobody knows where the reform agenda starts or ends. For example, Agenda Four includes opportunities for the youth: Is the Kazi kwa Vijana initiative part of its implementation? The Minister for Lands has been talking about taking the Draft National Land Policy to the Cabinet for deliberations. He has not done so. When he finally does, will another major chunk of Agenda Four have been achieved?

A sessional paper on the reform agenda would help calibrate the process, create a universally acceptable scorecard and benchmarks, and offer clear objectives. Then, we can move it forward with maximum force. Reform will be a national way of life, not empty clichÈs to be vomited at press conferences. It will be owned by all 37 million citizens and not be the monopolistic reserve of those with their eyes on the 2012 General Election.

Finally, while our vision for reform should not be blurred by 2012, we must realise the poll is a major milestone and test. Therefore, no matter what happens, we must ensure that by December 2010, we must be done with the bulk of the reforms. This way we can use 2011 to acclimatise to the reform environment and then move to 2012 with the new realities.

It is the responsibility of all citizens, not just our political leaders, to claim a piece of the reform responsibility. Civil society, particularly, has to demonstrate that it can be a neutral catalyst in the process. Any partisanship on their side may embolden the cynics who believe that the alternative sector actors are slowly turning out to be the ‘evil society’.