Confusion on the future of Africa?

“What happened to the days when members of a society used to come together to solve their own problems, e.g. do clean ups once every month and feast afterwards? call me a conservative but, I really think Change has done Africa more harm than good.” Says a Facebook friend.

This got me thinking and I hope the same will happen to you help me think this through.

My mind almost exploded when I started a careful introspection of the words in the two sentences. What is the meaning of change in Africa? And with respect to who should this meaning apply? Given the challenges that we face now as a continent, are they going to be solved if we return to our traditions? Will this give us clear identity and focus? What is our shared tradition?

Case Study: Kenya

 The Coalition Government of the TNA, the URP, NARC and RC are now in power with President Uhuru Kenyatta as the leader. How does the Manifesto of the Jubilee government give an insight into the questions raised above? What does it teach us about the Kenyan system of governance? The assumptions that have been made here are that Kenyan people read the manifestos of the eight political parties vying for the presidency and decided that President Uhuru Kenyatta could relate to their issues and move the country forward.

 

The central pillars of the coalition which illustrate the Agenda that this Government for Kenya are Unity, the Economy and Openness. These will help them achieve the goals of

• Putting food and clean water on every Kenyan table
• Ensuring that every child in Kenya gets quality education
• Creating wealth
• Ensuring that every Kenyan gets quality and affordable healthcare
• Empowering Kenyan women to take their rightful place in development
• Ensuring the safety of Kenya internally and externally
• Developing a cogent foreign relations and trade policy for Kenya

In the first pillar the coalition realizes the need to build nation cohesion by eliminating ethnic divisions but faces a challenge. Kenyan politics has been mired in personal animosity which often turns into ethnic rivalry that political competitors employ for political gain. The continuation of the analysis into the other two pillars will continue in my future posts. I want to make this very readable.

To some people this first quarter of the manifesto does not constitute good leadership. This is because of our dire need of the politics of the west that we see in the television. Some of us have labelled it the “politics of ideas”.

This is further from the truth. The politics that we get a glimpse of in the television regarding the west is much more complicated. USA for instance has legalized the act of giving your government money to push bills into laws. So the ideas that are most of the time voiced by these candidates are backed by money and this means that the plight of the poor and the vulnerable is not a priority because they do not have the money to participate in the political process.

The Kenyan government through its manifesto has fulfilled my idea of community by its goals. It has shown that the country has a tradition of caring for the weak and the vulnerable. It has also shown that members of the community are coming together to solve their own problems. This coalition government understands that power and authority can never be achieved if it cannot convince of its intention to do good and right. Whether action is taken is a conversation for another day.

Dennis Kariuki

- See more at: http://awakeafrica.org/the-future-of-africa/

The shocking conspiracy to assassinate Robert Mugabe

Land tenure in Africa is slowly becoming a benign factor to the success of the economy, Identity and resolving of conflict. To the West of Africa we have Ivory Coast whose moral economy is referred to as tutorat. This means that one who has been given a plot of land contracted a permanent and unlimited duty of recognition toward the giver, usually the autochthonous holder of the land rights.

This took place without any paper evidence and there was more value attached to this process than that which takes the form of using papers as a form of proof. The problems arising here are that the people who participate in this transaction to act as truth tellers may end up dying and it will be impossible for future generations to prove identity of ownership of land. This can lead to the confusion that exists in the present. There is a confused framework of land but it has a history.

 

Down to the south of Africa we have Zimbabwe, a land in which the issues regarding resettlement have gained international media attention. Robert Mugabe, being the pioneer, has lead to this country to have the reputation of being one of the few countries in Africa where Africans own their own land, and in huge numbers.

The model that he has employed to give his people ownership has not been popular. This is because it has been dismissive of international law and lead to a number of human rights violations towards the white farmers. Studies suggests that the new settlers will soon reach the potential of the white farmers in percentage yield and the food basket is going to be more diverse.

Through the policy of land eviction, he has gained the hero status in most of Africa and opposition from the West. This, he claims, was not his idea of policy but that he pursued a possible resolution for 7 years with the Britons. After the election of Tony Blair, there was dismissal of his proposals and this was the beginning of the hate and love relationship between the continents. I still believe he did the right thing but in many ways, but a leader who sees violence but does not condemn it is not worth leading. This is because he creates a violent youth who will eventually teach the young nothing but violence.

Violence is not one of the factors used to measure economic development.

This has lead to more violence and the opposition from Morgan Tsvangirai devised a ploy of his assassination. The evidence is out. The fact that an African leader can threaten the leadership that brought about his independence and freedom of expression is mind-boggling. Are we still going to kill ourselves even after independence? To what end? Can there be leaders who care about development of the people and less about power? We need a resolution that will ensure proper transition of property rights in this growing population without shedding of blood.

Who will lead us?

by Dennis Kariuki

- See more at: http://awakeafrica.org/archives/4301#sthash.uRvBQNgj.gjpOUnJV.dpuf

I know who killed Trayvon Martin and he is free

I knew Martin.

The 12 angry men of the jury of this case according to many represent a system. This system according to the sociologist, has ingrained (in the law courts) a hierarchy that disadvantages the colored against the whites. The white race is favored in rulings and they are deemed to be innocent before proven guilty in contrast to all the other races. This sounds like a very knowledgeable thing to say and it makes a person look like he/she understands how the world works. This I am going to prove is a more ignorant stance than the lack of this knowledge.

If this ruling were to be flawed, and as a result there was bias towards blacks, then we should revisit all the other cases down in history that this court has prosecuted. If we really care, we would follow the logic and understand that the sociologist also tell us that this same system disadvantages women. So we should protest against all the men acquittals in cases involving women deaths. Sociology also tells us that even among women, men, black people… there exists a hierarchy. Perhaps Martin was a little bit higher or lower than some white men in respect to men and not race. Where is this argument headed?

The failures of Sociology

Sociology as an area of knowledge and as a social science deserves to be stripped of its credibility because of the failures of this court ruling. It has managed to influence reactions thus putting the greatest nation in the world at a stand still. It has shaken the legal framework of a country that is flexing its muscles at the International Criminal Courts (ICC) in the Hague as having superior legal institutions. Sociology has become this point of reference where, according to many, the jury was supposed to have consulted in order to offer a fairer judgement. Else it would not have to be used to analyze the outcomes. If you explain the meaning of something it doesn’t mean that this meaning did not exist before you opened your mouth to explain it.

Using Sociology to explain this case is a very ignorant perspective. This is because we will end up referring all cases to the ICC so as to kill all bias thus demeaning our own institutions and this has greater consequences. Perhaps, it is time for the USA to become a signatory to this court.

Sociology has presented us with undeniable arguments about the nature of human behavior in relation to their environment and the nature of social order. My issue remains that, does truth of existence of man equal the truth of the explanations of his existence? Why are we using these explanations without doubt and acknowledgement of the alternative points of view? Why does this monotony lead to social disorder? Why in the many years of the existence of this young area of knowledge haven’t we understood ourselves better and solved our grievances?

The contradictions of the existence of sociology are clear in the questions.

Sociology is not a science. Science is life and this is comes from the ability of humans to be able to live it. From science we learn that we should be able to accept our faults and look for better alternatives. From this “sociological” case  why are there riots in New york and other places of this country. This is a denial of ideas that do not align with our own when there is a contradiction to our expectation. Sociology has thus proven to be a cause of problem and misunderstanding.

Sociology does not teach about morality, it presents problems but not the remedy. This is an attitude that appeals most of us. It gives us the ability to complain intelligently. This means that in order to find solutions we have to put aside the problem and start a new paradigm (way of thinking).

To add up, this area of knowledge has many theories to which one has to consider in order to understand behavior. There is the idea of protestants (religion), then came the idea of capitalism, then political and economic and social. We just have too much to look at to just label this ruling as a racial consequence if we are to maintain the credibility of sociology.

Do not get me wrong.

In all the drama we have to ask; who is the system if not us? Human beings are the jury, they took the gun and shot Martin and now they are the ones complaining. This is a consequence of sociology in one perspective but humans are the actors.

Sometimes it feels like we want to  develop ways to fill the world with hate and drive us all extinct. Poor us ! Now get back to work.

By Dennis Kariuki

- See more at: http://awakeafrica.org/archives/1916#sthash.ewxIBbIn.dpuf