Kenya's civil society needs a new vision

Kenya is at a crossroads of history. A lot has been written and said about the effectiveness of the African Union-led coalition government. Undoubtedly, the success or otherwise of the Grand Coalition Government (GCG) will determine where Kenya goes from its current flip-flop of collation politics. First, we have to discount the doomsday analysts who preach a more severe crisis for Kenya. I think this is over-hyped by vested interests. The coalition government, despite is shortcomings, will succeed, mainly because Kenyans want it to succeed. In the same vein, let us also discount those fly-in experts who claim to have an antidote to the current political impasse stalling the work of the GCG. Threats by foreign ambassadors with dubious interests will not lead to the collapse of this experiment.

However, what we cannot discount is the reality that there is too much suffering and too much uncertainty among the wananchi, and that the government has to find effective ways of reassuring the population. Impunity is real, while disadvantaged and vulnerable groups suffer from the lack of activity from ‘office bearers’. What is becoming apparent is the total lack of popular participation and the lack of political will to implement reforms, which will affect vested interests.

Look at the scenario: students have rioted, the Mungiki have risen to the occasion with murderous rage, while ordinary people have also responded in the only way they know how – murderous rage. Youth who are impatient at the government’s perceived lack of interest in protecting national boundaries have resorted to removing railway lines. Civil society has also responded, especially human rights groups, with demands for structural reform in the judicial sector. National and local peace movements and initiatives are springing up everywhere. Yet sometimes the impression created by the international media is that Kenyans have become passive; some even claim that the only ‘opposition’ in Kenya today is the US ambassador to Kenya. Is this deliberate mischief-making or ignorance? I will go for the latter.

Should reform be undertaken because Kofi Annan threatens to present some envelope to the International Criminal Court (ICC), or because it is in the interests of Kenya to have these reforms? In every country under transition, reforms are necessary, and will be undertaken because it is in the national interest to do so. The youth were calling for reform, women’s groups have called for reforms, and political parties are calling for reform. Religious bodies, businessmen and women, and indeed the body politic is interested in reform. Reform will come not because Kofi Annan or US President Barack Obama threatens hell and brimstone, but because Kenya needs it. The constant haranguing by ambassadors from so-called ‘powerful’ countries is not only counterproductive, but has implications for the sovereignty and cohesion of Kenya.

However, this question leaves out another. What is the real chance of civil society contributing in an effective and open way to and leading these reform agendas that Kenya needs so badly? What are the chances of the coalition government working hand-in-hand with civil society to bring about structural reforms that will push Kenya forward? While so much attention has been paid to the GCG, what is often ignored is civil society and its ability to influence these events without resorting to threats and hectoring. It is not comforting to think that what passes off as civil society in Kenya today is restrictive, closed and self-serving.

In some African countries such as Ghana and Nigeria, at moments such as these the voices of the people are expressed through trade unions, journalists' associations, teachers’ organisations, civil servants’ unions, market women and traders’ associations, youth organisations, chiefs and rural development organisations. In Kenya however, such broad voices are lost in the cacophony of contest between politicians, elite groups and ambassadors' foreign missions, who behave like colonial overlords. Sometimes it appears as if social commentary has become an end and not the means to an end, the preserve of the few, leaving the resulting action to the most frustrated and those who feel abandoned or betrayed by the political system in the country.

It would also be churlish to suggest that the GCG is not interested in engaging with civil society in its current form. The Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS) reform programme was founded as a partnership between government and civil society to push for reforms, partly in recognition that in some cases governments need a push from below to implement changes. Of course, any impression that the state defines the role of civil society will defeat the very notion of civil society itself, and will horrify civil society activists. However, the government of the day defines development priorities and attempts to deal with issues of human security, including the protection of vulnerable people from abuse and deprivation. In the same way, the government and civil society must agree methods of cooperation and engagement.

On the flipside of the coin, civil society has also to define its role in these broad parameters, ensuring that the voice of the voiceless is heard. In any society, developed or developing, the role of civil society, including all third-sector organisations, is to plug the gaps in development left by government – human rights protection, micro-credit, children’s rights, women’s rights and access of services. Sometimes, it achieves this by helping vulnerable groups to access justice and welfare. This is where the synergy between government and civil society becomes apparent. Indeed, the two are not on a collision course, but working hand-in-hand to promote social development and bring about improvement in the lives of ordinary Kenyans.

In the last 20 years, it appears that both governments and civil society have allowed the agenda for development to be dictated and defined by external forces and external interests. What we see is no longer solidarity between the peoples of Europe–America and Africa, but an attempt at what some people referred to as ‘re-colonisation’ through the backdoor, using financial aid and donor money to leverage influence and in fact in some cases even ‘regime change’. In this process, the role of civil society has been franchised to international non-governmental organisations, leaving very little for home-grown solutions and strategies for collaboration with governments and the private sector.

This process has led to a widening gap between government, the private sector and civil society, to the extent that some civil society organisations think that adversarial advocacy is one of their roles. This view is reinforced by some donors who preach the gospel that all African governments are bad, self-serving and corrupt. Now we know that corruption is not an African problem, but a global one. Yet African civil society is yet to make this ideological paradigm shift in thinking and engagement.

While Kenyans and Kenyan civil society argue and fret about the lack of reforms, there is a lot they can learn from world events. Recent events in South Africa, Ghana, Sierra Leone and even the United States of America demonstrate two things. Firstly, the power of the vote and Africans' capacity to organise and run clean and effective elections. Secondly, the power of the movement from below. President Obama owes his rise to the most powerful position in the world to the power of the grassroots movement in America. In Ghana, Professor John Atta Mills defeated an incumbent party, the New Patriotic Party (NPP). In South Africa, Jacob Zuma and the African National Congress (ANC) won the recent elections in spite of negative campaigns against them from all kinds of hostile groups, most of which were directed at now President Jacob Zuma. In all cases, they triumphed in spite of adversity and hostile internal and external forces with vested interests because they believed in the power of the people to bring about change.

Kenyan civil society in its broadest sense, in spite of its strength and vitality, can still learn a number of lessons from these events. The first lesson is that only Kenyans can bring about the change they desire. Leaving this to politicians and their parties alone will stall the process. Political parties represent the interests of Kenyans, and are therefore vital to this process, but the definition of parties should go beyond the leadership. Reading Kenyan newspapers, one gets the impression that political parties in Kenya do not have branches, and if they do, these branch officers have no opinions to offer. It is always this MP or this leader. Where are the voices of grassroots membership?

Secondly, foreigners – foreign ‘experts’ and ambassadors – can talk about Kenya and change, they can write and pontificate, they can hector the government, and pretend in their arrogance that they have the antidote to Kenya’s (indeed Africa’s) problems, but ultimately, the voters of Kenya – the people of Kenya – are the only ones with real power to bring about popular democracy and radical change.

Thirdly, Kenyans must resist the temptation to run to the international community every time there is a political challenge. The Kenyan leadership must also not allow itself to be ‘blackmailed’ by threats from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Kenyan leadership must stand up to the international community and defend the national interest.

Kenya is endowed with huge natural and human resources, so please use them. In my lifetime (I may stand corrected on this), I cannot remember anytime in Ghanaian history when we called on the ‘international community’ to intervene in any shape or form to bring Ghana back on course. We fought as a nation, and defined what we would like to see Ghana become. It is a journey, but we have started. I would imagine that if the US ambassador in Accra behaved like the one in Nairobi, Ghanaians would have a lot to say to him, and it would not be pleasant. It is about having pride and confidence in what you have as a nation – the people – what Kwame Nkrumah called the 'African personality'.

Kenyans must believe in the power of their own institutions, including traditional ones, and their own power to help resolve intractable political and social problems, including poverty and social deprivation. Outsiders can offer advice, support – both moral and financial – counsel (and it is needed), and the occasional insight, but to turn that into an art form is mind boggling and sometimes counterproductive. Have we abandoned the counsel that too many cooks can spoil the broth?

Finally, Kenyan civil society in its broadest sense should rise up to the challenge. For civil society to have an impact and be able to influence political and developmental reforms positively, it needs to redefine its role and rethink its strategic relationship with the government, political parties and other stakeholders of development. Kenyan civil society has been recognised as one of the ‘most dynamic’ in Africa today. Yet such dynamism could be wasted without clear direction and a sense of purpose. Civil society needs to reinvent itself as broad-based, as a people-based community and as people-driven, and become a genuine voice and representative of the voiceless – those stuck in timeless potholes of grinding poverty, abuse and deprivation – and be able to engage the grassroots with a view to building a movement from below.

Building a movement from below requires expertise from civil society, political will and a broad consensus within Kenyan society that it is the best way forward. Only popular pressure from within Kenya can drive the reforms that are required. There is nothing new here since the days of Harambee, the Mau Mau resistance, and civil society efforts leading to the NARC (National Rainbow Coalition) era. What is required is to build on these past people-based successes and to find more innovative ways to reignite the movement from below.

THE NEW APPROACH

One of such initiatives is led by the UNDP’s (United Nations Development Programme) Civil Society and Democratic Governance facility, aimed at helping community-based grassroots movements with the organisational skills, the expertise and the financial support to lead change from below. This is not only aimed at financial support, but practical capacity building and people-to-people engagement which enable community-based and civic groups to network, share information and knowledge, and build a nation founded on the principles of equality, social justice and fairness. The underlying reason behind this is that change can only come from below and through solidarity with peoples from other nations. This initiative seeks to give a voice to citizens to enable them to benefit from the reforms. Only an empowered and motivated people can demand accountability and transparency from institutions (both public and private), human dignity and security. This facility believes that existing Kenyan institutions have the capacity to deliver change and promote effective participation of the broad masses. However, the people should be empowered to demand and receive the change they need.

There is also the recognition that there is a great deal of interest among community leaders and activists in community-based organisations to contribute to this movement from below. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not, but overall they are motivated by public good and selflessness. Enabling community grassroots organisations to work with the more experienced and financially endowed groups in urban Kenya will eventually lead to a mass movement for change which can engage with the political class to bring about the Kenya that people deserve. What is required is a process that is national and which recognises ethnic and cultural diversity, but which enables civil society to reclaim its role in society. The view that civil society is made up of ‘well-to-do middle-aged professionals who passionately despise the privileged class’ might not hold true, but it will become so if civil society itself refuses to engage the other half in the equation.

This can sometimes be achieved by pressurising through popular non-violent action, persuading where necessary, and cajoling when this fails. The aim is not to get into a confrontation as to who is right and has the moral authority or can impress foreign nations, but to engage with it for the common good. That will be the continuation of the building of a new democracy built around popular participation, popular power and social justice.

The founding fathers of Africa have demonstrated time and again that a committed leadership with a national vision can reform a country and bring about the desired changes that Kenyans deserve. But it has to be a popular movement from below, reflecting all ethnic, social, cultural, gender and faith groups. Either Kenyan civil society is committed to a change and emancipation or it will continue to serve other people's agendas. I believe that Kenyan civil society is capable of reinventing itself as leaders of the new African agenda and that it has the will and confidence to work with government to achieve its goals.

As Issa G. Shivji posed: ‘Who are we, Pan Africanists committed to African liberation and human emancipation, or neo-liberal impostors serving "imperialist" vultures?’ Frantz Fanon put it another way when he said: 'Every generation, out of relative obscurity, must discover its own mission, fulfil it or betray it.' This is the moment for the youth of Kenya to seize the time. Kenyan civil society should carve for itself a niche that enables it to build a prosperous and dynamic country which does not pander to the whims of bullies, but lives to the expectation of its founding fathers. Dedan Kimathi and other heroes did not die for Kenya to return to the gambling house of colonialism. Kwame Nkrumah said on the dawn of Ghana’s independence: ‘Ghana is out of the gambling house of colonialism and will not return to it.' I believe that is the adage of our time. Kenyans deserve a better future and a Kenya that Africa can be proud of.

* Zaya Yeebo is programme manager for the Civil Society Democratic Governance (CSDG) programme. He writes in his own capacity.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.