Comment by Robert Maxon appearing on the Kenya Scholar’s
———— —–
I apologize for entering this discussion a bit late, but this has been a busy time. I congratulate those who have contributed for their thoughtful and penetrating analyses. For someone like me, it is most encouraging to see how passionately Kenyan scholars care about their mother country and its future.
I would like to comment from a historical angle with a focus on majimbo/utaguzi as that is all the rage again in the draft constitution.
First, the notion that majimbo should be opposed for Kenya’s future since Kenya’s founding fathers rejected it begs more questions than it answers. Does it mean that only members of KANU in 1960-63 can be considered founding fathers? More to the point, such notions do not even consider why the KANU founding fathers rejected a federal system.
They certainly raised many reasons for the need to ditch federalism, such as the fact that Kenya could not afford such an expensive system, but those who, like Odinga and Mboya, sought to justify their stand never divulged the real reasons why they refused to implement the self government constitution (1 June 1963 to 12 December 1963). In so doing they broke solemn promises made in April and July 1962 and March 1963 that they would abide by the agreements they signed. Several contributors have expressed their fear that current political leaders are not likely to abide by any new constitutional order.
I offer the following reasons, based upon my forthcoming book, Uhuru na Majimbo, which describes the evolution of Kenya ’s independence constitution.
First and foremost, the KANU leaders sought to do away with majimbo for no other reason than the self government constitution gave too much power and autonomy to regional assemblies.
Kenyatta and his ministers who took office on madaraka day 1963 had that in mind from day one. There is plenty of archival evidence to support this interpretation. For example, less than two weeks after taking power, Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Tom Mboya ordered those departments whose services were to be regionalized, such as agriculture, health, and education, to produce memos making the case that such services must remain the responsibility of the central government. This was before those sections of the constitution had even been implemented!
Position papers were prepared calling for changes in the constitution. So far as can be determined all were written by expatriate civil servants. In other words, the KANU leaders were determined right from the first to institute a centralizing and authoritarian system of government in which the regional assemblies created by the majimbo constitution would have nothing to do.
A second example of this tendency may be seen in the government’s demand to place the executive power of the regions in the hands of the civil secretary, the region’s highest ranking civil servant (and successor to the PC of colonial times). The self government constitution placed this authority in the regional assembly for each region, but it quickly became clear that such a system was unwieldy.
KANU’s demand would have negated democracy by putting power in the hands of a civil servant (who when KANU got its way with the establishment of a single civil service commission in the independence constitution would be a central government appointee) rather than by the presidents of the regions elected by the regional assemblies holding executive authority.
The British government refused to go along with this, however, and the independence constitution placed executive authority in the hands of the finance and administration committee of each regional assembly. After the 1964 constitutional amendments, the PCs were back in their neo-colonial roles.
Another long forgotten reason for the failure to sustain federalism after independence may be found in the overwhelming opposition of civil servants to the self government constitution. This again is well documented in archival evidence as British colonial civil servants were overwhelmingly opposed to majimbo.
Almost to a man, they believed it would increase tribalism and ethnic tension, and they were strongly opposed to the existence of eight civil service commissions in the self government constitution. These expatriates and the still small number of African civil servants in the higher ranks of the civil service in 1963-64 (the overwhelming majority from ethnic groups that supported KANU) were important allies for the KANU leaders in refusing to implement the constitution and the ultimate destruction of majimbo.
Needless to say, most of the expatriates who favored a neo-colonial political and administrative system for Kenya did not stay in the country long enough to taste its negative fruits.
Rather than develop these issues further, I will merely repeat one of the points I made at the KESSA conference last summer. That is that majimbo has never, from the 1950s to the present, had the support of the majority of Kenya ’s population. Obviously, the committee of experts disagree, but the consensus they claim to have found may well break down when it comes to considering the specifics of majimbo and the many contentious issues such as those noted above.
What powers will the devolved units actually have? Who will hold executive power in those units? How will they be financed?
Remember that the self government constitution provided finances for the regions to provide services, but almost all had to be collected by the central government and then disbursed to the regions. For that type of federalism to work, those in control of the central government must also believe in, and practice, federalism.
In the self government and independence constitutions, moreover, regional assemblies were not allowed to take loans locally or internationally. KADU had advocated this power for the assemblies and KANU opposed it; it was left for the British government to decide. In this case, the Secretary of State for the Colonies decided for KANU’s position in his constitutional adjudication of March 1963.
As noted by some contributors, moreover, the whole question of provincial and district boundaries promises to be very difficult to decide. This was certainly the case in 1962 and 1963. It raised ethnic tensions and suspicions then and will likely do so now if the same basis for decision making (primarily ethnic) is relied upon.
The difficulty may be appreciated by recalling that in 1962 KADU called for six regions based upon an affinity of interest among people who would wish to live together. A second principle advocated by the party was that within any region there would be more than a single ethnic group and all the districts would have an equal number of seats in the regional assembly.
The party’s third principle made a great deal of sense. This was to bring together people from areas that were less developed economically and educationally with those more developed economically and educationally so as to provide for mutual alignment of economic interests and a maximization of development based on the rich cooperating with the poor. This was well illustrated by KADU’s proposed Northwestern Region where Turkana, West Pokot and Marakwet were to be joined in the same region with Trans Nzoia, North and Elgon Nyanza (Busia district was created later).
As is well known the Regional Boundaries Commission refused to establish such a unit. Even more serious for KADU’s regionalism was Central Region. This was created by the commission just like KADU had advocated, but this unit represented a violation of the principles noted above. The anti-Kikuyu bias and intent of this was obvious and gave KADU’s critics plenty of ammunition in attacking the party’s policy as akin to tribalism.
Thank you for this opportunity to bring forth some warnings from the past as Kenyans seek a better future with a new constitution.
Robert Maxon
Bob;
You ain’t late yet as we haven’t started the mambo-jambo of this vital topic as we are still warming up. The topic just cropped up early this week and are still trying to figure out how to tackle it.
That said, I would like to thank you for your remarks and articulate points in the paragraphs highlighted below. This caught my attention and I decided to respond to them. The info you relayed across in the highlighted portions of your article are true and that was the reasons why Majimbo-lism was abdicated by the status quo of post independent Kenya.
Beginning with your first paragraph, the majimbo notion was highly opposed by the ruling clique on grounds that given chances to prevail, the house of Mumbi will automatically loose “autonomy” control powers. They thought that Kenya was for theirs and theirs to rule and govern for ever. They scrambled for property left behind by the departing Caucasian folks. They did not think of the small communities such as those you identified in the last paragraph which needed every help they could get in order to survive. They thought that they were the only folks who courageously rose up in arms and fought the white man out of Kenya. They forgot that other small communities played an important role all together. To them, it was like “winner takes it all”.
I personally can say quite frankly that I am for the idea of Majimbolism for that is the only and best way to distribute the nat’l cake equally. It hurts when you find that folks from other parts of the country, toil so much like horses and yet they can’t see or enjoy the fruits of their sweat.
Case in point: In Gusii Highlands, coffee farmers used to strugle long enough to tend to the coffee trees, harvest the beans and deliver them to the nearest coffee cooperative center. The coffee is then transported to other locations where it is processed and sold, either locally or exported. In most case, the exported product was the best coffee one could find anywhere in the world. Amazingly, when it comes to the payment of these proceeds, the farmers ended up getting meager revenues for their outputs. Their proceeds were slashed right from the top, the Coffee Board of Kenya took some for Marketing the coffee overseas, the Kenya Cooperative Union took it’s share for processing the beans, etc. Most of the farmers became enraged and cleared their coffee trees and planted something else which was more productive and profitable to their families. Folks didn’t see any reason of cultivating the crop of which had any productive and monetary value to them.
It’s on this basis that most people are in support of the majimbo system, so that every region will be responsible for it’s own needs. If we produce cash crops, let them be processed locally and all taxes incurred and revenues generated should be the responsibility of that region. The more taxes and revenues you generate for the federal government, the more progressive you will be.
That is how things work here in the States, California and New York. California is the leading state in terms of revenue and that is why people say that “without California there is no America”. Jobs in California pay a little more than jobs in Mississippi which is regarded as the poorest state. Living conditions in states that do better economically, are better than those which don’t. They always rely on federal bailouts. And that is what we need to do in Kenya too.
If majimbo is enacted in Kenya, small communities which have always been marginalised, will have a part to play in their own regions and the federal government will only chip in whatever they are not able to handle. Some things will be done by the local/regional governments eg the running of the school system, health care centers, markets, local roads and the federal government to take care of inter-region roads. (Interstate roads). Revenues and taxes collected at a particular region should be utilized at that particular area and nowhere else.
As for the election of the president, it will be nice if the president runs as an independent candidate devoid of any political affiliation, and elected by people of Kenya and not be a member of parliament from any constituency. In this way s/he will not hold his/her allegiance to any particular community or party. S/he will be the people’s representative or servant and not a party rep as is the case now. And this is the only way the ceremonial president will have mutual respect with the PM of the day and power sharing will not be a struggle as it is now. There will be no more recriminations as both folks will be the people’s representatives and not the party or any fraternity group.
As for external loans and grants, it’s unfair for the central government to accrue those funds and use them in certain specific regions only and when it comes to payments, the whole country is taxed even communities that never benefited from those funds. That should be a thing of the past.
With these few remarks, I beg to move.
Thanks
TOI
By Rev Okoth Otura
The Unregistered Christian Democratic Movement of Kenya ( CDMK) urges all Kenyans to supports the Kenya new harmonized constitution is a head start towards the Majimbo System of government.
CDMK hereby urges all Kenyans to push for its implementation.
After series of consultations with our partners CDMK will fully support the referendum, and seek the International community to support the implementation of this new Majimbo constitution.
It will be imprudent for Kenya immune corrupt politicians to once again delay the long awaited Majimbo constitution for sake of selfish gains.
It is also worth noticing that Kenyans have lost lives since gaining independence in 1963 from the thankless British masters because of the flawed constitution that provides extreme and excessive unbalance power to the wealthy, elites ruling class.
Kenyans must accept that no democratic sovereign nation in the world has ever had a better or perfect constitution, and therefore the wisdom requires that this time around Kenyans must make a step of faith and pass this constitution.
Indeed the phrase contained in CHAPTER FOURTEEN, which underlines the devolved government objects and principles, is foremost important since it gives all the Kenyan regions power to plan and develop without the interference from the central government.
Besides other sections of the proposed constitution, a sentence in chapters fourteen that states that “devolution government is to facilitate the decentralization of State organs, their functions or services from the capital of Kenya, promote the participation of the people in the making of decisions affecting them; and enhance checks and balances and the separation of powers”
Hence this section seems to be the most appropriate in empowering the managements of resources of under developed regions.
In essence this has been a bone of contention due to the fact that the central government had all the powers to direct or redirect development to any region has it is pleases those in the authority.
Once Kenyans voted for devolved government, no Kenyan tax payers shall be discriminated because of his/her race, religion or ethnic background for public services, just has it is scribed in the developed Federal (Jimbo) democracies in the world.
The government must ensure that all Kenyans are provided with a proper interpretation of the draft to avoid shameless political opportunists who are bend to distort the facts therein, for mere political selfish gain.
Finally CDMK machineries are set to support the implementation of this draft in full force, from the grassroots up, and warn that anyone who will be on the way will meet the bitter wrath of the Kenyan people power.
http://majimbokenya.com/home/2009/11/21/kenyan-dissidents-in-canada-support-new-draft-majimbo-law/