Obama To Visit Kenya In July

[RV Pundit]

Thanks for the info. I agree that US, UK and Swiss have been doing a commendable job from Angloleasing to Gicheru to CMC to ChickenGate. I just hope they can do a more thorough job like they are doing in anti-terrorism activities. If for instance they can threaten to shut down any african or any funny island bank from global financial system or fine them heavily if they are conduit for illict money..then we have some chance of beating grand corruption.

Once US and rest helps us handle the big boys...we can slowly deal with small time cop getting 50bob bribe.

First: Obama's government has in fact been doing something about that and in 2010 took a step that no previous US government had taken: the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.     And they are using it in novel ways: no matter where the money is, if it went through a US financial institution, they will go after it.

Here are a couple of examples of the initiative in action:

"."

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-freezes-more-458-million-stolen-former-nigerian-dictator-largest-kleptocracy-forfeiture

"."

http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2014/10/20/kleptocracy-asset-recovery-initiative/

---

Second: It is far from easy to just go out and grab the stolen assets. Many of those countries where the stolen money is stashed have functional legal systems that require some proof that the money was stolen.   There mere fact that everyone and his dog "knows" that it was stolen and "knows" who the identity of the alleged thief are not enough.

- The thieves have the sort of money to buy the kind of lawyers (in those same countries) that will give the government a hard tackle.

- More importantly, the concrete evidence required to support a case usually has to come from the country that was robbed, and too often that country will not supply the information.   Do we, for example, expect the current GoK to provide evidence that would corner Moi?     

Moi  is in fact a good example---very good example:

(a) The current Anglo-Leasing nonsense in Kenyan courts, which will go nowhere, is in fact a smokescreen to convince the Swiss that Kenya is serious about Anglo Leasing.  And why is that smokescreen necessary?   Because the  Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland is after Moi's criminally obtained money:

http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18486

It remains to be seen whether or not the Swiss will be fooled.   Even if they wanted to look aside, Obama's US government has made it clear that it will no longer accept Swiss banks doing "business as usual".   

It is very important to keep in mind that the current Anglo-Leasing "heat" in Kenya is not the result of GoK suddenly deciding to do the right thing.    Nor is merely the fact that the Swiss have suddenly realized that they banked stolen money from Kenya.    One should look at the heat that the USA has been putting on the Swiss folks, on many fronts.   

(b) What is the current GoK attitude to tackling Moi?   One can get an idea in the US tribunal matter concerning World Duty Free.   GoK had an interesting line in that one.    According to its lawyers, GoK had every right to screw World Duty Free because Moi had eaten money in the deal and Kenyan law (being upright!) insists on not supporting criminal activities.   The tribunal, quite naturally was astounded:

"It remains nonetheless a highly disturbing feature in this case that the corrupt recipient of the Claimant's bribe was more than an officer of the State but its most senior officer, the Kenyan President; and that it is Kenya which is here advancing as a complete defence to the Claimant's [World Duty Free's] claims the illegalities of its own former President."

http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18487

-----

Third: Even when the money has been seized by others, it is not necessarily easy to return it.   

-- Sometimes those whose money has been stolen will not ask to get it back because that would mean admitting that currently powerful people are thieves.   Nigeria, for example, has sometimes shown that it would rather cut deals with the thieves than try to get back all of its stolen money that has been recovered.

-- The current US government seems to believe that simply returning stolen money so that it can be re-stolen is not helpful; they would prefer to know (i) what will be done to the thieves, and (ii) how the stolen money will be used. For that reason, I don't see the USA quickly returning the money they have cornered.    On (ii), last I heard, the Nigerian had paid some fancy lawyers & associated types to suggest that it could be given to a  US NGO or some similar lot in Nigeria to spend wisely.

The Nigerian "public" too seems to have its doubts about simply returning the money; they have been there before:

"Despite its inability to adequately explain how the more than $500 million Sani Abacha loot recovered from Swiss authorities was spent, the Federal Government has filed an application at a Washington DC District Court requesting that another $500 million (N75 billion) stolen by the late military dictator, recently frozen by the United States Department of Justice, be repatriated to the country.

In February, the Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, said the money recovered from Switzerland was used for rural development projects but failed to name specific projects the money was used for."

http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/161251-nigeria-asks-u-s-return-500-million-abacha-loot-country.html

I support the USA on this one: as long as Nigeria goes there begging for aid, why burden US taxpayers?  Might as well give them Nigerian money.

[MOON Ki]

Maybe I assumed you'd understood the context. Maybe in the future..I need to really do more [I have to admit, I am too lazy]. But you get the point..corruption like any vice...is a by-product of poverty and as people become wealthy and as opportunities increase with economic growth..there is less incentive..to steal.

In general, I would not dispute that the better the economy, the less the corruption;  there certainly is enough strong evidence to suggest that.   But the evidence seems to be complicated, and I am not sure that there is, as yet a "definitive" understanding.    For example, a very basic question is this:

Let us suppose, as indeed the evidence suggests, that corruption is related to the economy; for example, that as the economy improves, the less the corruption.     Has the economic improvement come about because of less corruption, or has the corruption gone down because of a better economy?

(One of the things that interests me about Kenya's projected economic growth is not that it has happened despite corruption, but how much better it would be without corruption.)

Two "extreme" cases to consider in such a case (and one may compare the first one with Botswana):

(1) Equatorial Guinea has a very small population, natural resources coming out of every pore and hole, and by GDP (PPP) is among the richest  in Africa.  (Off the top of my head, in the top 3.)  Yet it consistently ranks amongst the most corrupt places in the world.   

- That raises the question of wealth distribution, but that's another variable.

(2) China is the great economic story of our times.   But take a look at Chinese history:

- Taking a random period, corruption in China in the 17th and 18th centuries was of a nature to make Kenya/Nigeria/etc. look like school-kids.   

(One of the interesting things about Chinese history is that they invented/discovered things that they did bugger-all with but which the West then "upgraded".)

- China's economic rise has gone hand-in-hand with a severe and unprecedented crackdown on corruption.    I am not aware of anything quite like it in Chinese history.

Curiously---and I don't claim its of direct relevance---the Chinese leaders listened to a lot of what Lee Kwan Yew had to say.   And on such matters, he was very direct: swift justice---fines, jail, and caning.    (He was especially particular about caning as a way getting even high-flyers to directly & literally feel the pain.   Brought them down to earth or something.)

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Maybe I assumed you'd understood the context. Maybe in the future..I need to really do more [I have to admit, I am too lazy]. But you get the point..corruption like any vice...is a by-product of poverty and as people become wealthy and as opportunities increase with economic growth..there is less incentive..to steal.

In general, I would not dispute that the better the economy, the less the corruption;  there certainly is enough strong evidence to suggest that.   But the evidence seems to be complicated, and I am not sure that there is, as yet a "definitive" understanding.    For example, a very basic question is this:

Let us suppose, as indeed the evidence suggests, that corruption is related to the economy; for example, that as the economy improves, the less the corruption.     Has the economic improvement come about because of less corruption, or has the corruption gone down because of a better economy?

(One of the things that interests me about Kenya's projected economic growth is not that it has happened despite corruption, but how much better it would be without corruption.)

Two "extreme" cases to consider in such a case (and one may compare the first one with Botswana):

(1) Equatorial Guinea has a very small population, natural resources coming out of every pore and hole, and by GDP (PPP) is among the richest  in Africa.  (Off the top of my head, in the top 3.)  Yet it consistently ranks amongst the most corrupt places in the world.   

- That raises the question of wealth distribution, but that's another variable.

(2) China is the great economic story of our times.   But take a look at Chinese history:

- Taking a random period, corruption in China in the 17th and 18th centuries was of a nature to make Kenya/Nigeria/etc. look like school-kids.   

(One of the interesting things about Chinese history is that they invented/discovered things that they did bugger-all with but which the West then "upgraded".)

- China's economic rise has gone hand-in-hand with a severe and unprecedented crackdown on corruption.    I am not aware of anything quite like it in Chinese history.

Curiously---and I don't claim its of direct relevance---the Chinese leaders listened to a lot of what Lee Kwan Yew had to say.   And on such matters, he was very direct: swift justice---fines, jail, and caning.    (He was especially particular about caning as a way getting even high-flyers to directly & literally feel the pain.   Brought them down to earth or something.)

MOON Ki,

Equatorial Guinea has the highest per capita in Africa.  It is higher than Spain.

[MOON Ki]

[

I agree that US, UK and Swiss have been doing a commendable job from Angloleasing to Gicheru to CMC to ChickenGate.

Still, I have my doubts as to whether such actions can really tame the monster, unless there is some serious local action:

* I have not seen the slightest sign that Okemo and Gichuru are going anywhere.   Last I heard, one of them was being offered (by the government) a cushy job, presumably to help make up for assets "tied up" in the UK.

* In Chicken-Gate, some people in the UK have received some sharp slaps.   I don't see a hint of anything  happening to anyone in Kenya.

* In the case of Moi and his Duty-Free friends, the tribunal got over its "disturbance" and agreed with GoK's lawyers  that, on the basis of the evidence,  it was Moi, rather than Kenya, that had eaten chicken.   But it had a final comment:

"Although the Kenyan President has now left office and is no longer immune from suit under the Kenyan Constitution, it appears that no attempt has been made by Kenya to prosecute him for corruption or to recover the bribe in civil proceedings."

What must be worrying folks in regard to the Anglo-Leasing case is that the Swiss are not involved in some arbitration thing: theirs is a criminal case, of their own, and it won't do to cheerfully admit to kleptocracy.  Of course, there is not the slightest chance that any of Kenya's People Who Are Known By People Who Know People will end up in a Swiss court, but inclusion in criminal indictments could have serious implications.    GoK "needs" to quickly find some people "responsible" for the scam.

[Bella]

In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.

That's what I used to think.  Me I think integrity you either value it or you value other things, like tribe, more.

In any case, I am convinced not everybody has to be the same.  One has to respect the will of the people at some point.

That assumes too much. That the man in the village (or the man with the village firmly in him) who is 8 out of 10 of the people in the voting queue on election day has some decent understanding of how this affects his life (beyond knowing that is simply does), that he knows precisely how to sort the hype from the facts. Or that he has many other good options besides the names that show up on the ballot paper. There is simply no evidence to assume such a thing, quite the contrary in fact. Respecting the will of the people means not violently throwing out those declared winners by the designated authority; it doesnt mean assuming that the African knows more than what he clearly does not now; or assuming that if he knew better, he would prefer poverty and a hard life over an easier one.  In other words, respecting the will of the people and refusing to be involved have nothing to do with each other.

[Bella]

For example, lets take the Kikuyus (This is not just Kikuyus but ALL Kenyans, including Luos, but lets use them as an example).

I have met more than a few Kikuyus who DEEPLY believe that Raila intends to carry out some sort of genocide against them once he grabs a hold of power. That he is "dangerous", much like many Americans' attitude towards Vladimir Putin. In fact, part of the reason I was (still am) for Raila is that I really wanted this foolish myth, so religioulsy held, to be proved false once and for all, so that "the tribes" could move on. Many ordinary Kikuyus believe---very sincerely---that they must do everything within their power to make sure that he never smells the chance of oppressing them. From an objective stand point, Raila is no saint, but clearly a better choice against someone then indicted for crimes against humanity, if for no other reason than integrity, right? An easy choice, you would think. Uhuru is automatically out. But... not so fast. How does the voting Kikuyu see the PEV? Uhuru is a hero to so many of them, he defended Kikuyus when no one else would fight for them. I dont know how many times I heard that line before the election. But enough to know the belief is very powerful. For the Kikuyu loyally lining up on election day, this election is about trusting his future to a person who (he believes) "put his neck out there" for them vs the one who desires their destruction. A rational choice for this person is clearly the former. For those who dont buy that Uhuru is hero, there is a big portion who believes STOPPING the person who intends to wipe them out or at least oppress them or destroy their businesses as a matter of "revenge" is far more important than anything else. These happen to be the majority. As far as they know, yes: Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua et al,are probably better choices than Uhuru, but will they STOP their menace? On that one count, they fail, and Uhuru gets all the votes with full committment.

For many other tribes, the choice is about "those greedy, selfish Kikuyus" verses the ONLY one who has a real chance at getting them out of power and giving others a chance to be helped too, hence, nearly all their votes go to Raila.

For both these camps, it is not that integrity doesnt matter. It is that there is a "bigger fight" immediately demanding their efforts. It is that "all that will be tackled" once we get this "obstacle/menace" whatever---sorted. First, we get our people (who are the "right" or trustworthy ones in relative terms, per this thinking) in the right places, then they can sort the problems.

I just dont see how this should translate to voters wilfully choosing corruption/looting versus voters being lied to. It is a matter of who they believe IS the cause of it or a BIGGER danger and what they think the solution is or how to get to it. Which is why enlightening them is the only way to help them reason differently when it comes to elections. I have never met a Kenyan who happily chooses to support corruption in government, they are always complaining. Every. Single. One. That I have ever spoken to. Even the mama in the village. No one likes it. But politicians have managed to spin narratives that are very powerful for these people. A person who is deeply identified with his community and not educated is vulnerable to such spins. Sure, there are "educated" who act no better. But in my view, the proportion is far smaller.

[RV Pundit]

Moonki,
You might want to update your grim statistics on matters malnutrition,infant mortality, fertility and health with these latest very encouraging statistics that we are slowly turning the corner. As you can see, the level of education is critical, and these things take time.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/One-in-every-19-children-dies-before-fifth-birthday/-/1056/2679834/-/11yhcicz/-/index.html
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Counties-with-the-highest-and-lowest-fertility/-/1056/2679832/-/e809u3/-/index.html

[RV Pundit]

I think the narrative that "Raila is dangerous" or "Kikuyus are greedy" is a ruse that you should not fall for or waste time analyzing. The situation here is an ethnically divided society having to deal with competitive democracy.This is true everywhere including in the USA (although of course the whites are dominant majority). Democracy here becomes the "devil" because it then makes the division more intense, lead to PEV and even genocide. In that part Moi was right to oppose multi-party democracy (which soon morph into multi-ethnic democracy) but then without it; you have dictatorship, coups and possibly worse.

The solution is not Enlightenment or Awareness or name it because PHD holders from tribe A shares the same sentiments with a farmer in tribe A.This is pure tribal or ethnic or racial competition for power.That is the curse of democracy in a multi-ethnic or heterogeneous society....democracy will just keep dividing people up.

The solution is to FIX democracy by ensuring winner-take-all is done away with...and by ensuring very deeper levels of devolution or federalism.

Every tribe must form their own goverment within the large gov through devolution and federalism....and those gov must be powerful enough to guard against the national gov by some tribe marganilazing or oppressing other tribes.

For example, lets take the Kikuyus (This is not just Kikuyus but ALL Kenyans, including Luos, but lets use them as an example).
I have met more than a few Kikuyus who DEEPLY believe that Raila intends to carry out some sort of genocide against them once he grabs a hold of power. That he is "dangerous", much like many Americans' attitude towards Vladimir Putin. In fact, part of the reason I was (still am) for Raila is that I really wanted this foolish myth, so religioulsy held, to be proved false once and for all, so that "the tribes" could move on. Many ordinary Kikuyus believe---very sincerely---that they must do everything within their power to make sure that he never smells the chance of oppressing them. From an objective stand point, Raila is no saint, but clearly a better choice against someone then indicted for crimes against humanity, if for no other reason than integrity, right? An easy choice, you would think. Uhuru is automatically out. But... not so fast. How does the voting Kikuyu see the PEV? Uhuru is a hero to so many of them, he defended Kikuyus when no one else would fight for them. I dont know how many times I heard that line before the election. But enough to know the belief is very powerful. For the Kikuyu loyally lining up on election day, this election is about trusting his future to a person who (he believes) "put his neck out there" for them vs the one who desires their destruction. A rational choice for this person is clearly the former. For those who dont buy that Uhuru is hero, there is a big portion who believes STOPPING the person who intends to wipe them out or at least oppress them or destroy their businesses as a matter of "revenge" is far more important than anything else. These happen to be the majority. As far as they know, yes: Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua et al,are probably better choices than Uhuru, but will they STOP their menace? On that one count, they fail, and Uhuru gets all the votes with full committment.

For many other tribes, the choice is about "those greedy, selfish Kikuyus" verses the ONLY one who has a real chance at getting them out of power and giving others a chance to be helped too, hence, nearly all their votes go to Raila.

For both these camps, it is not that integrity doesnt matter. It is that there is a "bigger fight" immediately demanding their efforts. It is that "all that will be tackled" once we get this "obstacle/menace" whatever---sorted. First, we get our people (who are the "right" or trustworthy ones in relative terms, per this thinking) in the right places, then they can sort the problems.

I just dont see how this should translate to voters wilfully choosing corruption/looting versus voters being lied to. It is a matter of who they believe IS the cause of it or a BIGGER danger and what they think the solution is or how to get to it. Which is why enlightening them is the only way to help them reason differently when it comes to elections. I have never met a Kenyan who happily chooses to support corruption in government, they are always complaining. Every. Single. One. That I have ever spoken to. Even the mama in the village. No one likes it. But politicians have managed to spin narratives that are very powerful for these people. A person who is deeply identified with his community and not educated is vulnerable to such spins. Sure, there are "educated" who act no better. But in my view, the proportion is far smaller.

[Bella]

I think the narrative that "Raila is dangerous" or "Kikuyus are greedy" is a ruse that you should not fall for or waste time analyzing. The situation here is an ethnically divided society having to deal with competitive democracy.This is true everywhere including in the USA (although of course the whites are dominant majority). Democracy here becomes the "devil" because it then makes the division more intense, lead to PEV and even genocide. In that part Moi was right to oppose multi-party democracy (which soon morph into multi-ethnic democracy) but then without it; you have dictatorship, coups and possibly worse.

The solution is not Enlightenment or Awareness or name it because PHD holders from tribe A shares the same sentiments with a farmer in tribe A.This is pure tribal or ethnic or racial competition for power.That is the curse of democracy in a multi-ethnic or heterogeneous society....democracy will just keep dividing people up.

The solution is to FIX democracy by ensuring winner-take-all is done away with...and by ensuring very deeper levels of devolution or federalism.

Every tribe must form their own goverment within the large gov through devolution and federalism....and those gov must be powerful enough to guard against the national gov by some tribe marganilazing or oppressing other tribes.

Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.

[vooke]

Excellent points,
Where I differ is the idea that federalism can solve tribalism; if we had some tidy distribution of tribes in equally endowed regions, then it may work. This is far from reality. Maasais can probably live off Mara but what about Pokots?

Lowering the stakes in the national elections makes them less competitive but as long as it is the ultimate prize in democracy, tribe will always be a factor.

I have given up on tribe, am more worried about corruption, just hope the government of the day is less corrupt than the one before it

I think the narrative that "Raila is dangerous" or "Kikuyus are greedy" is a ruse that you should not fall for or waste time analyzing. The situation here is an ethnically divided society having to deal with competitive democracy.This is true everywhere including in the USA (although of course the whites are dominant majority). Democracy here becomes the "devil" because it then makes the division more intense, lead to PEV and even genocide. In that part Moi was right to oppose multi-party democracy (which soon morph into multi-ethnic democracy) but then without it; you have dictatorship, coups and possibly worse.

The solution is not Enlightenment or Awareness or name it because PHD holders from tribe A shares the same sentiments with a farmer in tribe A.This is pure tribal or ethnic or racial competition for power.That is the curse of democracy in a multi-ethnic or heterogeneous society....democracy will just keep dividing people up.

The solution is to FIX democracy by ensuring winner-take-all is done away with...and by ensuring very deeper levels of devolution or federalism.

[RV Pundit]

Of course the higher the levels of the education,  the better choices people will make including political choices,however it still will be our better ethnic leader..and the division and hatred btw tribes won't subside..and most popular national politicians will be those that can take advantage or engineer ethnic division and the hatred. 

If we have federal republic of kenya where each tribe or communities are essentially running their affairs except those they cannot (like the Army, Foreign Affairs, National Infrastructure) then slowly people will focus on the REAL ISSUES without the red-herring.

Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.

[Bella]

Of course the higher the levels of the education,  the better choices people will make including political choices,however it still will be our better ethnic leader..and the division and hatred btw tribes won't subside..and most popular national politicians will be those that can take advantage or engineer ethnic division and the hatred. 

If we have federal republic of kenya where each tribe or communities are essentially running their affairs except those they cannot (like the Army, Foreign Affairs, National Infrastructure) then slowly people will focus on the REAL ISSUES without the red-herring.

Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.

Indeed, without a doubt, devolution is paramount for inter/multi-ethnic societies. It takes the "zing" out of the power of the narrative that the politician "campaigns" on, which is always based on (often manufactured) competition between groups. I think as more devolution happens and education spreads, even the national politics will change, simply because "the narrative" will not have so much power anymore. Indeed, even the tribalism will go down, even if not completely.

[RV Pundit]

Indeed, once we get the formulae of power sharing btw counties and national gov right (we are hovering around 40-60--national gov is still big deal), then most leaders will emerge from grassroots, who will be sorted out by grassroots,and by time they emerge in national politics, we won't have the usual thugs whose biggest talent is to use ethnicity to divide people while avoiding the real issues of leadership.

My predicition for 2017...almost all good leaders will rush back to their counties to fight for governor position.This a good thing. Slowly folks will focus on real issues.

Hopefully we can in the future empower counties to control 80% of the budget...and more functions like Security,Education and name it.

Indeed, without a doubt, devolution is paramount for inter/multi-ethnic societies. It takes the "zing" out of the power of the narrative that the politician "campaigns" on, which is always based on (often manufactured) competition between groups. I think as more devolution happens and education spreads, even the national politics will change, simply because "the narrative" will not have so much power anymore. Indeed, even the tribalism will go down, even if not completely.

[RV Pundit]

I think the current model is good enough. Already counties are largely divided along tribal lines. We have 42 tribes and 47 counties.Except for a few cases like Kurias of Migori, Sabaot of Bungoma,Pokots and Ilchamus of Baringo, immigrant communities in RV and coast, everyone seem happy tribally with the counties.

When it come to sharing the cake..the formula we currently has receive little complains..it based on population plus poverty with equalization fund..and with counties allowed to raise their own revenues.

We just need to do some few tweaking here and there...but we have a foundation for a more united, stable and prosperous kenya.

As counties build capacity, we need to think about adding them more powers and functions, so that ultimately nobody will feel left out if Raila or Uhuru or Kalonzo wins it.

Excellent points,
Where I differ is the idea that federalism can solve tribalism; if we had some tidy distribution of tribes in equally endowed regions, then it may work. This is far from reality. Maasais can probably live off Mara but what about Pokots?

Lowering the stakes in the national elections makes them less competitive but as long as it is the ultimate prize in democracy, tribe will always be a factor.

I have given up on tribe, am more worried about corruption, just hope the government of the day is less corrupt than the one before it

[gout]

Listening to the likes of Moon Ki and most of Kenyans, Africans educated before 2000 are doing well working for Multinationals, global NGOs, IMF.... you get mad, disappointed but understand why Obama has behaved and act the way he has done .... likes of MOON Ki wont send their peasantry folks some cash coz we will drink it up just like Obama .... why not pay school fees, send Nakumatt vouchers which we can't liquidate, build an apartment and make a relative a caretaker and pay him/her a salary ..there are so many ways to help even a drunkard

All these people were educated on the goodwill of govt and harambees from peasants they now are deeming foolish for electing uhuru and ruto ..even Obama snr had to rely on HELP from  African American Students Foundation ....

What if peasants, BOOM/HELB refused to HELP like of Moon Ki or Obama snr and jnr because their parents were not doing enough to stop drinking busaa on their small wages


Also having watched the Men who Built America I can support the argument that corruption solves itself ..... I infact would argue it is a key ingredient in development in third world countries who have to rely on US & China to develop.... as long as proceeds of corruption do not end up in offshore accounts but are building houses in african slums where they are needed and a few malls here and there we are marching ....

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.

That's what I used to think.  Me I think integrity you either value it or you value other things, like tribe, more.

In any case, I am convinced not everybody has to be the same.  One has to respect the will of the people at some point.

That assumes too much. That the man in the village (or the man with the village firmly in him) who is 8 out of 10 of the people in the voting queue on election day has some decent understanding of how this affects his life (beyond knowing that is simply does), that he knows precisely how to sort the hype from the facts. Or that he has many other good options besides the names that show up on the ballot paper. There is simply no evidence to assume such a thing, quite the contrary in fact. Respecting the will of the people means not violently throwing out those declared winners by the designated authority; it doesnt mean assuming that the African knows more than what he clearly does not now; or assuming that if he knew better, he would prefer poverty and a hard life over an easier one.  In other words, respecting the will of the people and refusing to be involved have nothing to do with each other.

Bella,

You and me, we have a different view of villagers.  I see them as wise.  Wiser to the problem than a policy wonk in Virginia.

[MOON Ki]

likes of MOON Ki wont send their peasantry folks some cash coz we will drink it up just like Obama .... why not pay school fees, send Nakumatt vouchers which we can't liquidate, build an apartment and make a relative a caretaker and pay him/her a salary

Too much emotional excitement and too many unjustified assumptions on your part.  Please calm down.  For what it's worth, I actually do such things and have been doing for years.   Anything else?

I can support the argument that corruption solves itself .....

As I have indicated, I have no "problems" with such claims, other than the observation that they are probably wasted on my type.   Far better to use them to bring comfort to all those Kenyans who feel done-in by corruption. (And remind them that it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.)

[vooke]

Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?

I think so.  I tend to lean center left if that helps clarify anything.

[RV Pundit]

That is good one. Kenya gov if we go by taxes they collect; should only be responsible for 25% of GDP; if we throw in loans and grants; maybe 40%! That leave us as private citizen doing the rest of the job of pulling ourself out of the mostly self inflicted quagmire.

Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?