|
|
Kenya: Only Kibaki Can Resolve Protocol Issue
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
The Nation (Nairobi)
COLUMN
11 May 2008
Posted to the web 12 May 2008
Philip Ochieng'
Nairobi
The question confronting me everywhere is: Will our coalition government hold? Among other factors, it depends on the leadership quality of those supposed to make it work. Quite naturally, the focus is on President Mwai Kibaki. Will the President pass the severe test of character set by the extraordinary circumstances that necessitated the coalition?
In my opinion, he will have cleared half the hurdles if he devotes all his moral and intellectual energies to it. He will make this manifest, in part, by publicly rejecting - and punishing - all the childish power games that his lieutenants are playing. Clearly, such a delicate balancing act cannot get anywhere near success when top officials clash openly over things like "protocol".
To be sure, in an arrangement as precarious as the Kofi Annan agreement, the "pecking order" must be made crystal clear. Only in that way can we avoid any misunderstanding and conflict that might derail the arrangement.
Moreover, titular precedence - the so-called protocol - must be distinguished from the chain of command (in terms of real power). In England, the most powerful individual - the prime minister - ranks, in titular protocol, much lower than 10th after the monarch and other fossils of the ancient feudal aristocracy.
Gordon Brown is not likely to growl that the Prince of Wales - the "vice-monarch" - is being introduced ahead of him at a ceremonial occasion. But England's is a tradition, not a crisis measure.
Yet, if it is made absolutely clear how they relate in terms of real power, it should not bother Premier Raila Odinga that Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka takes precedence over him in ceremonial terms.
THAT, PATENTLY, IS THE PROBLEM. THE ANNAN AGREEment and Parliament's constitutional amendment have many weaknesses of omission, yawning loopholes which cry out to be plugged. Mr Annan and Parliament are dangerously vague - nay, silent - on such questions.
But that is precisely where enlightened leadership enters the equation. When it took place, the naming of a vice-president did not violate any constitutional rubric. Nor was the failure to foresee the clash between the vice-president and the premier a result of any "malice".
However, clearly, the exigencies of the post-election violence needed to override both the letter of the constitution and the silences in the Annan agreement. Patently, the subsequent reaffirmation of the vice-presidency posed a threat to the delicate spirit of bi-party comradeship and national reconciliation.
The problem may be that the President must serve two frequently contradictory constituencies. There is first whatever he may deem as his immediate personal interest in what Peter Anyang'-Nyong'o - the political theorist - may call "the art of the possible".
It is, of course, your right to disagree with the manner in which the President may pursue his personal gains in politics. As often I do, you may wonder that - by doing or not doing certain things - he often seems completely blind to his own long-term self-interests.
But tactical self-pursuit is a universally recognised right of all politicians. Even if a presidential decision turns out to be tragic - either to himself or to the nation - our criticism must proceed from the simple fact that the President, being human, has a right to make a mistake.
THAT IS WHY I MUST ADD THAT, ALTHOUGH THE VICE-presidency may pose a threat to the unity pact, a threat is not the same thing as a death-blow. It may, indeed, be in line with the objective desires of the President's second constituency, namely, the whole nation. Here, what looks like a threat may often turn out to be a boon.
What if the president thought - rightly or wrongly - that, only by appointing both offices not only from the two constituent parties but also from two major ethnic communities, he could hasten the national détente? What if but my point is clear.
The President may have felt that the social benefits of appointing both offices would be great enough to put paid to any of its social effluent. Mr Kibaki may have felt that he possessed enough personal resource reserves to manage both offices in the national interest without occasioning any conflict.
But the fact remains that the premiership and the vice-presidency are proving contentious and that Mr Kibaki's silence on the conflict disturbs even his supporters. Human nature is such that a society always craves an authoritative and decisive leadership. Thus, Kenyans thirst for Mr Kibaki to show them that he is on top of the situation.
|
He must publicly tell Mr Musyoka and Mr Odinga how he wants them to relate to each other. He must then publicly order them to pack it in. It is in that way that Mr Kibaki can pass the test as our national leader.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2008 The Nation. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections -- or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Make allAfrica.com your home page | RSS Feed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising | Search | Subscribe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Questions or Comments? Contact us. Read our Privacy Statement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
