UNDP HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013: LESSONS FOR KENYA

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released its 2013 report titled “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World” recently. As the title suggests, it focuses on the success stories of the global South, and mostly the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India and china) which have achieved tremendous economic development and improvement in human development indices. This is with a view of promoting discussion and even imitation by countries in the global north and south of the best practices adopted by these countries.

The Human Development Index was developed in the early 1990s by a group of economists including Amartya Sen, so as to more accurately measure how a country’s economic growth was being translated to improved wellbeing of its citizens. According to Wikipedia, HDI “is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education and income indices to rank countries into four ties of human development: very high human development, high human development, medium human development and low human development.”

The human development index was meant to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting, and towards people-centered policies. It measures the life expectancy at birth, the mean years of schooling among those aged 25 years and the expected years of schooling of those aged five years, as well as the standard of living of the citizens by looking at the Gross National Income per capita.

According to the report, Kenya is ranked at 145 out of 186 countries of which data is available, in the level of low human development. Kenya has an under five mortality of 85 deaths per 1000 births, life expectancy of fifty seven years, adult literacy rate of 87%(over 15 years) and GNI per capita of 1,541 USA dollars as per 2005 rates. Although Kenya is best ranked among countries of the East African Community, with Uganda ranked 162, Tanzania 152, Rwanda at 167 and Burundi at 178, clearly there remains massive room for improvement.

The three notable “drivers of development”, according to the UNDP report, which have propelled the growth of economies such as India, Brazil, China, Mexico and Indonesia, which Kenyan policy makers might want to take heed of include the following:

• A proactive developmental state that has a long term vision and leadership, with shared norms and values, rules and institutions that build trust and cohesion, and are pragmatic in terms of policies and ideologies they adopt to bring about human development.

• Tapping of global markets. The strategy should be one of “importing what the world knows and exporting what it wants.” It is imperative that Kenya adopts a policy that is maneuvers between excessive liberalization and statism, depending on its unique capabilities. Regionalism is also encouraged, as is focusing on niche products.

• Determined social policy innovation. The report encourages public investment in infrastructure, which was largely been the case in the Kibaki administration, and looks set to continue with the jubilee government, as well as in education and health. The investment in health could certainly improve, and the free maternal service to be offered is a step in the right direction. The Kenyan government should also end discrimination and unequal treatment, according to gender, age and ethnicity. I hope the 30% rule, as well as making illegal cultural practices such as FGM and wife inheritance, as well as child marriages go a long way in fighting this. The civil society should also keep the government and leadership accountable.

Kenya can also improve include increasing the income of Kenyans, reducing poverty, gender and inter generational inequality, social integration that has been damaged by fractious politics and historical injustices, and human insecurity. Human insecurity caused by hunger, disease, crime, unemployment, human rights violations and environmental challenges is a major challenge to the jubilee government, the private sector and civil society to bring about human development. It must be addressed as a national crisis.

The UNDP report concludes that less developed countries can learn and benefit from success of emerging economies in the south, new institutions and new partnerships can facilitate regional integration and development, and new global governance institutions that reflect the new realities of a more powerful south are needed.

In a nutshell, Kenya’s human development index is much lower than I thought it would be, especially when compared with countries such as Ghana, Libya, South Africa, Mauritius and Botswana. The undo report gives clear and concise recommendations on what we should do if we want to develop, drag millions of Kenyans out of poverty and join the exciting and innovative countries of the south as an African lion that puts human development at the very centre of its policies and economic agenda.

CAN CIVIL SOCIETY RECLAIM ITS ROLE AS FIGHTER FOR MWANANCHI INTERESTS?

The civil society ought to play a bigger role in promoting peace, reconciliation and implementation of the new constitution in Kenya. Mention of civil society in Kenya elicits images of the likes of Okiya Omtata, Boniface Mwangi, and maybe AFRICOG, the “professionals” who seem to have a lot of time to be always planning this or that protest or court injunction against “MPigs” or the police. Yet the World Bank defines civil society as “the wide array of non-governmental & not for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members/others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations.” In other words, any voluntary collective activity in which people combine to achieve change on a particular issue is the civil society, as long as it is outside the government or the market.

Examples of civil society organizations include charities, neighbourhood self-help schemes, human rights campaigns, non-governmental organizations, labour unions, religious groups, and professional organizations. In Kenya this would include the Red Cross, KNUT, SUPKEM, AFRICOG, etc. it is clear from the above definitions and examples that almost every citizen interacts or is a member of civil society in one way or another.

Why is it that the “evil society” is so demonized and associated with opportunistic and tribalistic Kenyans, rather than organizations of patriotic Kenyans formed to push for good governance, self-reliance and socio-economic development? The civil society’s golden moments in Kenya are often said to be the push for multipartyism in early 1990’s when the clergy, NGOs, multilateral organizations, oppositionists to force the Moi government to repeal section 2a and make Kenya a multiparty state.

It seems to have all gone downhill from there, as opportunistic individuals in the civil society have used the platform to push for narrow tribal interests, political posts, donor funding and attention from the foreign media. Yet, the civil society, according to BBC world service, can provide a social structure in nations where the government is non-existent or rudimentary. Think of the controversial Kenyans for Kenya initiative, or the many bursaries offered by rotary foundation etc. The civil society, ever since the days of harambee have done much to promote socio-economic and political development in Kenya.

 It only has to reclaim its space from the donor funded, opportunistic and professional organizations and return to the very centre of politics and society in Kenya.

In a new dispensation where there are many more devolved governments where politicians will rob and increase salaries and benefits at every turn, it is critical that the civil society finds its voice. the government seems less than legitimate to half of the population, due to a political culture that promotes ethnic competition and winner takes all mentality. In my opinion, the government of Kenya has served to divide Kenyans since independence, and it is the role of the civil society to unite all of us to fight for implementation of the new constitution, oversight of the government and fight for the justice of all who have been beaten, discriminated against and overtaxed among us by successive governments. This is even more crucial when political parties remain to be personality driven, tribalistic and election vehicles bereft of ideology or long term strategy. One only needs to look at the way the CORD coalition is stumbling in parliament, while the jubilee government is not expected to last past the next coalition cycle at the latest.

The civil society has the potential of pushing for reforms and a better Kenya by fighting for “non-tribal” interests such as better roads, higher wages, stronger judiciary, and fighting natural disasters and calamities. Yet the labour union movement is only good at fighting for salary increases, the student unions are akin to spoilt kids only good at throwing stones and looting shops every time they demonstrate, while the NGOs are seen to be as fleeting, tribalistic and opportunistic on donor money as the government and politicians, while pushing for “western” lifestyles and agenda.

It is time every citizen recognized that we are all members of the civil society, and the only way for us to achieve long term unity, peace and economic development is for more active involvement in the politics and economy of Kenya alongside the government, pushing the government and sometimes outside the government. The days of harambee may be long gone, but by recognizing avenues through which we can all improve our lot without serikali, we may just be able to slay the dragons of donor reliance and tribalism for good.

seven things i learnt from political party nominations

• 1.  Balkanization in Kenya continues unabated

The zoning of particular counties and regions has shown that Kenya is fast becoming a balkanized country. URP, ODM, wiper and TNA each had their own regions where winning the nominations was enough. This proves that national unity is fast becoming a pipe dream

• 2.     In an era of weak, personalized political parties, party defections are a good thing

The political parties of Kenya remain personal objects of the ‘’ bigwigs’’ such as Rail, Kalonzo and Uhuru. Hence their relatives, friends and cousins are always assured of winning the nominations. The only way to circumvent this is through defections. If the voice of the people is to be heard in Othaya, Siaya and Nakuru, then the politicians have to be prepared to defect from the political parties.

• 3.       The marginalized regions in Kenya are not interested in politics.

It has always been my view that there are certain regions in Kenya that are no longer interested in politics. Coast province, north eastern and parts of northern rift valley recorded the lowest voter turnouts in the land. This shows that these regions are moving out of the political dynamics. The citizens of these areas have realized that they cannot win in politics, hence why take part in the nominations?

• 4.       Demagogues are stoking the interests of the underclass: the middle class is running scared

The wins of Sonko and Waititu have heralded the end of tribalism in many parts of the land. This is a major issue since it means that the lower classes are no longer voting according to one’s last name. For many days, Kenyans have been complaining on how tribalism will be the death of us. But tribalism remains a lesser devil than classism!

• 5.       Voters are very passionate about politics and democracy

Despite the ridiculous disorganization, corruption and theft that characterized the party nominations, many voters lined for hours to cast their ballots. In areas such as Othaya and Siaya, they were ready to demonstrate immediately it became obvious that their voice was being silenced. This shows that democracy in Kenya remains strong.

• 6.       Politics makes everything in Kenya come to a standstill

Schools were closed, businesses shut down and jobs missed during the nominations. One can only fear about what will happen during the general elections on March 4^th.

• 7.       Do we overestimate the power of social media in Kenya?

Reading the comments, updates and tweets on Kenya’s vibrant online community, one would have been sure that the likes of jimnah Mbaru were winning on a landslide. However, this did not materialize. Does this mean that the middle class is not voting? Or are those of us not online more than those on it?  Opinion is divided.

those are my thoughts anyway. do you agree with me, or differ? kindly let me know your thoughts below in the comments section.

POLITICAL FEDERATION OF EAST AFRICA: TO REALISTIC TO WORK?

A federation, according to wordweb, is the act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs. The ultimate aim of the east African community is to become a political federation by 2013. Of course this will not happen by that time, but let us avoid that line of debate for now.

The main thrust of this blog is whether the east African community will be better off forming a political federation. I have been one of the greatest proponents of a political federation in recent times, because of the following reasons;

• 1.      None of the five east African states is viable at the moment as a single entity. Problems of tribalism in Kenya and Uganda, religious differences in Tanzania, history of conflict in Uganda and Rwanda/Burundi, and dependence on foreign aid in all the five partner states means that all five are in some state of failure, as a quick consult on the fund for peace failed states index will doubtless tell you. A political federation might have stronger institutions and power to solve these problems.
• 2.      All five states are constructs of colonial times, and they were not designed by looking at the ethnic, historic and political realities. A supra state formed by the citizens of east Africa might be more successful in forging patriotism and attacking negative ethnicity since it will have been formed by the citizens themselves.
• 3.      The economic potential of a state of east Africa is profound. The natural resources, tourism potential, human resources and potential for increased trade and economic development means it’s makes too much sense economically not to be given serious thought.
• 4.      It will strike a blow for pan-Africanism and silence doubters, who have always noted that even though the current states are colonial constructs, they have more or less remained strong and never threatened by the pan Africanist ideologues, both of the Monrovia and Casablanca schools of thought.
• 5.      It will change the dynamics of politics forever in the east African region. Ethnic mobilization in Kenya especially, will be reduced since the power will have moved to a greater place. Hence maybe, just maybe the fight for political power will be based on more salient issues and ideologies.
• 6.      It may reduce the inter and intra state conflicts in the region such as the LRA movement, secessionist calls in Zanzibar and Kenya’s coastal regions.

The arguments for an east African political federation are quite strong. Why then, arethere so much pessimism and dragging of feet towards implementing the fourthand most radical pillar of the EAC, after the customs union, common market and monetary union? Why am I starting to have second thoughts about the political federation of the east African states?

There is much understandable angst among the “middle” powers of EAC such as Tanzania and Uganda that they will be dominated by Kenya.

However, that is not the real concern. The biggest issue, according to me is how the battle for the “hearts and minds” of east African minds was lost at the very inception of the east African community in mid-2000. The argument for the EAC has always been fought on the economic side, while the ideological side of it has been neglected.

The pertinent question here is, why would a Kenyan be better off in an east African political federation, rather than being a Kenyan? The arguments I articulated above show what a political federation might achieve, but clearly they require abolition of the states as they are at present. Having a political federation at the same time as having the states maintained just doesn’t seem too useful to me. It should be either, or.

East Africa is not like Europe, where there are centuries old ties to the state. All EAC countries are barely 50 years old. Why all this pussyfooting around the political federation issue?? Lack of political will, and downgrading the political unity question from a potential supra-state to a EU like union where power lays everywhere and nowhere at once!! This will not solve the political problems facing all five partner states, in fact it might just exercabate them.

In my opinion, if the political federation chosen by the partner states is a loose one where power is held by both states and the east African community, then there might be problems ahead we might not be ready for.

It is better an economic union where fundamentalist ideals are at the heart of the union, than a political federation that is created with no political will, no input from the citizens and civil society, and that is characterised by much infighting and pessimism between and among the partner states.

Such a union cant last.

GLOBAL CIVICS IN A WORLD OF ANARCHY: IS IT REALLY WORKABLE?

Global civics is an idea that posits that civics in a global sense as a social contract between the world citizens in the age of interdependence and interaction. According to proponents of global civics, we all have rights and responsibilities to each other by virtue of being human beings. What happens in china can influence happens all the way in Ghana. Hence as citizens of the world, we have responsibility to mind our actions or inactions lest they cause more harm than good.

In a globalized world where economic and social interactions between people, companies and groups are increasing due to advances in telecommunication, transport networks and modernity, global civics makes certainly makes sense. The “imagined community” known as the state is increasingly powerless to deal with phenomena taking place outside its borders, but affecting its citizens.

A good example is the volatile oil market in the world currently. The slightest increase in the price of a barrel of oil will mean the commuter from OngataRongai will have to pay more to go to work in Nairobi’s central business district. How much power does the government of Kenya have to protect the commuter?

But if global civics implies having rights and responsibilities as human beings, it is silent on who should step in when my rights are infringed by someone clearing forests in the amazon, or when I neglect my responsibilities as a world citizen to protect my environment or put my government in check.

We live in a world of anarchy as Kenneth waltz put it. This means we do not have a central government to ensure order and stability in the international system. In my view, global civics cannot work in a world of anarchy, where might is right.

And that is the reason why the proponents of global civics are content to promote only the most diluted version of rights and responsibilities on all of us, especially the most powerful who, due to the lack of world government, do what they want with impunity. A powerful state such as America can go to war with virtually anyone it wants, kill anyone with unmanned drones wherever or whenever, and have its companies destroy the environment from Swaziland to the Gulf of Mexico, without any repercussions whatsoever.

As a minute part of humanity in Kenya, it doesn’t matter if I forfeit my rights and responsibilities, if someone in government halfway around the world can, due to greed, bring about a world recession that might affect millions like me in terms of future employment prospects!

The minimalist approach that is advocated in the booklet “dialogues on global civics” is not going to solve the immense challenges we face in the world today. It is the industrialized countries doing all the environmental damage, it is they with all the nuclear weapons, it is them destroying the global finance system, and it is they with the most to lose if a real protocol on greenhouse emissions is enacted!!

Most of us, in the developing world, and especially in sub Saharan Africa, we just want to live!! Let those with the most rights and responsibilities, by virtue of their immense wealth, power and military resources, practice global civics!

This takes me back to my point on anarchy. We do not have a world government to ensure global civics is kept. Ideas of a volunteer United Nations army are laughable at best. Let the global south rise, following the example set by the BRICS, and then we can talk on global civics. As equals!

There can be no global civics in the current system, and there shouldn’t be. Let Africa, Asia, and Latin America rise to the level of other countries. Then we can discuss on what our responsibilities and rights are, as “world citizens”who view each other with respect and the relationship is one based on more equality than now.