----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roy Pathara 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: [unioNews] THE QUESTION WE WON'T ASK



THE QUESTION WE WON'T ASK:

COULDN'T WE ALL HAVE FAILED IN A PRIME DUTY TO THE STATE?
   

  This nation will long remember the widely televised motion tableaus that featured the recent declaration by our popularly elected Chief Executive that by strictly presenting themselves as Narc to the sober verdict of the Kenyan electorate in the bygone General Election, the National Alliance Rainbow Coalition's affiliate parties had in a master-stroke perfected their own drift into extinction.  The vigorous powers of its youthful memory shall in years to come recapture the striking executive fiat with which the seasoned performer gestured his way through the technical play cast upon the rich expanse of the national stage of politics. Remembered also shall be the solemn sounds of his sonorous voice's reverberation across the republic in unmistakable long echoes; the particular swiftness with which the hitherto heavy heads of this land's noble peoples turned from the clatter and babel of factional politics to the melodramatic interlude attained on gaining the healing sight of the man at the very nucleus of things; and, ultimately, the appropriately hasty and varied courses of response taken by several pertinent interest groups: sections of the fourth estate, political  pundits of diverse intellectual standing and many other faithful guards and champions of the grand art of good governance in their collective effort from divergent points of view to discern some meaning from presidential speech and diction and draw conclusions based on hypotheses and analyses as sound as they are acquired from long and assiduous study and observation of the great affairs of men that is statecraft.

   

  I religiously believe it has escaped the wisdom of none of us and that it is therefore well within the logical reach of the understanding of all of us that the birth pangs of a nation must be attended by different interest groups and, by extension, from different bargaining positions.

  Further, I am of the faith that it must not be appalling that this should apply with especial force to nations democratically young and blossoming category of which we enter as of right.

  Taking these into keen consideration, I must here make the sincere point that hardly have I ever thought of a better or more laudable way in which misgovernment of state can most constantly and effectively be put in check.

  No matter how successfully the vice might be masqueraded as virtueous, vicious attempts at questioning the performance of this sacrosanct societal setting could be the sure thing that embodies both unwisdom and want at heart of the national interest.

   

  It is the gist of my purpose here to in due course show as far as I am able, how if the case I shall be making be found to be acceptable to your sense of logic, we - all those enlightened members of the society by whose enlightenment's virtue have to them entrusted by nature or by a just God the sacred responsibility for defending liberty - shall have failed in a supreme duty to the state: protecting the general public from deception by the powers that be with special reference to the complex context that defines the electioneering period.

  Being, as this duty is, the wide subject - looking at all possible types or forms of political deception in the set context - which wholly considered would sure run beyond the scope of what my purpose here encompasses, I shall deal strictly with as specific part of it as [if only the story that inspired and thus upon which are to hung my arguments be guide] I intended and as shall therefore deem me relevant.

   

  In our attempt to see if it is probable that we failed in the manner mentioned, we shall engage our minds in an exploratory debate by asking ourselves pertinent questions to which, while eschewing the confusion created by ambiguous generalities, we shall as honestly and as open-mindedly as we can try providing answers.

  Throughout this discussion, we shall deal only with political party coalitions within the sanctity or liberal setting of a democracy - whether young like Kenya or old like, say, France - and not within the disagreeable context of a revolutionary military country where formations of coalitions of any kind are determined by no democratic elections or some such design.

  In short, where no undemocratic forces or establishments determine the formation and direction of coalitions.

   

  I must begin by asserting that I do not on my own right believe Narc is a coalition just as the President, if his statement be keenly scrutinized, doesn't in his. Perhaps the only difference, in so far as this matter goes, is to be found in the parting courses the arguments for our common belief take.

  But I'm also convinced there are those who believe otherwise and that they form the majority.

  We cannot however, even according to the very tenets of democracy of which I modestly believe we are masters, mean to let the majority hold the spotlight at the detrimental expense of the minority who might equally have a moral cause.

  Each side must here be granted a fair representation and accorded an unprejudiced hearing in the hope that the stronger in argument carries the day.

  Having you acting as faithful observers of fairness, I shall proceed to frankly and as fairly examine both sides of this case and let you judge which side proves justified in its belief.

  We shall start by keen examination of the validity of the majority's faith. Thus I shall assume as suits them that Narc is a coalition and ask an equally suiting question the answers to which I shall discuss with as realistic a representation of the views of any one of them as they would possibly do.

  The question comes then: " Why is Narc a coalition [of parties]?"

   

  National Alliance Rainbow Coalition - from the name at least and as the general public have been made to believe by both that name and by Narc leaders none of whom has been known to publicly state otherwise for the complete year they have been in power - is a coalition.

  Besides, there has not been publicly expressed any cause for alarm by other politicians, by the press and by all other political parties as we have known them - at least since we had a new and liberal government - to do in other matters of national significance.

  If however in one way or the other there has, it has not been consistent and continual as to make the Government answerable to its deeds if that was a possibility.

  Further, it is known to us that in any binding political engagement, official documents must be signed as testimony lasting as long as is binding or politically practicable and are clearly worded to avoid any confusion.

  We thus believe NAK and LDP signed some such document to the effect that they had formed a coalition and that would make it formally a coalition.

  It might also count to add that the Office of the Registrar of Societies officially registered Narc and cleared it for the last General Election.

  And who doesn't know that the Registrar of Societies, by virtue of the intelligence it takes to occupy his office, knows - if from name - that what he registered can only be a coalition?

   

  Such an argument - coming from the intellectually humble citizen or who it seems to me was one time called "common mwananchi" but is in today's parlance better referred to as "Wanjiku" - might well be understood. 

  But indeed even this kind of argument can only be considered to have emanated from some smartest of "Wanjikus" in consideration of the fact that a great majority of them are illiterate and not even in the simple know of the existence of the Office of the Registrar of Societies for example or of the common truth that the Press has the moral duty to defend the populace against unjust governance.

  Yet, this must be remembered, it is "Wanjiku" who constitutes the majority of those who believe Narc is a coalition.

   

  Let us proceed, then, to scrutinize the case the minority would make. 

  Before further proceeding though, I will clarify one thing: for the sole reason that we cannot afford unnecessary speculations when from his clear-cut words we can as clearly get his meaning, the President shall have his opinion wholly, if that, gauged from his memorable statement or declaration.

  Having earlier stated my own stand, I shall argue my cause as an independent individual because, while I am alive to the wide probability space that there could be others other than the President and I aboard this titanic ship, I'm not so sure we shall all be seeing the peaceful azure skies touching like an angel the troubled soul of the ocean waters at exactly the same point: Someone atop the vessel afloat might look beyond the waves.

   

  We must now be as considerate of this second group as we were of the only other by asking the question that best suits: "Why is Narc not a coalition [of parties]?

  I shall commence by presenting to you the President's point of view as I comprehended it upon scrutiny of his talk:

  Narc was a coalition until immediately before the last General Election. It could not have been otherwise if the name were to mean anything.

  But the moment its constituent parties resolved to contest the election under the umbrella Narc ticket rather than independently as would be expected under such circumstances, they automatically became obsolete.

  Narc therefore, while maintaining its confusing name, is technically not a coalition. This is the truth those who believe otherwise refuse to see.

  At least the Office of the Registrar of Societies did [see] and still does.

  With this simple but factual explanation in mind, one can easily see the reason we have the moral authority to call Narc grass-root elections in a positive effort to rid it of that confusing name; misplaced doubts; and, generally, to put things in an apple pie order so the state can run smoothly and free from confusion.

   

  If this be a welcome interpretation, you will agree that the President - at least as appears here, understands the nucleus of what it takes to form or be technically a coalition: independent running for general election by parties [in question].

  Other than the binding general theme, this is the only other point our views coincide.

  Any unmentioned argument of the President's that might purport to be reflective of mine only stems from the already stated fact.

  What, however, puts us so much at variance in thought is my faith that Narc has never, in the first place, been a coalition.

   

  Kindly allow me to at this point put across my own thoughts for the cause.

  In general, by which I here and now mean "as has been known to widely apply to the  extent of being deemed almost the only tenable", a coalition must at all times be found the repository of the following twin features;

  ·        Its constituent parties must have contested the general election prior to its formation as independent entities which also means, if by way implicit, that they must have contested against each other or one another in the same election.

  ·        [As further implicit] It must be formed after though never in the run-up to the said election because then the election must be contested independently.

  It has always seemed to me that it's parties, as opposed to coalitions, which contest elections.

  I have searched my mind in vain for the phrase "Coalition Party."

  All I have got for my troubles is the recurrence of the sobering truth: "Coalition Government!"

  Should we venture to cast our eyes to the east, what brighter gleam could catch them than the Germany Party and the Social Democrats?

   

  When this generality is not the case, the only model I have known to work without friction is Britain.

  It's only here that I have seen a coalition defy the above set rules with no doom to failure.

  At any time and under any circumstances a National Government comprising all parties can be formed as public interest dictates.

  Here alone can parties "go to the country" either as separate entities or as a coalition of all and sundry without any irregularities.

  You will remember Lloyd George's National Coalition Government that fell to welcome the Bonar Law Conservative Administration of 1922/23 and the Mac-Donald National Coalition Government of 1931/35 as some of the examples. But Britain, if these extremes work perfectly in it, is in itself a unique old democracy with the monarchy; the long standing traditions; the parliamentary system of government; the Magna Carta et cetera combining in as peculiar a design to make matters all the more complex.

  So much so is this that its native inhabitants alone can best comprehend the island.

   

  It is imprudent to think Narc leaders - by their numbers; by their experience; and by virtue alike of both their own individual and their intelligentsia of advisers' wisdom - could have been lost on these points.

   They certainly could not have hoped to form a coalition ignoring these hard facts.

  Nor could they in so short a period as was have hoped to venture into the unknown with tenable national goals in sight when they were at the National Constitutional Conference to so bitterly disagree, amongst themselves, over the viability in Kenya of the known: Parliamentary System of Government.

  These are facts we must all reckon.

   

  If you consent that this is a full and fair representation of either side - the first at least - and further that the arguments, ignore the President's, for the second question outweigh by whatever small percentage those for the first, it can only be implicit that you are in full accord with my cause: Narc is not a coalition.

  Assuming therefore that you perfectly heed the point, "Welcome aboard!"

   

  Let us together take a step in the right direction by solemnly contemplating the overriding reason Narc would have wanted to be recognized to be a coalition.

  In an attempt to illucidate this, we must explore the possibilities in the sobering question: "Couldn't Narc have used this ploy to garner votes in the General Election that ultimately saw it assume the reins of power?"

  Indeed, I personally occupy the position that Narc used this guise to be better placed in the said election.

  Nothing has happened to convince me otherwise.

  And it makes me shudder to think we should have succumbed.

   

  But toeing this ilk of line can hardly ever be expected to proceed an inch without meeting what in my mind translates into a highly probable counter-inquiry:

  "Why would Narc have wanted to do that when, going by the agreeably sweeping political tide, it was pellucid they were winning?"

  That question, frankly, could freeze a polar bear.

  It matter-of-factly is difficult to answer without a few generalities here and there.

  Nonetheless, it falls my lot to approach the question head-on: there are never easy answers.

   

  First, I do not believe the leaders of NAK and of LDP were at heart convinced that even upon uniting their popular forces [to form a single party] they could win as easily as is widely imagined.

  They must have keenly explored the then political scenario and come to terms with the harsh realities of things as they were and not as they ought to have been.

  They must have burnt the mid-night oil in the brain-teasing and nerve-racking assignment to re-examine the classic Machiavellian that was Daniel Kapkorios arap Moi and must have seen him conscious of the "swing of the pendulum" and the general desire for change by the Kenyan populace.  They must thus have reckoned him automatically reaching for one of those inexhaustible master-strokes for which he was at home and abroad respected, if not admired, by friend and foe alike.

   Nay, it could never have been easy!

   

  They must have further contemplated the day's President, by virtue of this being his political swansong and by himself being the political macho-man who had lived all his life for the art and for the game, resolving to bow out in a grand design which could find its acme only in seeing the President's protégé home and dry.

  Through your mind's eye see them, with faces resembling that of a child about to take some medicine, recollecting the circulation in Russia of that spine-chilling singular saying that it is not how people vote that matters, it is who counts the votes.

   

  Indeed, the making of political capital out of the antiquated mlolongo or queue system of voting by the KANU regime's politically correct and the wide speculations that 1992 and 1997 General Elections had by the successive Administrations been rigged could have played a pivotal role in convincing the leaders of NAK and of LDP that there was a likelihood the indomitable spirit of the Nyayo regime was but sleeping - only awaiting the chosen hour to rouse itself and devour like never was!

  History is replete with cases of election rigging by Big Man personalities in Africa and elsewhere.

   

  It must have been these factual possibilities that made the leaders and fosters of the Second Liberation go to the drawing board in utmost sobriety.

  There, they must have re-considered the previously read signs of times that the mood of the populace was, among other things, subconsciously against the monolithic party state in KANU-which they associated with internal repression and authoritarianism.

  The leaders must have instinctively sensed that the people, while totally severed from KANU, would in their subconscious not wish to associate with a new monolithic party which - as the leaders probably understood the conscious few thought - once perfectly controlled by the attractive force at the center as of atomic nucleus on orbitalic electrons [possibly through corruption rather that the mailed fist considering in the first case that the shortest route to a man's loyalty is his stomach and in the second that the politicians in question had withered many a repressive storm], would create an even newer problem: elitist bourgeoisie ruling class so much alienated from the people.

  They must have known that those "conscious few", while resolved to be certain they did not cast their votes for KANU, would remain neutral thinking they saw no long term difference between the said party and the new monolithic one upon its ascension to power.

  Yet both NAK and NDP were alive to the possibility that the political mathematics wizard perched upon the citadel of KANU had had the advantage of an aerial view and had done his prolific calculations assuming the "conscious few" were securely in the enemy's camp.

  Nothing could have been left to chance. Each vote counted.

   

  But there lay in the people's subconscious a powerful and decisive weapon which, transferred from its idle resting place to the psyche of the populace [their conscious], could be wielded against a major enemy in the looming vicious battle with as devastating effect as the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the enormous power of the atom.

  Clearly, there was need to rush for the deadly thing.

  If the masses could through action - which no doubt speaks louder than words - be made to see that they hated the monolithic party state in KANU, the finest of Daniel Moi's haunting master-schemes would be gone with the wind.

  It must have been then that it occurred to them as though in a night vision: "Let us beguile them by posing in the semblance of a coalition!"

   

  I view it possible that there are people who could have myopically voted for KANU yet who suddenly "saw the light" and swiftly changed sides upon realizing that NAK and LDP were running as a "coalition".

  But Moi himself, if ever he had contemplated rigging, could never have hoped to be so outrageously reckless.

  For once in a long lifetime, the robust old prodigy's hands seemed securely tied.

   

  Crowning it all then is the question we won't ask: "Couldn't we all have failed in a prime duty to the state?"

   

  If these final arguments are in harmony with that part of you that most cherishes reason, then you and I have failed.

  But there is one thing we remember with an ugly shudder rather than lulled contentment: we are not alone!

  For the thrilling long reverberations we can all hear can only be the sequel of the mighty crush from the lamentable fall of whole peoples.

  Parliament; the fourth estate; the Church and other religious groups; human rights movements; political activists; intellectuals at home and in diaspora et alia all, sadly, fall with us!

  At this point, I can almost hear the recurrence in echoes as haunting as ever of the somber rhythm of those memorable lines from a volume of "Punch" cartoon:

   

                                    "Who is in charge of this clattering train?

                                      The axles creak and the couplings strain;

                                      And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

                                      And Sleep has deadened the driver's ear;

                                      And the signals flash through the night in vain,

                                      For Death is in charge of the clattering train."

   

  We only need to eschew the wisdom in the first and vital step that is owning up and what will happen who shall say?

   

  It is not my intention to paint the already gloomy picture in darker hues.

  For when all is said and done, my purpose must remain as noble as it is realistic.

  All I ask is that we stand together.

   

  Were I to be suddenly jettisoned, I would as with Churchill merely say:

   

                                            "I feel like one

                                             Who treads alone

                                             Some banquet hall deserted,

                                             Whose lights are fled,

                                             Whose garlands dead,

                                             And all but he departed!"

   

  But were I to the bitter end be stuck with, I would at best only admire the sincere being's courage: this country would need them!

   

  The finger shall at our failure be pointed and the age-old question asked us thus: "Why?"

  Whether it is due to selfish interests; or the woeful state of affairs that is ignorance; or whatever reason it be is not for me to answer.

  One thing alone do I feel I must sure say for all that really counts: there is need on the part of each and every one of us to seriously contemplate this difficult question if at heart we be true repositories of the national interest.

  There is need for all of us to make an effort towards changing for the better.

  That, fellow countrymen, is the task before us in the murky dusk that alas, has unseen crept in!

   

  As old Winston once appealed to the war spirit of mighty France, so shall I to yours: "Good night, then, sleep to gather strength for the morning. For the morning will come--- " 

  And in that "morning" is a world we seek which the sparkling poetic genius of Tennyson alone can most perfectly explain:

   

                          "The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:

                            The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep

                            Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,

                            'Tis not too late to seek a newer world."

   

  Okello George Leakey

  [The Writer is a Student of

  Civil Engineering at the

  University of Nairobi]

   

                                                  

                                       'So today - and oh! if ever

                                        Duty's voice is ringing clear

                                        Bidding men to brave endeavour

                                        Be our answer "We are here"." -an old Harrow song

                                             

   

   






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes 

lllll
QUOTATION:

"All of us may not live to see the higher accomplishments of an African empire, so strong and powerful as to compel the respect of mankind, but we in our lifetime can so work and act as to make the dream a possibility within another generation"
-<html><A HREF="http://members.aol.com/GhanaUnion/afrohero.html">Ancestor Marcus Mosiah Garvey <i>(1887 - 1940)</i></A></html>

llllllllll
*  //\\//\\ unioNews Newsgroup //\\//\\   *
* http://members.aol.com/GhanaUnion *
*          We're One People         *
*          Join the Chorus          *
-    African Union Shall Succeed    -
=====================================
A luta Continua!

To subscribe to this group, send an eMail to:
[log in to unmask] 


      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
            ADVERTISEMENT
           
     
     


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

  a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unioNews/
    
  b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  [log in to unmask]
    
  c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~