The Year, It Seems, Will End With a Whimper!

The year 2008, it seems, will end with a whimper -- such as it did not begin with. So it seems, at 5.14 p.m., here in Nairobi.

Of course, I know there is bloody fighting over there in the Middle East [Israel does have an inalienable right to defend itself, and Palestinians have a God-given right to a safe and secure home. So, where does that leave the Hamas militants who unilaterally provoked the latest bloodbath?]

But I'm talking about Nairobi and about Kenya, as I watch the year tick away toward the last midnight. The bloodbath that began this time last year was here, not there.

And yet, as they say, it aint over till it's over. There are a few hours yet.

How was your last day of the year? Quiet and ordinary was mine. A little pensive, thinking back to this time last year; which is why this year began, for us, as it did -- and seemingly will end quite differently. A lot pensive, in fact.

Did a little walkabout in town. Bought two (perhaps contraband) CDs of Congolese Oldies and Goodies (Veve's music). Some memories die hard.

Even bumped into my VC at a supermarket in town -- completely unexpectedly. He was gracious enough to step over for to exchange a few pleasantries. Of course he is always gracious in those one-on-ones. That's my experience. But we hadn't previously met at a supermarket, or even outside the campus. It was, then, a surprise encounter -- and I was rather surprised at my surprise.

It has been a quite year for me, and in several ways quite re-energizing. I think Joan, my wife, would agree. But I have to stop this blogging now, for I have to go see her, before the year runs out.

The Nyangoma-Kogelo Man, c.2008

First see the Razzi's picture. Then read this caption:

He wears his own mask. And
He carries his own water-
Gourd. Bathed is he, truly,
In the glare -- of the very
Sun he is. Our very eyes.

Yet no eye is believable!

Weighs what is to become
In his own right hand.
As we have weighed ours.
Walks as he walks toward
What he must 'deed become.

That's how we walked the earth.

Tourism Training at the Degree Level in Kenya

I visited the website of Kenya's Ministry of tourism. This is the far-from-complete information that the site continues to tell the world about tourism training in Kenya: Click here to see. One might be excused to think that that part of the website is administered by someone who is neither interested in, nor embarrased in not telling, the whole truth about tourism training in this country. So I decided to use the "contact us" link at the website to send the email which I reproduce below. The email will probably be read tomorrow, Monday, at the earliest, so consider this an advance copy for the time-being:

Dear Sir,

Your website has information about tourism-related training in Kenya, and I congratulate you for that. You do mention the pioneer institution in this field, Utalii College; and that’s fine. One glaring omission continues at the website, however, given that Utalii College does not, let me add YET, train any students at the degree level.

The fact that the University of Nairobi has been offering a degree in B.A. Tourism since 2001 continues to escape the attention of all who manage the website, and indeed of the entire ministry’s official attention. Or is this deliberate neglect and “ignorance”?

Several cohorts of tourism students have in fact already graduated from the University of Nairobi. In the September-December 2008 semester, I may add, the University of Nairobi admitted over 70 tourism students. Only yesterday, December 20, we were invigilating 73 students taking their end-of-semester examination in CTO 101: Introduction to Tourism. By the time this semester’s final examination period ends on December 24th, tourism students from Level I to Level IV (the graduating level) will have been examined in a combined total of over sixteen courses.

We are striving to train high-level HR for the tourism sector here. It would help if the website, and those at the Ministry’s headquarters, acknowledged the simple truth and reality. You are giving the world the wrong impression of the depth of tourism training in Kenya.

And kindly remember that the University of Nairobi is not the only [Kenyan] institution offering tourism courses at the degree level. I just happen to be at the big U of N, to have been central to the launch of the tourism programme, and to be proud of what we are trying to accomplish here, with much enthusiasm despite your looking the other way!

Saga of the Lame Duck Who Could Duck Shoes and Stuff

Click here to start the saga of Bush's improbably moral virtual unbungled unfinal parallel journey>> Saga starts

Noooo! I didn't see that! Did you see that? Is he that quick?

X-ray vision?

Tell me this wasn't real, but too real. It was all a concoction to make Bush thrilled, a sort of farewell party.

How could the journalist have plotted all that when he didn't know Bush was coming in the first place -- to that place? If he didn't know, how would he have known he would be invited? Allright, there had been a rumour. They're all invited? How dumb! All of them? Then this was coming all along! Then why didn't Bush just stay home? After all, it'll be all over on January 20.

That's the whole point?

And shoes? Allright, heavy duty disposable good for nothing dime a dozen made in america maybe ready to go sandals. OK, he didn't know the guy was coming and that's why he didn't have stones in his pocket.

It was all an act, and that wasn't really Bush. Couldn't you tell? It was all hollywood, like the moon-landing! Bush wasn't really in I-Raq. It was all Laura's prank, really. Or Jena's. Something to laugh about at Christmas, now that Thanksgiving's over. The joke's on us!

The real Bush was in Dallas, not Baghdad (too much Saddam there right now), clearing up some stuff about his new pad. So, what would he say?

Was the man's aim as bad as that or is Bush, the impersonator, that good? Were the man's venom-weighted words as off-target as his shoes, or did they get the impersonated, untranslated, Bush more than we know? I mean, all that stuff about orphans and widows -- from a man too small for his shoes! Mr. President, only you can tell us.

That wasn't a duck, in that water. That wasn't even water.

And, yes, that was a hawk! Hawkeye Bush. Bushie Hawkeye. I swear I could see the adrenalin pump, as only cowboys can pump. Did you see Bush's thrill at the first miss? Did you see the boxer in him -- the subtle left-right bob? Like, bring it on, buddy. Like, float like a butterfly. Hold that sting!

I swear I saw a touch of Ali. Like, is that all you got?

And to see that, after all Bush has done, Al Maliki couldn't wouldn't didn't take a hit for him -- not even one miserable hit! Just stood there dumbfounded, with a half-stretched hand. A case of Maliki see, Maliki Doolittle, if you ask me. And yet: damned if he does, and damned if he don't.

I bet the shoes are destined for the I-Raqi MOMA (Art, Antiquity, whatever) now. There'll be occasional borrowings by the Bush Presidential Library, you betcha. Worth a million now. A million more tomorrow.

Who says the duck's lame when the duck's so nimble? But all's well that ends well.

They must be cheering all over Texas, right now. In all the gyms. All the talk shows.

Allovamerika. As Bush loves America.

They had forgotten that he is that kind of man, and that he had it in him. Those eye-crossing chads, which he collected more of in 2000 than Al, they were not all a fluke.

Shame on all the presidents and premiers who cannot float -- who cannot duck a vituperative, leave alone a missile. Shame on on all their houses! Take a leaf from Dubya.

Noooo! I don't believe any of that. None of that American fiction!

Moral of the Story: All I know now, from all this, is that, as long as you're alive (and the longer you're alive the more so), you'll never see enough! Abridged Story of the Moral: You aint seen what you aint seen!

Independence Day

The people deserve the leaders they get, so the saying goes. Then the leaders get the respect they deserve from the people, who deserve them, or so it seems these days.

Kenya's Independence Day celebrations of 12th December 2008, the 45th since 1963, were the most chaotic ever. We prefer to call it Jamhuri Day – Republic Day – for on December 12th 1964, exactly a year after independence, Kenya became a republic – finally putting an end to the Queen of England’s constitutional role as Kenya’s residual Head of State. That same Elizabeth II who, once upon a time in Kenya, went up a tree a princess and came down a queen the very following morning! We still love her!

A DIGRESSION: Don’t get me wrong: chaos, Santayana teaches, is any order that causes confusion in our minds. The confusion is not in the order, not in the extant state of affairs, but in our minds, says he. It’s the mind that the order, ordered as the order might be, confuses. Yet Santayana does not say whose mind’s eye sees the order when our minds are, as he sees it, confused. DIGRESSION ENDS.

For the first time ever, unthinkable (funny?) but it’s true, the President could not finish his address to the nation – historically the centerpiece of the day’s events. The speech is in fact supposed to cascade throughout the country. Not only is it aired live by the electronic media, but the text is also read out, though not simultaneously, in all of Kenya’s Provinces by the Provincial Commissioners (PCs), in all the Districts by the DC’s, and in all the Divisions by the District Officers (DOs). In the Districts and Divisions, the occasion offers an opportunity to local dignitaries to address the gatherings before the President’s speech is read and the proceedings closed.

Incidentally, on this same occasion last year, near Holo, the Kisumu West DC would not let me talk, though he was aware of my presence and allowed others conected to the incumbent MP, who was himself not there. I belonged to the wrong party, I suppose; but I also thought he was trying to stay on the right side of an incumbent several aspirants were trying to dislodge. I was of course disgusted, and I could see that other people were too. I felt the kind of discust which I imagine all gagging engenders, and which the President must have felt this December 12th.

But some eight Kilometers away at Kombewa, last year, I had caught up with the on-going events at the Divisional level, and the DO, a lady, had let me speak without a fuss and even with the respect befitting a parliamentary aspirant. I was pleased and, let me confess, offered crates of soda to the 150 or so raia in attendance. Others drank too. It was a hot day, but talk about cocacolonization! I also knew that the President entertains plenty at State House on this day, after the public gathering, but he does not use his own money!

Back to this year: It is not Yambo who cannot speak at the District gathering, I was happily at my computer “on” Gandhi Wing this time, but the President who cannot complete his speech, and so continue a tradition, at the national event! It is not Yambo whom some District “arm of government” with no civic virtue stops, but the President (and I suspect the Prime Minister) whom the people give the respect they think he deserves (both deserve) these days – just about two weeks from the first anniversary of his ECK-declared ”victory”, and the latter's "defeat”!

Exactly what happened this December 12th, and why, is all over Saturday's newspapers. Let me summarize as follows: There were demonstrations and heckling in Nairobi and certain other parts of Kenya at venues where the day’s celebrations were held. The crowd was simply not its usual cheering self – something which had been noticed with less buzz at Raila’s home-coming party in the Kibera slums about two weeks ago. It had reason, reasons, to be glum. And serious security lapse was witnessed, at the VIP section of Nyayo Stadium, the venue. An un-vetted man with an agenda, a Mr. Frederick Odhiambo – a known member of Bunge la Wananchi (Parliament of the People, or The People’s Parliament) – deliberately found his way to a seat just ten meters away from the President. He did not sit quietly throughout, nor did make noise till close to the end (which is when his presence was noticed by the President’s security detail, and his unscripted noise caused a helter-skelter of action) – which is when the Nyayo Stadium show came to a sudden stop!

Let’s put it this other way: The public’s foul mood was already much in evidence when that happened. And so was the President’s. Both President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga had already been openly heckled. The manhandling earlier in the day, in full view of the crowd, of a protesting Mong’are (aka Nyambane), one of Kenya’s most famous comedians, had not helped matters. It was all so contagious, as Christakis might have noted were he there. Still, the belated discovery of Odhiambo’s presence was the proximate catalyst for that abrupt end.

Three wedge issues were the reason for all this unbecoming turn of events on a great ceremonial day. First, the continuing shortage and escalating price of unga (maize flour) and other consumables across the country. This is partly the consequence of widespread post-election violence which the country suffered early this year, and partly the result of mafia-like scheming in certain high places broadly in the docket of the Minister for Agriculture. Talk on the street is that YK92 is regrouping at the Ministry. Lack of access to unga of course means njaa (hunger), which sections of the crowd periodically reminded the leaders of.

Second, the disquieting continuation of tax-free emoluments to Parliamentarians and other holders of constitutional offices. Third, the passage by Parliament of the much-resented Media Bill -- the Kenya Communications (Amendment ) Bill, 2008, known in certain quarters as the ICT Bill – whose effect will be, inter alia, to vigorously gag the media, and which now awaits only the President’s assent before it becomes law.

It is of course hypocritical for certain circles in ODM to declare belatedly that they will take government to court, a government in which they are coalition partners, if the President signs the Media Bill into law. Where were they when Parliament, in which they control nearly 50% of the votes, was voting in the bill? Yet that is not the only reason for the public’s gripe, and it is hypocritical to make pronouncements and act as though it is. Why have they not mobilized their voting block to get Parliamentarians to pay taxes like other law-abiding citizens? In fact, to demonstrate seriousness of purpose and unequivocal empathy with the people, ODM MPs should voluntarily ask for their pay to be taxed as they wait for Parliament to act. Anything less than that is just so much hot air.

Persistence Is The Thing

Persistence is the thing.
Got to get it -- right.
The persistent perseveres.
The perseverer persists.
Persistence. Perseverence!

The Happiness Contagion

Happiness, it seems, is a communal thing. The more people we have around us that are happy, the happier we are; in part on account of their being happy in the first place and in part, yes, because we do, or happen to, know them and to be close to them. Tell that to the "happy native"!


This major re-discovery is brought to our attention by two exciting scholars: Nicholas Christakis (Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, and Department of Sociology, Harvard University) and James Fowler (Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego).

In a longitudinal social network study published in the British Medical Journal on December 4th, 2008, and titled "Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study," the authors report that happiness is contagious and that it spreads dynamically within social networks.

The two authors had sought to "evaluate whether happiness can spread from person to person and whether niches of happiness form within social networks." The specific social network of interest to them was the pre-existing Framingham Heart Study social network, in the state of Massachusetts. The heart study social network has existed since 1948. The authors tracked data on 4,739 participants (or "egos") -- the "offspring cohort" of the participants of the original 1948 study -- for a twenty-year period, running from 1983 to 2003.

But "egos" alone do not a network make. To highlight the dimensions of the network the authors chose to deal with, let us quote them at length:

"Each ego in this cohort is connected to other people via friendship, family, spousal, neighbour, and coworker relationships. Each relationship is a "social tie." Each person who has a relationship with an ego was called an "alter." For example, one ego in the offspring cohort had 18 alters: a mother, a father, a sister, two brothers, three children, two friends, five neighbours, and three coworkers. We wanted to know how each of these alters influences an ego. Many of the alters also happened to be members of a studied cohort in Framingham, which means that we had access to detailed information about them as well. Overall, within the entire Framingham Heart Study social network, composed of both the egos and any detected alters in any Framingham Heart Study cohort, there were 12067 individuals who were connected at some point in 1971-2003."

The study yielded six major findings:

1. That "Clusters of happy and unhappy people" were "visible in the network" and that "the relationship between people’s happiness extends up to three degrees of separation (for example, to the friends of one’s friends’ friends)."

2.That being surrounded by many happy people and being "central in the network" make one "more likely to become happy in the future."

3. That, moreover, "clusters of happiness" are precisely the consequence of "the spread of happiness", rather than the symptom of "a tendency for people to associate with similar individuals."

4. That living within a mile (some 1.6km) of a friend who becomes happy increases the probability that one is likewise happy by 25%. The probability increases by 8% among coresident spouses, 14% among siblings who live within 1.6 km of each other, and 34% among next-door neighbours.

5. That this happiness contagion is "not seen between coworkers."

6. That time and geographical separation have a weakening effect on this contagion.


The authors' main conclusion from the study is this:

"People’s happiness depends on the happiness of others with whom they are connected. This provides further justification for seeing happiness, like health, as a collective phenomenon."

If happiness is as contagious as that, is it really a stretch to infer that community life is likewise contagious? Might not all this "contagious" (this viral) thinking also lead us to the more fundamental conclusion that humans are social animals not because they are social (they live in social groups) -- that would be a tautology -- but because social life is itself contagious? But in what ways would this contagion be different from Durkheimian solidarity?

Feast of The Immaculate Conception

Today, Catholics the world over celebrate the feast of The Immaculate Conception of Mary mother of Jesus. It is the 532nd such celebration, the first having been presided over by Pope Sixtus IV on December 8th 1476, so long ago. However, historical evidence suggests that the memetic roots of the Immaculate Conception trace back to ninth century England.

As a Catholic, who was once a Sacristan, I must confess that at some point I lost the distinction -- which I suppose we were once as catechists taught, taught when our English was still raw (which is not the same thing as the English in us) and when, perhaps, our attention was raging to be elsewhere -- between the immaculate conception of Mary herself and the virginal birth of her son, and God's son, Jesus Christ the Redeemer. The point being made to us was that she conceived and delivered Him when/while/though she was a virgin, but her own mother had not herself been a virgin.

Over the years I have fused the two notions, forgetting (and presently and belatedly surprised) that we were in our youth asked to believe that Mary herself was born without original sin, essentially taking the immaculate conception to be about the conditions of Jesus' own birth. I totally missed that fine point. No wonder I didn't become the priest my late father, a devout Catholic who must now be in heaven, had dreamt that I, his eldest, would be.

As it turns out, however, I was not alone in this. It is even possible that many and perhaps most Catholics, nowadays, wallow in that confusion. To re-frame Santayana's notion of chaos, that distinction is an "order of thought", a liturgical order, which brings confusion in our minds.

Though her conception was shorn of the "stain" of the original sin, which Adam and Eve committed somewhere here in Africa and perhaps East Africa (if the human-origin narrative of DNA experts is to be tagged to the biblical account of the Garden of Eden and the goings on at the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge), it was the product of sexual intercourse. In contrast, Jesus was conceived as a result of the Word, relayed to Mary by God's own angelic emissary, Gabriel. His was virginal conception, and just as endowed with grace.

When first mooted by Sixtus IV, the concept of the Immaculate Conception was not labelled a dogma of the Church; that is, as something which believers must believe. This left Catholics, who chose to, free to treat it as untrue, without the risk of excommunication on grounds of heresy. It was declared a dogma only in the 19th Century -- more precisely on December 8th, 1854 -- by Pope Pius IX.

That dogma was taught to my parents, both devout; and later to us, but perhaps only in passing. I think the confusion in our minds arose from the fact that we were being asked to believe two very ngumu ("hard"), very counter-intuitive, ideas rolled up essentially into one. A choice was made. And since Mary was not the Daughter of God, nobody went that far, it was easier to take away from her the more poetic and graceful notion of immaculate conception, which was indeed her's, and to attach it to Jesus -- whose own label of "virginal birth" somehow rang too mundane. Perhaps I am projecting a present thought-process into a past in which we thought rather more at face value, rather more intuitively. But perhaps the point here is that the two thought-processes meet at the very same standpoint.

I stop here, for I simply wanted somehow to link this day with a part of my youth, to toss up ideas which continue to puzzle. To learn more about all this, the reader must click here: A History of the Immaculate Conception.

Obama: Who Says We're Expecting Anything From Him?

Since Obama's election as the 44th President of the United States (of America, not the World), and indeed in the months before that, there's been this refrain in certain predictable circles in Kenya and abroad: Don't expect anything from Obama.

It's been as if to say: He's American, you know -- not an African, not a Kenyan, and certainly not a Jaluo Jeuri! He's not one of us! You're hoping against hope! Get real!

But who says we're expecting anything from him? We're expecting everything!

Against the background of all the dysfunctional leadership we have around, bar none -- and after four decades plus of cruel acts of betrayal and selfish narrow-mindedness by our succession of leaders we elected to mind the store -- certainly we in Kenya will not allow ourselves to expect anything less. There's much time -- too much time, even -- to make up for with this sudden turn of Ebony Fortune.

The irony is that those who swear that we, "the people we've been waiting for", will get nothing are not embarrased to hear themselves complain why electric power and a graded road are only now reaching Kogelo. They can't stand a comedian's joke that Dholuo is going to be the language of choice at the US embassy in Nairobi. They can't stand the simple fact that Obama is not from somewhere else.

The point -- in all of this "Great Expectation", all of this "Audacity of Hope" -- is this: It's all right to hope again -- 'cause Obama, a citizen of the world, sez so! Human and fallible though he is, everyone expects everything from him -- and that's all right.

In the end, everyone will settle for whatever he, of the genuine heart, will deliver. That'll be all right too; for who said we, the very same pieces, can't pick up the pieces from there?

It's all right, once again, to be audacious. Obama says. And so do we!

Laurent Nkunda: The Rogue that Africa Does not Need

Nkunda terrorizes Eastern Congo like a spoilt brat who thinks the world owes him -- owes him something he knows deep down he cannot say in front of grown men ; grown men who will not hesitate to tell him what they think. Obasanjo is such a man. Obasanjo says he does not know what Nkunda really wants, and has gone to Eastern Congo to find out. Let Nkunda not waffle, and let Obasanjo not let him get away with it!

Of course, Nkunda knows what he really wants, but he dare not speak its name lest he and whoever his godfather(s) are be publicly exposed at long last for what they really are (and have been): self-aggrandizing plunderers disguised as the region's conscience, and using as their calculated cover the world's enduring sense of guilt regarding the Rwanda genocide of 1994. But the world, it seems, is gradually turning around to the view that Kigali itself (like Nairobi) is providing spirited cover for one or two of the genocide culprits.

What Nkunda really wants, most discerning observers believe, is this and more of this: Click here. But that wealth belongs to DRC, which no "hot pursuit" excuses can detract from.

I think before they left Nairobi last week, the African leaders gathered here should have asked President Kagame point blank what he really wants in Eastern Congo. They did not invite him here for nothing. They should have proceeded to tell him, as diplomatically as possible, that neither he nor Nkunda will get it. They should have told him that DRC has its owners, the people of the Congo -- disorganized and demoralized as they may presently be. He is not one of them! They should have told him that a peaceful and prosperous DRC (a "lung of the earth") would be more consequential to Africa's future prosperity than Rwanda will ever be -- much as we love Rwanda.

What Obasanjo should tell Nkunda to his face, after he hears what is likely to be a fudged answer, is to get out of the Congo and to behave himself. Perhaps only he, an ex-military man, can tell off Nkunda in that fashion -- and get him back to common sense.

President Obama: Here Comes The Sun!

For us in Kenya, "at this moment," here comes our son (wuodwa). He is far from prodigal, and is much beloved even if only lately beheld! Behold -- the son!

He has done us proud -- even though we waited, merely, in the villages; waited for him to arrive from a long and winding journey, with many forks along his path. We did not go half the way to meet him -- dying though we were, with the anxiety and pain of waiting. While he searched for the mythical White House, and a crown which no eye can see, we waited in villages we have occupied for centuries with the fortitude and memory and wariness of a people among whom migration is the very essence of folklore, and king-making is second nature.

For the world: Here comes the Sun!

It was a good thing that they did over there in America, last night -- this morning, here in Kenya -- as the world watched, waiting, as someone once said, to exhale. It was a good thing that they looked as deep into their conscience and their souls as they did, as Fall, ominous and tantalizing Fall, deepened and darkened amid all the buzz. And that they did not despair. They saw, reflected there, him. Him!

He had known for a while, for he could see with eyes that have seen farther than his age, that they saw what he strove so hard (despite his eloquence) to tell them -- that they saw in their minds' eyes what he saw in his -- and that they were in the end unperturbed by the choice that they were prepared, in their millions, to make. At this time. And though there is no telling until the choice is with finality made, we are free at last to have our sigh of relief -- to heave with possibility.

How "sweet" it is to have this day of euphoria, and even ectasy -- even if this once only, for now, and even if all over (for as long as we want this thing to last) --in which we can, finally, purge all that unspeakable fear of betrayal and bad faith we had firmly locked up inside; in which we can contemplate, with utter relief and the abundance of joy we allow ourselves, the solemnity and grandeur and historicity not of what is to come but of what is, unbelievably, right here, here right here, before our own very tired -- our very own -- eyes, and "at this moment." Eyes wrapped around the surreality of this real and impossible thing. How Mumias-Sugar "sweet" to have been here and, as he (epitome of love) loves to say, "at this time."

It is a good thing, too, that America, reaffirming the possibility of all that is good in all of us who are good, has caused the world to be not saddened but exceedingly happy, and awash in tears of joy and in the relief self-evident in Jackson's unabashed tears; and that the world has found a reason, in that same relief of happiness and happiness of relief, to embrace America as America has never perhaps been embraced, or imagined it could be. America has made the world happy, as perhaps the world has never been collectively and simultaneously and everywhere happy -- even if for a moment. And in embracing America the world in fact embraces itself -- in a tight circle of emergent, effervescent, audacious hybridity.

And so it is that what has come to pass has come to pass, so that what is is. And thus it is that he -- the very same Obama, the very apt Renegade, that verily singular Ker -- intones: "We are the people we have been waiting for!"

Has there never been (never, ever) such a meme -- at once powerful and improbable, at once political and cultural, at once special and one of us -- as Obama, that we allow ourselves so many praise-words? Perhaps not -- not that we can remember with euphoric memories. Will there ever be, again? We dare to hope yes, for our own sakes! Yes we can crawl up to our possibilities -- and fly past them. Yes we can fly!

P.S.
1. Here's a photostream of Team Obama, back-stage, on election night: Photostream
2. And here's a video of President-Elect Obama's November 4th Victory Speech

Beyond McCain's Obscene Erraticism

McCain's recent spate of erratic political behavior is not so much in view now, thank goodness. There has been some success in keeping it under wraps and from public view. Success by default, one ventures the thought; for one suspects that it could break out all over again, any time soon, given the requisite mix of stress and delusion -- though the clock is surely running out.

October's slipping away, even as McCain speaks -- speaks of a victory that, he still believes, is sure to come his way (and that the rest of us know, more and more, isn't coming). CNN's trio of Paul, Alex and David [David -- not George as originally posted], and others, opine that all McCain really has is four days (from yesterday) to turn his fortunes around. Four days do not an eternity make: and why did I find myself in agreement with the trio between 5 and 6 this morning -- Nairobi/Baghdad time?

The erraticism was/is obscene, but the "ill-logic" that accompanied and "survives" it leaves all ill at ease. To the rest of the world, and I think to most American voters, if there's anybody that's truly "scary", it's not Obama but McCain.

Let me speak for the rest of the world, if I may, very briefly. The rest of the world will welcome with warm embrace America's choice of Obama as their next President. It will be a good thing. Sarkozy thinks so -- told The One himself. The Chinese do. Europe does. So does Africa. Kenya can't wait for the ecstasy, however brief, that's to come -- the same Kenya from which someone wrote several months ago that "Obama is not one of us", and in which the gutter press has issued a list of prominent local politicos who will not be all that crazy about an Obama victory. "But, if he is not one of us," I would like to ask her belatedly, "are you one of me?"

We, the rest of the world, are used to feeling good for others in their own success. We have no kimnadhoo. We cheer when champs Brazil win the world cup, and even desire that they do. But when Argentina does, we cheer (for they are champs too). When China succeeds at the Olympics, a triple success, we cheer. We want to cheer America when America does good. It's not none of our business.

Indeed, McCain is very much our business. The man's scary, and we worry that someone thinks we shouldn't worry. You cannot, we fear, have a reasonable argument with the man without being subjected to a barrage of convoluted argument without inner consistency -- and/or without the man's throwing a tantrum of one kind or another. The world would be (would have been) a thoroughly stressed, distressed and even intimidated place during a McCain presidency. Fortunately, it's not going to happen!

The scare goes deeper, since McCain claims that he knows how to win wars -- though I bet that not even Google can show us any hot war he's ever won. He even revealed this week, with some "bintu" pride, that he had been on a navy ship just off Cuba during the missile crisis (we hadn't known that!), ready to fire (I wonder what kind of trigger he, a junior oficer, was allowed to put his finger on) should the order from his Commander-in-Chief, President Kennedy, come. It never came, and the world was saved a self-inflicted holocaust. McCain claims that he was tested in that crisis -- tested or tempted? It's hard to imagine the kind of testing he was talking about. Did the demons inside tempt him, perhaps, to pull the trigger? God knows how many rogue shots across the bow have started wars which someone thought their side should/must get involved in?

About two weeks ago, Steven Hawking remarked in a CNN interview covering his life's work, and totally unrelated to the US presidential elections, that the world has had two or so events in recent memory which, had they gone terribly wrong, might have meant the extinction of the human species. One, which he specifically mentioned, was the Cuban Missile Crisis. And he said, quite remarkably and almost off-the-cuff, that humankind needs about two centuries to, sort of, transcend the risk of such a holocaust. This is the duration, in his view, required for humanity to secure settlements in other planetary bodies. Until then, he implied, we have all our eggs in this one basket (this earth) -- which, I may add (as I recently did in one of my graduate classes), is itself an egg. Eggs inside an egg compound a fragility which we are, nearly all of us, too numbed by day-to-day pressures to consistently interrogate.

We have to be very careful with whom we make our leaders. And, yes, America is the world's business [NOTE: I have not checked any of this with Obama, who doesn't even know I exist -- just as I hadn't known that he existed during the years I spent at Urbana-Champaign, and visited or passed through Chicago]

Kenya's Global Competitiveness Ranking in 2008/09

According to the World Economic Forum's 30th annual Global Competitiveness Report (see complete report, which was released on 8th October, here; see also Wachira Kang'aru excellent account in the Daily Nation of October 9th), Kenya's global competitiveness ranking has improved to 93 in 2008/09, from 99 in 2007/08. This is an improvement, yes, but still way behind Africa's top country -- South Africa, which holds the 45th position.

All in all, twelve variables (the World Economic Forum calls them "Basic indicators") were considered in arriving at the global rankings. Very broadly, we will not get into details here, these were:

I. Institutions
II. Infrastructure
III. Macroeconomic stability
IV. Health and primary education
V. Higher education and training
VI. Goods market efficiency
VII. Labor market efficiency
VIII. Financial market sophistication
IX. Technological readiness
X. Market size
XI. Business sophistication
XII. Innovation (Source: Global Competitiveness Report).

We will say a just little more about some of these variables in a moment.

The Top Ten countries in the world this year are as follows (last year's rankings are shown in brackets, if different from this year's):
1. The United States
2. Switzerland
3. Denmark
4. Sweden
5. Singapore (7)
6. Finland
7. Germany (5)
8. The Netherlands (10)
9. Japan (8)
10. Canada (13).
[Note: The UK, which was ranked 9th last year, dropped out of the Top Ten to the 12th position this year]

Africa's Top Ten this year are (their global ranking in brackets):
1. South Africa (45 this year, 44 last year)
2. Botswana (56 this year, 76 last year )
3. Mauritius (57 this year, 80 last year)
4. Morocco (73 this year, 64 last year)
5. Namibia (80 this year, 89 last year)
6. Egypt (81 this year, 77 last year)
7. The Gambia (87 this year, 102 last year)
8. Libya (91 this year, 88 last year)
9. Kenya (93 this year, 99 last year)
10. Nigeria (94 this year, 95 last year).

What is interesting is the variables or criteria, sketched above, which the World Economic Forum used to arrive at this rank-order in which Kenya has placed an improved 93rd. One of the criteria used, as we have seen, was the innovative capacity evident within the country (Kenya ranked 45th, worldwide, here). This was measured by such indicators as the level of corporate spend on R&D, the existence of "good" research institutions in the country, the extent to which they collaborate with "industry" in scientific ventures, and the quality of education offered within the country (Kenya ranked 33rd in quality of education).

For Kenya, all this is very encouraging -- and three cheers to our educational and research institutions. In saying three cheers, I have the indulgence of cheering my colleagues in academia, and myself. Still, there is much work to do on our part. And there are dangers ahead, for the country is far, far, from closing the loop of quality training for the next generation of scholars. What is more, the political elite continues to treat academics with little material respect, and even arms-length wariness.

Another criterion used was the comparative level of of sophistication displayed by the country's financial markets, as gauged against international standards (including ease of access to loans and to the stock market). Here, Kenya ranked 44 th in the world.

A third criterion was the performance of the public sector, and Kenya fared badly here. It was in fact dragged down by poor performance: it ranked 100th in efficiency, 111th in susceptibility to influence by power-brokers, and 101st in the level of corruption.

Security was also a consideration, and Kenya fared poorly here too. It rankes 126th in terms of levels of crime and violence, 129th in terms of exposure to terrorism, and 118th in the degree to which organized crime pervades the country's socio-economic fabric. In the area of health services, Kenya earned the unhealthy rank of 117.

To conclude: in Africa, the five most improved countries were: Mauritius (a 23-position gain), Botswana (20), The Gambia (15), Namibia (9) and Kenya (6). So, South Africa's lead may be under threat in the years ahead. Mauritius continues to excel, and remains a source of inspiration for all Africans. Botswana's performans is stellar too, though I understand that structural and political capital impediments are beginning to stand in the way -- so that the future there is not as rosy as it continues to seem. The Gambia is a surprise (but probably not to the Gambians), and Namibia continues to mystify in its good, all-round performance. I must find out more about these two. The factors which make Kenya less competitive than it should be are well known, and are not insurmountable. However, there is much work to be done to clear all the cobwebs.

Mbeki's Ouster

The other week, with barely seven months to the constitutional end to his second term, Thabo Mbeki was forced by and from within his own party, ANC, to resign from the high office of President of South Africa, one of Africa's economic and political powerhouses. There is something really rotten and unbecoming about the process that led to his departure, barely a week after Zuma won his corruption case in court, and South Africa is the poorer for it.

This is not to say that Mbeki did not make any, indeed big, mistakes while in office; or that he did not display in just too many instances a weakness of leadership by way of indecisiveness, plain bad judgement and a failure to inspire in consequential ways. It is even plausible that he had slyly sought to encumber and destroy Zuma politically -- and perhaps personally. Still, he was the country's president; and it was important for Zuma to realize that how one handled such factualities could have far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions on a country's political culture. The burden of statesmanship here, after Zuma's court victory (which essentially ensured that he would be South Africa's next president next April), was on Zuma himself -- far less on Mbeki, who was already and clearly a lame duck. To the victor sometimes, as here, go spoils which are not worth the trouble.

Zuma flunked the test, and dragged South Africa down with him into a gutter in which such a country, with so much promise, need not be. Mbeki's ouster displayed a disturbing sense of vengefulness, and myopic disregard for the inclusiveness and "above-the-fray" demeanour of South Africa's recent political (and, in particular, presidential) history -- that is, since 1990.

Mandela succeeded De Klerk (fellow Nobel laureate) in a peaceful and organized transition to become South Africa's president in 1994. He chose not to seek a second term in 1998, to the great admiration of all around the world. With his blessing, Mbeki succeeded him in the elections held that same year, although many would have preferred the trade unionist and (increasingly?)self-made Ramaphosa. However, with the end of Mbeki's term in plain sight, a coup -- a political coup, a palace coup clearly engineered or endorsed by none other than Zuma!

Zuma seems "programmed" to think small, and that spells trouble for South Africa -- and perhaps Africa. His thinking, it seems to me, emanates from the same source(s) as the xenophobic orgy which gripped South Africa less than a couple of months ago. Can he be helped out of this dance with danger?

Zimbabwe: Power-Sharing and Triple Redemption

The recent power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, brokered by South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, is a cause for optimism for the future of governmentality in Zimbabwe, but more importantly of its long-suffering citizens in the complexity of their day-to-day lives. Skeptical as many observers were that such a deal was at all possible -- Mugabe had been so demonized, particularly in pronouncements out of London and Washington, and had so demonized himself (in rantings out of his own mouth) as to make hope for any sensible outcome of the elections itself hopeless -- there you are! We (let me use that plural and all-inclusive word) do have a deal; as good a deal as such products of political manoeuvre can be. Indeed, for Tsvangirai, a better deal nominally (in fact qualitatively, as some may insist) than Kenya's Raila brokered for himself and ODM last March.

So here we are. One obvious consequence of the deal is, to me, a triple redemption of sorts for the principals. Mugabe has succeeded in brokering his own redemption. He has recouped a measure of the social (and/or political) capital that had so precipitously eroded from his bleeding hands -- certainly in African eyes. Now, we can and will all bury him, when the time comes, without equivocation. Raila will most likely attend, perhaps with 100 bulls in tow, and with such flamboyance and depth of engagement in these matters as only he, in all of Africa, can muster.

Mbeki, likewise, has redeemed himself from the self-inflicted and precipitous slide into ignominy and ineffectualness which had been, particularly in the last year or two (if we say nothing of his quaint narrative of the causality of HIV/Aids), the hallmark of his leadership in South Africa (remember South Africa's xenophobia against fellow Africans, remember the Zuma case) and Africa as a whole (remember Darfur). In Zimbabwe, he snatched victory and optimism from the jaws of defeat and defeatism, and of pessimism. Now he can ride into that sunset, which we will all ride into -- if we are lucky to be alive when the sun sets -- with the knowledge that, whatever mars his presidential record, he will always be remembered with some fondness by all who think and remember deeply.

Tsvangirai, whom I had thought a coward when he called off his campain for the run-off elections, has redeemed himself in my eyes and, it is obvious to me, the eyes of millions of Zimbabweans. He has redeemed himself not so much in securing a deal (any coward can do that), but a good deal -- at least on paper. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, of course, but you can't eat your cake if you don't have (or bake) it! He has the ingredients, though there will be delays such as we have already witnessed -- and perhaps power outages.

Zimbabweans insist on a view that they are not Kenyans, which they are and are not, and that they do their things differently -- and perhaps in a more dignified way. The jury is out. There are many hints in the Zimbabwean deal that the Kenyan model was very much on the minds of the negotiators. Tsvangirai probably secured a better deal because Raila's, which he was clearly aware of, was in the eyes of many bad. This capacity for a quantum leap is the late-comer's advantage. Likewise, Mugabe was probably inclined to give Tsvangirai (his Oliver Twist) more because Kibaki's selfishness would be seen by history to have been greater -- in which case, on that score, Mugabe would not be at the bottom of African history's list. Did Mbeki whisper that prospect in his ear, I would like to know?

Kriegler's Verdict

South Africa's Judge Johann Kriegler, Chair of Kenya's Kriegler Commission (and the person who oversaw South Africa's first post-apartheid elections), held a press conference in Nairobi last Friday, September 19th, at which he highlighted the Commission's findings regarding the controversy and widespread violence that surrounded Kenya's Presidential elections held in December 2007. The Commission's main task had been to determine who actually had won the contest, Kibaki or Raila, and to recommend the way forward.


Why had the Commission been seen as the vehicle for settling the dispute? According to Kofi Annan, "They had considered everything, recount, re-tallying or forensic audit, all agreed an independent committee was the viable option."


What was the verdict of the Kriegler Commission, as reported in the media? First and foremost, that it was impossible to determine who actually won the Presidential contest. Why? Because in the December elections, his Commission had found, "ballot boxes were stuffed all over the country...there was vote-buying, bribery, intimidation, and women were not allowed to stand for certain offices."


And this was not a one-off event. As he had noted on KTN's live TV show Thursday night (see last week's issue of The Standard on Saturday):

"You have been having very bad elections for many years, you have had violence, fraud, vote buying, bribery, intimidation, so election after election you have been prepared for that process... It has now caught up with you and it was a lesson that made Kenyans think of what to do...with what has not been a very good election track record."

Moreover, he added, this "problem of many decades" is:

"...partly the leaders, partly the people, partly your history, partly the electoral commission's fault...everybody has some answering to do for what went wrong that day."

So that now, he said at the press conference:

"If you think it's vital to find out if there was rigging at KICC [where voting results from the country's 210 constituencies were tallied by the Kivuitu-led Electoral Commission] to determine if Raila or Kibaki won...God help you! We could not." And, "If we didn't settle somebody's wish as to who won, I am sorry we are not members of a Jockey Club, we had a job to do."

In his view (in The Standard on Saturday), "The integrity of the process and the credibility of the results were so gravely impaired by...manifold irregularities and defectsthat it is irrelevant whether or not there was actual rigging at the national tally centre. The results are irretrievably polluted."


Hey, wait a minute, a number of commentators have argued: Doesn't that mean that President Kibaki is in office illegally? No, answered the Judge on TV Thursday night, "but I do think the question of the legitimacy of the elections will become a very serious problem in future if people do not decide that they are tired of playing games of democracy and decide that they are entitled to choose their leaders through the ballot."


Clearly, pending specific constitutional reforms, a disputed Presidential election favours any incumbent who believes he/she has won, and on that basis chooses to stay put. On what grounds would the opponent(s) legally, or even forcefully, remove him/her in order to take over? Failure to determine who won does not now, as it did not in January, add any iota of rationale or legitimacy for a Raila takeover. Thus, we can only look to the future for a solution, starting now -- if not yesterday.


One option for the future is to constitutionally mandate the Speaker or Chief Justice, or, in their "absence" (or due to specified incapacity), or their deputies, to assume the office of Acting President while disputed results are sorted out -- even through a fresh election.


Concurrent with this would have to be the requirement that no swearing-in of a new President, or an incumbent in his/her second term, shall take place earlier than 14 days from the date of the announcement of the Presidential election results. This will give time for petitions to be lodged and heard, and will discourage the mischief of hurried and even secretive swearings-in which Kenya has witnessed twice already.


The Kriegler Commission's verdict has, at the very least, put a stamp of judicial authority on an educated view which most thoughtful Kenyans had already silently formed months ago -- as early as January. There are millions of this silent majority, who nevertheless found themselves powerless to influence the post-election turn of events in the crucial first 40 to 60 days or so. Both the President (Kibaki) and the Prime Minister (Raila) have now accepted the verdict, and promised to implement its recommendations. We will just have to wait and see.


Clearly, the Electoral Commission would have to be overhauled, as recommended. However, if there was one item that the Kriegler Commission failed to pay adequate attention to, it was the even greated mess that occurred within the constituencies in relation to Parliamentary and Civic elections. These were so intertwined with the Presidential elections that it is something of a deliberate abdication of duty not to have included in the Commission's terms of reference items specific to these levels, and not to have had something sobstantial to say in the report.


We cannot clean up the presidential election process if we do not also, or first, clean up the process at these lower levels. In very many constituencies, the agents of the presidential candidates were also the agents of their parties' parliamentary and civic candidates -- or vice versa. I saw it in Kisumu Rural. Doing all the dirty work for the presidential candidate, or seeming to, provided a perverse sort of justification (and cover) for doing as much dirty work as was necessary to ensure the parliamentary or civic candidate's own victory.


The corruption is systemic, but has so far been treated as the secret weapon for electoral victory -- which the likes of Kriegler should not be made fully privy to, and certainly should not take away in one "pathetic" instance of inquiry. That's why we'll just have to wait and see.

"Wait Until Dark"

In his Politico.Com blog post of September 18 titled "For second time this week, crowds leave after Palin speaks", Jonathan Martin noted:

At a rally outside Youngstown, Ohio, Tuesday night, dozens of attendees
left while McCain was still speaking.

I caught up with a few of them. Some explained that the airplane hangar where the rally was being held had grown crammed and uncomfortable. Others said they had other events or commitments to get to.

Notably, though, the exodous had only begun after Palin spoke.

Now, the same thing has happened again.

"I look up, about five minutes into McCain's address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally," writes Radio Iowa's Kay Henderson from a McCain-Palin event in Cedar Rapids.

I posted a comment (the 81st) on his blog on September 19th in which I said:

You've just touched on the dark that McCain's afraid to walk in alone, without the comfort of lil' sister's presence -- and hand.

It's uncanny, right?

See, even in her presence, bad things happen to him soon as he lets go (however so briefly) of her hand; but, without her, the dark (of the September campaign) would be utterly terrifying and tongue-tying.

Wait until October!

The obvious point I was trying to make is that McCain seems to be afraid to campaign alone, and that these events confirm the point. It seems to me, also, that the crowds that attend joint McCain-Palin rallies come mainly to see and hear her. McCain may hope that no one has noticed the fact -- which must be glaring to him. She is the Fall Attraction. But though she should be only the co-star, McCain's hiding behind her as though she was the leading actor/actress.

The spectacle, the sleight of hand -- the ruse of joint appearances when he is the one, really, whom the voters must choose or reject as President -- can't last forever. Not, in fact, past the darkening days of October, as winter (but first November 4) grows nearer!

Sarah and Sarah sans Lipstick

On September 10, Jack Tapper posted a piece on the Political Punch Blog titled "Obama on Letterman: If That's What I'd Meant, Palin Would Be the Lipstick, 'McCain's Failed Policies' the Pig." The piece, containing mostly quotes from Obama himself, is worth reading.

Notably, it contains this account of Letterman's late-night TV dialogue with Obama:

To audience laughter, Obama says, "In Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea -- in this case, I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans -- that just calling them change, calling it something different doesn’t make it better. Hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig."

"What I like about this scenario is because they -– the Republicans -- demanded an apology," Letterman says, "so that means there had been a meeting at some point somewhere along the line (of) they got together and said, 'You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.' Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?"

"It does," agrees Obama. "Keep in mind that, technically had I meant it this way –- she would be the lipstick!"

To-day, I posted this comment on Tapper's Blog:

All I wanted to say here and "right now" -- not discordantly I hope (yes, hope) -- is that Sarah Palin's first name makes her the namesake of Obama's Kenyan grandmother, whose first name is Sarah too. But you knew that already!

Would Sarah invite Sarah to Alaska, after Obama's inauguration January 20th next? That would be a truly wonderful global connect. In doing so, Sarah would have the opportunity to ask Sarah what her middle name is, or how it came about that there is such a meme at Kogelo.

There is a history there worth hearing: of journeys from Alego and sojourns in the Kendu Bay area and all the way back to Alego.

And Sarah would, graciously, accept an invitation to Kogelo. And it would be doubly wonderful.
But Sarah wouldn't stay more than a day or two in Alaska, far from it; and far as that place is from anywhere (except the Siberian permafrost)!

There is no permalink there!

Nor will she in Washington, D.C., glorious as what will have brought her to that world capital may be (she's made that abundantly clear to all who understand Kiswahili and Dholuo).

See, she doesn't care much for winter! Don't ask me if she has ever felt its full freeze -- its relentless squeeze upon the ear, outdoors -- as I have. And a bunch of "unaccomplished" thieves, knowing she is away, might try again (as they did this week) to break into her iconic home at Kogelo.

She has a home there, you see, not a house. The difference was settled long ago.

In D.C., however, she will not wonder why a whole nation, with all that wealth, will want her grandson to put up in a house, and not a home, even if it be the House. She knows the difference in these things, and she loves the thought.

Let me add: Alego's Sarah and Alaska's Sarah are worlds apart, but they share thir deep love of family -- though Mama is the more reticent. And they share another thing -- their belief in the value and durability of families. However, to Alego's Sarah, unlike Alaska's -- I dare say -- lipsticks are for others. For her they would be dwanyruok!

Language: Wiki Language

The Kikuyu of Kenya are a Bantu-speaking ethnic group. They speak Agikuyu. The Luo, on the other hand, are Nilotic (that is, of the Nile valley). They speak Dholuo (a word which, thanks to the insistence of certain scholars, has become part of the English lexicon now). These two are very dissimilar groups in important ways -- culturally, economically and (in particular?) politically.

Geographically, too, they have traditionally occupied quite different topographies of the land. The Kikuyu have concentrated in the central highlands, generally "around" Mt. Kenya, which is one of the two highest mountains in Africa. The Luo are predominant in the lowlands to the west -- in the basin of Lake Victoria (the largest in Africa); though, unlike the Kikuyu, have kin traditionally scattered "all over" eastern and central Africa. Central is Central and West is West -- but did the twain ever meet before, say, 1890?

There are a few puzzling similarities which make this question pertinent, certainly. For example:

1. In Agikuyu, as I have known for years, though the similarity struck me only a few months ago: When you want to say, "Let's go" you say, "Nitothii" (or simply, "Todhie", which is what I remember from all those years of living in Makongeni and going to school at "Sentii"). In Dholuo, you say, "Wadhi."

2. In Agikuyu, when you want to ask, "Where are you going?" you say, "Wathii ku?" (or "Wathie ku?"). In Dholuo, you say, "Idhi kanye?" (or even "Idhi kure?).

Sasa? Is this symptomatic of one origin deep in the African past (of course it is!), or merely chance similarity. You tell me.

But, if yes, how long ago? Under what circumstances? Where? In the Sudan? Cameroon? The Congo? Uganda? Ethiopia (Karumba's Ethiopia?)? Just here in Kenya?

They do have different physiques, generally, perhaps because of terrain and diet; and because of all the places they have separately been, kalausi-like, all these millennia. Yet there is an occasional hilarious comment in certain circles that the Nyeri Kikuyu are really not Kikuyu, but Luo (whom they are, many of them, as dark as) who now speak Agikuyu.

Of course all Africans, all humans, have one past -- here in Africa.

All humans! Is that why, as Philip Ochieng claims, "Hera" -- that four-letter word -- means the same thing in Greek and Luo? Is that not why we all have spoken language?

Gallup Poll: Latest Numbers From Kenya

Results of the most recent Gallup poll in Kenya -- conducted between June 19 and July 9, 2008 -- were released to the media on Monday, September 8th. Though the poll covered a fairly wide range of issues, the two leading newspapers ( Daily Nation and The Standard) headlined the poll results with the public's verdict on the President's and the Prime Minister's performance. So let us start with that.

President Kibaki's approval rating stands at only 63%, while Prime Minister Raila Odinga has a rating of 85%. This large, 22 percentage-point, advantage for the PM is surprising only in its magnitude and not in its skew. It reflects the general perception that the PM has been more visibly active in public affairs than the President, since March. The President's laid-back approach to things (all things considered) is well known, if not legendary. Has it not often been claimed that he never found a fence he didn't (wouldn't?) sit on? In the end, though, he seems to always have it (have things go) his way, doesn't he?

In contrast, Raila thrives on media attention, and is patently indefatigable. Moreover, while the President's role is clearly defined in the constitution, so that Kibaki does not have to endeavour to carve a niche for himself, or to prove himself, the PM's role continues to lack clear definition, and one suspects that Raila seeks to define it, in the public's eye, by word and deed -- on a day-to-day basis -- if those (including him!) who should do so constitutionally are dragging their feet.

In the process, though he is supposed to coordinate, he ends up seeming, or falling to the temptation, to take over the roles he was supposed merely to coordinate. He has been learning on-the-job, without much of local experience to draw on. Jomo Kenyatta's 12-month stint in the PM's seat so long ago (from December 12, 1963 to December 12, 1964) has not been much of a help in the absence of written memoirs and in view of the dramatically different or changed circumstances.

He has, in other words, been learning by doing -- and ruffling some feathers in the process. But the public sees all this as hard work. At least two ministers (Uhuru and Mwakwere) and/or their supporters have publicly complained that the PM is encroaching on their ministerial turf. I suspect that several other ministers have had their feathers just as ruffled -- though the public sees all this as whining, and the whining as not being in the public interest. That's just one step away (isn't it?) from being reshuffled, if it were not for the "letter" of the Grand Coalition agreement.

The truth of the matter, however, is that the PM has a habit of appropriating ministers' shine and basking in their limelight -- and he sucks out all the oxygen from the room. And the point is that he should give ministers a chance to get some credit for work well done, for that is a major component of what motivated public servants thrive on. It would be worrisome, long-term, if, in the structure of our politics, the PM should be the only minister who should shine. It would be worrisome because it would distort our politics and the structure of our public administration.

Let us now turn to other issues covered in the poll. When asked to identify "the most pressing problem that the coalition Government must address", the respondents mentioned the following (the figures in parenthesis represent the percentage of all respondents who mentioned a given problem):

Poverty (17%)
Inflation (17%)
Creating Jobs (11%)
Constitutional Reform (9%)
Unemployment (7%)
Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons (7%)
Land Reform (7%)
Food Shortage (6%)
Education (3%)
Tax Reduction (2%)
Violence (2%)
Insecurity (2%)
Prosecution of Those Implicated in Post-Election Violence (1%)
Health Care (1%)
Road System (1%)
Water (1%)
Electricity (1%)
Other (1%)
Don't Know or No Response (2%).
[The percentages do not add up to 100]

Nominally, then, the top ten problems are: poverty, inflation, an insufficiency of jobs, constitutional reform, unemployment, IDPs, land reform, food shortage, education and taxation. But we need some aggregation here. That is to say, certain problems can be "collapsed" to give us a shorter list.

The need to create jobs arises only because there is unemployment, and when the two problems are combined into one (say, unemployment) we get to (18%). Poverty and unemployment are twins, and these two give us a "super problem" (even before we include food shortage)accounting for 35% of all responses. In a similar vein, the IDP problem is directly intertwined with the land reform problem, violence and insecurity (which are not in the nominal top ten) and the problem of dealing with perpetrators of post-election violence. Taken together, these five problems account for 19% of the responses.

Based on this re-aggregation, we get the following top 5 problems, which account for 86% of all responses:

1. Unemployment and Poverty (35%)
2. Land Reform, IDPs and related Insecurity and Violence (19%)
3. Inflation (17%)
4. Constitutional Reform (9%)
5. Food Insecurity (6%).

It is surprising that the water problem ranks so low. It would likewise be surprising that constitutional reform is among the top five problems, except that, in the eyes of Kenyans, a successfully concluded constitutional reform agenda would provide a consequential answer to two other problems in the top five: Land Reform... (19%) and Food Insecurity (6%). Inflation compounds unemployment and poverty, as well as food insecurity. It is an ever-present challenge to those who must govern -- and to those who struggle the most, daily, against hand-to-mouth existence.

On top of the list of Kenyan's problems "right now", unquestionably and expectedly, are the twin problems of unemployment and poverty (35%). It would have been surprising if the Gallup poll had found otherwise. But, in that case, did the Gallup poll set out to establish the obvious? Far from it. What is important in the poll result is the relative magnitudes of the problems, as seen by Kenyans at this time. So, we now have a kind of baseline, from which we will track future trends. Who knows: the water problem may begin to rise in subsequent polls, and likewise the health problem. On the other hand, the IDP and land reform problems might decline -- but hopefully only in step with their proper resolution, rather than due to official neglect and a diversion of public attention.

McCain's Acceptance Speech at the RNC

I watched a good part of John McCain's speech on CNN, and have also read the text. I think that, after the electrifying speech by Palin the other night -- a speech which was, in retrospect, quite unrestrained in its negativity towards Obama -- McCain's speech was much more in character for someone who wants to be President (and more in McCain's character).

However, Democrats will be reassured, after that speech, that McCain has very likely lost his last opportunity to really sprint past Obama. The speech was somewhat dull and uninspiring and rather full of recent Republican cliches -- too me-oriented, in an increasingly stale kind of way, for a candidate who claims to want to put his country first.

It was, moreover, revisionist and even "cunning" in its (and RNC's) attempt to pull a hero-as-leader rabbit out of his (McCain's) POW experience in Viet Nam so many years ago now. Isn't it a stretch to label (and to condone the labelling of) a POW, in a war that was in fact lost, as a national "hero"? If you did not know better, you would think that McCain had somehow levitated to the ranks of McArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Westmoreland or even Powell -- or that he was allowing all and sundry to so elevate him!

P.S. Here is a video of McCain's acceptance speech.
And here are some reactions to the speech.
Here is another reaction.
And yet another reaction.
Here's a more recent one.

Sarah Palin

I watched Sarah Palin, McCain's choice for VP, live on CNN Wednesday night, as she addressed delegates at the RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota; I was determined to. I must say it was quite a performance. She exceeded all my expectations in terms of presence and delivery -- and even the "theatre" (as when she handed the baby over to her husband in order to continue waving to the audience after her speech).

To my mind, she was, in form and content, even more impressive than Hillary Clinton, who has herself won the support of all those 18 million. She is telegenic, has a good turn of phrase, looks very much the Governor that she is, and is so fresh on the scene that, between now and November, she will not cease to make positive waves for her party. That is, if embarassing dirt does not keep percolating to the political surface. She may even be a force in future elections, when America finally settles down to electing a woman for President. So, watch out Hillary -- competition's here.

I am saying all this because, until I had a good chance to size her up last night, I'd had the impression that McCain had been nothing but impulsive, and even desperate, in choosing her -- and, consequently, that he was in for great disappointment. He still might have been driven by little more than that -- impulsiveness and desperation -- as there is evidence to suggest that he did not have her vetted adequately, or, if he did, did not heed the vetters' counsel or take into full consideration the evidence presented by them.

There is a "formal procedure of good judgment" -- a method of scouring the evidence and a rule for making decisions which demands respect for the verdict(s) the evidence points to and which circumscribes choices -- which leaders are expected to adopt, explicitly or implicitly, if their leadership and judgement are to be deemed dependable and even sound. McCain does not seem to have followed any such procedure, hence the claim in some quarters that he simply "rolled the dice". Thus, he gambled but, it seems, hit the jackpot.

Still, Palin's good performance does highlight the power, much-overlooked, of speech in human affairs. She manifested that power Wednesdey. I dare say that if she could do it that suspenseful Wednesday night, she will certainly do so many times more in the days ahead -- as Obama does. We will see, Thursday night, what McCain does with his turn and opportunity.

Certainly, Palin was a far better choice that Meg Whitman, formerly of EBay, whose delivery that same night was dull and uninspiring, and who simplistically claimed (perhaps rattled by the millions of eyeballs glued on her face), inter alia, that "...governments don't create wealth, individuals do..." or that "McCain will not redistribute wealth..." [I asked myself, equating wealth broadly with 'assets' or 'capital': What about companies such as EBay, don't they create wealth? What about all the sovereign wealth funds around the world, what about all the "social overhead capital" which governments routinely build and must build (as argued even by conservative economists), and what about state corporations and kindred entities which governments, even in America, own in part or in whole (or which they, and they alone, make sustainable with preferential contracts, grants or legislation?]

Palin had her good share of Obama-bashing, as did ex-Mayor Rudi Giuliani. And she repeated McCain's claim that she is more experienced than Obama . However, I want to ask: if, as McCain claims, she is more experienced than Obama (than Obama and Biden combined -- some Republicans have interjected), is she (isn't she) then more qualified than McCain too, who has no executive experience at all -- and who clearly chose her in order to diminish the broad Obama-Biden appeal? And if she is more qualified and more of a Washington outsider than Obama, on the basis of what criteria should the voters prefer McCain to Obama?

McCain has been a Washington insider for some 30 years, during which he accumulated no executive experience, Obama for only four years or so. Obama is not running for VP, which Palin is. Like McCain, he is running for President. I think there is a confusion of labels or identities here which, because it is deliberate, is purely Machiavellian and, as politics, very typically Third World (or so we always thought!). Of course, at this point in the "red meat" argument, the pro-McCain camp tends to cite his heroism in the Viet Nam war -- and his contribution to the "surge." But being a former prisoner of war is no substitute for executive experience. More importantly, the US did not win the Viet Nam War, North Viet Nam did -- if I remember my history accurately. And Ho Chi Minh did not execute McCain, which says something about the man, he released him (yes, after holding him for over five years)! And so McCain lived to fight another day -- to fight other kinds of battle.

Will Palin put McCain over the top in the present political battle with one Obama? Will she be the force that ensures that the next US President will be John McCain? I seriously doubt it, for here is where you have to bring in the role of political parties and movements in choosing leaders in different kinds of democracies -- and, in particular, in countries such as USA and (for somewhat different reasons) India, Great Britain and Germany. Ruling parties do have runs at the top, after which a hidden logic of succession -- which has no specific time-frames, but which is driven by a collective memory of wrongs (or wrong turns) and missed opportunities -- kicks in to hand over the reins of power and government to those previously in opposition. All that we have heard and read and seen prior to this convention season suggests that the Republicans, maverick or not, will have a difficult task endeavouring to succeed themselves at the White House. The eight-year record of the Bush (Republican) administration wears heavy on their necks. This will become more and more evident as the Palin euphoria wears out, and as Fall advances toward Winter.

P.S.
1. For the text of Palin's speech, click to the following link: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1313384

2. For videos of Palin's speech, click here for Part 1 >> Video; here for Part 2 >> Part 2 of Video; here for Part 3 >> Part 3 of Video; here for Part 4 >> Part 4 of Video; and here for the final part, Part 5 >> Part 5 of Video.

Barack Obama's INVESCO Field Acceptance Speech

Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech, as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, in front of some 84,000 supporters yesterday evening at INVESCO Field, in Denver. Here's Part 1 of the video, and here's Part 2 of the more than 40-minute speech. Here's the [prepared text of the speech] distributed ahead of time by his campaign team. I watched it live with my wife -- just couldn't miss it.


One prominent commentator, David Gergen, described the speech as "a political masterpiece." Another, Rebecca Sinderbrand, described it as "the August equivalent of the Super Bowl -- a massive event that sucked up most of the media oxygen, complete with fireworks, a capacity crowd, and celebrity acts that would have been at home at any halftime show."

Not coincidentally delivered on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's historic "I have a dream" speech, Obama's acceptance speech risked comparisons with the MLK speech, which was clearly of a different genre. The fear that it might not measure up (even though he was not supposed to try too hard), or that he had to be seen to bring his as close to the level of the "dream" as possible (even though his must, of necessity, be "workmanlike"), became a part of the drama and suspense of this eventful and, in the end, awesome week. Opponents and supporters, both, anticipated a delivery that was at once different and the same! Opponents hoped, of course, that somehow (despite past performances) there would be failure this time -- a failure to meet lofty expectations. Many supporters, on the other hand, feared a turn of fortune that they dared not speak -- a "less than satisfactory" verdict by media pundits. But they hoped for the best -- which, it is clear now, is what they got.

I think it was a great speech, a different speech -- a speech for the ages. It was a great moment. We will look back on it for years. And we will continue to wonder how he was able to deliver a nearly flawless, six sigma, speech for that long.

I saw tears in the field, among the delegates. But there had been a tear here and there throughout the convention. People shed tears for different reasons, but it is the same tears they shed.

Obama looked and sounded very presidential -- and as combative as a President ought to publicly be when dealing with forces that cause his followers ire.

I don't see what McCain and the Republicans can do to deny him the Presidency now, with elements of his party having closed ranks with as much finality and finesse as we witnessed -- and as is possible in such symbolic and public rituals of common purpose and comradeship.

The Two Clintons and the Power of Speech

Bill Clinton delivered a masterful speech at the DNC on August 27, one night after Hillary delivered hers. At least one pundit declared it one of his best, ever. Watch the video here. And here is the text of the speech.

I did not watch it live, as I did Hillary's -- and part of (Montana Governor) Brian Schweitzer's, who, one observer has claimed, is another next President. I must admit that Governor Schweitzer, who had been completely unknown to me till I heard him speak, impressed me the most for the sheer artistry of his delivery Tuesday night -- and it seems I wasn't alone [click here for one of several posts I have come across after the initial publishing of my own post].

This week's proceedings at the Denver DNC have highlighted one fundamental fact about human nature: We are all susceptible, in one way or another, to the oft-overlooked power of speech; and we are wired to respond to fine deliveries.

A singularly powerful speech has a chemical effect, so to speak, on the brain -- capable as it is of changing the thinking of millions, even against their initial will and "testament", or inclination.

And then there were two.

But is this power something to be wary of; or, like fire, something simply to master? Is it friend or foe to the audience's better judgment -- to reason?

The doom and gloom that was predicted for the DNC has, overnight, turned to celebration -- an all-round resumption, as it were, of Obamamania! All largely because of the words uttered, from the heart, by the two Clintons.

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Speech: 45th Anniversary

To-day marks the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which he made in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963. Not coincidentally, Barack Obama (who was only 2 in 1963) will later to-day deliver his acceptance speech, as the Presidential nominee of the Democratic party.

Before we tune in to that acceptance speech, let us refresh our memories of that historic speech by Martin Luther King, about which much has been written. There is clear similarity between the oratorical styles of those two iconic figures of American society -- and the younger of the two, it has been said, has gone out of his way to consciously and deliberately "appropriate", copy, imitate, adopt (what's the word?) the form (though clearly not the content) of his precursor's style. It has even been said, in an accusatory way, that he has unilaterally deigned to inherit his elder's mantle.

It wont be said for much longer.

Hillary Clinton's Speech at the Democratic National Convention, August 26, 2008

Hillary Clinton's speech in mile-high Denver, Colorado, on August 25th, laid to rest a number of nagging questions and worries. Questions and worries about loyalty and betrayal, about ship-jumping and proper rules of the game, about race and gender and evenhandedness when it is someone else's fair turn to carry the mantle; questions and worries about the likelihood of victory, and even of defeat, in the face of all this -- defeat of a party seemingly about to tear apart with victory in plain sight.

It was a well-crafted speech delivered with finesse and from the heart. No one can seriously doubt her commitment now to her party's cause in the coming elections. No one will doubt her respect for Democracy's verdict.

She has clearly put principle and party before self. And I think her party -- its members -- will remember her for a long, long time. They will remember her very, very fondly.

Those who watched her entire speech, including yours truly, will too. They will never forget her graciousness and strength of character, which, admittedly, was latelt out of sight to those who did not support her -- did not, indeed, care much for her -- in the heat of a prolonged nomination battle.

No one knows what the final verdict will be in November, in the Presidential elections. And yet one gets the feeling that by an historic act of will, by the sheer performance of one person, the door to the White House has somehow, just that palpably, shut in McCain's face. One gets the feeling that things are going to begin to get "elephant" for a Republican lot which, this same August, had begun to dream, against earlier odds, an impossible dream.

And no one knows what lies in Hillary's future. Yet there is this faint hint, in the aftermath of her delivery, that her party is not about to see the last of her, and that she is "not done with it" just yet. Indeed, in that singular delivery, she brought herself forth anew -- in an amazing moment of re-birth. She blazed an invisible path which no one will have the strength to cross, and which may yet see a woman in the White House, within a decade, as President -- a President called Hillary.

Michelle Obama's Speech at the Democratic Convention

Michelle Obama delivered a memorable steech at the Convention on the opening night, August 25th, 2008. Here's the video clip.

And here's a transcript of the speech.

Fareed Zakaria = Dignity

Fareed Zakaria = Dignity

Fareed Zakaria -- Newsweek columnist, author and CNN talk-show host -- strikes me as a deeply thoughtful and dignified man.

What I don't know is how much flack he can take -- that is, how long he can stay cool under fire.

Is he at peace with himself?

Is he high-strung or just what we see?

Schedule of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado

The Democratic National Convention kicks off today in Denver, Colorado. Here's the convention schedule.

There Are No Questions?

Where ever
There are no questions,
There'll be no
New answers to ponder.

On Not Being Afraid To Be An Example That Inspires

In On Becoming The Example, Kimmy Sharing Light wrote:


"When we watch our children start a new journey, or life challenge, they look for role models or inspiration. We usually never think of being an inspiration for them." And she added that "whatever we do, we need to have the aim of becoming an example, an inspiration for others."
I posted a comment on her blog with the following words, which, in their mix, impose upon me a re-varnishing duty which I cannot avoid, even as I repeat them:

You ask elsewhere: "How do people judge you?" And you answer: BY OUR ACTIONS." That's right. Talk can reveal the inner soul, and talk can inspire; but talk, as someone or other keeps saying, is cheap.

To be inspired is to be fired up. The question is: By what? By whom? Yet "whom" is an imperfect word, for what it brings to mind in the first instance is a kind of singularity that is too confined and, as an anchor of sorts, too confining. The only safe "whom" is a plural "whom." But we, as individualities, are a part of that -- or a part of it as well. That's what you had in mind I think. And that's the main story.

As for the question "By what?", the essential answer remains, in your own words: BY OUR ACTIONS. But any layered answer we attempt returns us to the base, to the realization, that the "what" can be many things, and can never be the one size that fits all. It may be a moment that sits up; or an event that rewires the brain by refreshing pictures in the mind. Yet words too -- as JFK's, as MLK's, as Obama's, as Kimmy's -- can inspire. If we live by them.

In a community enriched by social capital, and to anyone over five or six or seven years -- I hit "t" for tears for a moment there, but caught myself (so, no oops) -- there are many points and instances of light besides mother or father or older sibling. As they say, "it takes a village."


But the village is more than the sum of the people, for it has many parts, and fuses nurture and nature in ways we strive to understand, but typically do only in half-measures.


And it sometimes takes, yes, tears -- to come upon the true path to our destiny. And not tears of joy.

Celebrity, Graffiti and Leadership

On Saturday, August 09, 2008, John Rubery published a piece titled "Celebrity Obama chasing after celebrities", in which he said, inter alia:

"Two recent John McCain ads have mocked Barack Obama's celebrity status. The Obama camp acted like a bunch of cry babies, calling the first commercial a "dishonest attack." Of course if Obama had a legislative record to run on after three years in the US Senate--How many of his bills have been enacted into law?--they wouldn't need to have responded in such a fashion. The ads were effective--Obama is increasingly looking like a lightweight..."

And he added: "The Telegraph of London reveals tonight that the Democrats will place quite a few Hollywood celebrities in prominent roles at their convention later this month.
The decision to let some of them take to the center stage is a calculated gamble by Mr. Obama to stick to his guns in courting the celebrity vote. It comes after his Republican rival John McCain landed a telling blow last week, mocking him as the "Paris Hilton" of the White House race in a so-called "attack ad". Mr Obama's strategists have concluded that the publicity gains from rubbing shoulders with actors like George Clooney, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon will outweigh the risks of appearing lightweight. The list of those approved for credentials to attend the event includes the actress Gwyneth Paltrow, who recently filmed a campaign advertisement for Mr. Obama, who is expected to bring her friend Madonna. Hollywood royalty, including Quentin Tarantino, Spike Lee, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, Forrest Whitaker and Scarlett Johansson, will also be in Denver, as well as singers Kanye West and Wyclef Jean. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones may also put in an appearance."

There are, of course, celebrities, and then there are celebrated leaders -- leaders whom the public put on a symbolic pedestal for the vision, and preferably the record, which they personify. To know the difference between the two is to know what politics and leadership are all about. Celebrity may be fleeting, but may also last a long time -- feeding on our less than critical adulation. On the other hand, while autocratic leadership may be perpetuated ad nauseam by force of arms, charismatic or "rational-legal" leadership must always, in the end, come to terms with the test of delivery. Certain leaders have achieved celebrity status, without being "mere celebrities". These include, in our time: Mahatma Gandhi, John Kennedy, Patrice Lumumba, Charles De Gaul, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Che Guevara, Nasser, Pierre Trudeau and Tony Blair (for a while). By popular will, Obama has joined this select group, while McCain never will.

I posted a response to Rubery's piece as follows (I have amended the post somewhat):

The celebrity crowd is, as you suggest, mostly lightweight; people who are, as has been said of Paris Hilton (and as can be said of most), "famous for being famous." These are people whose fame make them think they have a mandate to "throw their weight" at every public policy matter, and at other things which don't quite matter.

But there's the paradox: being famous pads upon their shoulders a weight they can throw around, and which we others cannot fail to see, or feel. So, we cannot simply assume their light weight -- if we are not to be, ourselves, small-minded in our snootiness (or snooty in our small-mindedness). Or if we are not in Hilton's eyes to appear, like McCain, "wrinkly" tasteless and out of what should be our own depths.

So we must interrogate what is to be deemed truly light of weight, and what is to be heavy-duty. And let's not forget that it is McCain who provoked Paris Hilton to react to his clumsy association of what she and Spears ordinarily do (plus how they do carry themselves in public) with the serious campaign which Obama is waging (and with the ground-breaking candidacy which he represents). And her sarcastic video response told the world that it was McCain who appeared "hare-brained" (or lightweight), when there is no reason otherwise to believe he is, in comparison to Obama and to her (and the likes of her) and in terms of leadership in general and the energy debate in particular.

Let me add: It seems to me that Obama's joining that select group of celebrated leaders has deeply disturbed Sen McCain; and his recent Grand Tour must have brought McCain's discomfort to a head. So what does Team McCain do? There is no speculation here, it is there for all to see: They rush to spray graffiti and throw other dirt on the most telling images of Obama's Tour. In doing so, they hope, they will have sufficiently polluted them to prevent Obama from even thinking of using them in his Fall campaign -- as widely anticipated.

What McCain's team forgot as they plotted this devious scheme was that Spears and Hilton -- this new kind of political graffiti -- were a kind that can fight back! In fighting back, Paris Hilton has achieved what seemed impossible: she has wiped off all the graffiti and all the dirt.