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.

PRE-ELECTION VIOLENCE IN KENYA: THE CAUSES, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR THE COUNTRY

Over 200 people have died in this year alone as a result of violence between different ethnic communities in Kenya.

This includes in Tana River delta, Mandera, Borabu, Moyale counties, etc. some of the reasons given by those in the know are the fight over scarce resources, politics and spillage from neighbouring countries. (Ethiopia). As usual, this has led to well-choreographed responses from Kenyans and their government.

Shock. Anger. Sackings. And then the usual promises of investigations. And then we move our shock to the next disaster. And everything is forgotten.

But don’t we have a national cohesion and integration commission (NCIC) meant to ensure that this very violence doesn’t occur? I asked myself. Some little research afterwards, I have discovered that the NCIC actually has even a well-researched and well written forty page policy on this very issue. It is aptly named the Kenya Ethnic and Race Relations Policy, and it can be found on their website.

So why are Kenyans still killing themselves, despite all the peace meetings, government policies, education by NGOs, and experiences Kenya has suffered since 1992, and most recently in 2008? It turns out, we are not learning from the past, we are not implementing the Kenya ethnic and relations policy, and we are not changing the same conditions that led to the bloodletting of 2008. In short, we are being very stupid in how we are handling this ethnic relations business.

The Kenya ethnic and race relations policy, is set on the principle of ethnic and racial inclusion, that is, the idea and practice of deliberately ensuring that people from all ethnic and racial groups resident in the nation are represented in

•     employment,
•     governance structures,
•   planning,
•   development initiatives, 
•   public deliberations, 
•      democratic arrangements,
•       and national educational institutions

I will leave you interpret how successful ethnic and racial inclusion has been carried out in your county, and country.

The country remains deeply divided among ethnic lines. As the respected British historian, Professor Niall Ferguson put it in his popular BBC 2012 Reith lectures; there are two types of countries: the inclusive, and extractive. An extractive society is one in which, the government is used by the ruling elite to grab the economic produce from the country and proportionate it amongst themselves. Indeed, in an extractive society, the government is a tick that feeds on the labour of the people. The society cannot develop to its full potential unless people stop seeing control of the government as essential for their employment prospects, economic wellbeing, security and happiness.

There is little doubt in my mind that Kenya is an extractive society. Many kikuyus believe that losing the control of the government and its coercive arms such as police and military will be the beginning of their end, economically and politically. Other tribes also believe that unless they can ascend to the highest pinnacles of power in this country,the perceived poverty, unemployment and insecurity they suffer in comparison to the tribes in power will not be eased.

What does this have to do with tribally instigated violence in Tana delta, I hear you ask. In my opinion, the new constitution has created 47 bastions that will be under the thumb of the majority tribe after the general elections of 2013. 15% of government revenues will be distributed to all counties, and this money will be under the control of whichever county governments will be in place at the time.

It is this control of the county resources, and the contracts, tenders, jobs and influence that is being fought over. Whichever local elites control counties with the resources such as the richly endowed Tana delta, Lake Victoria, oil resources in northern Kenya etc., will be in a prime position to benefit economically beyond their wildest dreams.

Hence they are prepared to shed blood in their quest for power and riches. In my humble opinion, devolved corruption, impunity, balkanization of the country and power is part and parcel of the new dispensation, although no one wants to talk about it.

Not much can be done to stop this, but the national government has a responsibility to ensure that no Kenyan’s life is lost as collateral damage of these power games. It is this wanton destruction of property, and loss of life that must be stopped. Idealistic peace meetings and other policies such as intermarriage, social contact between tribes and national dress etc. will take time to make a dent and promote cohesion and integration, if not complemented by other “realistic policies.” Power sharing arrangements are another potential solution to violence in the counties. The NCIC has advocated for power sharing in no less than 27 counties in next year’s elections. Some of these counties include Nakuru and Lamu.

In the meantime, the national government should be prepared to put out all stops to enforce security and peace by arresting all local militias, those guilty of hate speech and murder and other crimes, and forcing people to be peaceful in this election period. Unfortunately, one suspects that the central government mandarins are more concerned in securing their immediate and midterm political and economic futures to do much.

peeling back the mask: a quest for justice in kenya- my belated review

The book Peeling Back the Mask: A Quest For Justice In Kenya was written by Mr.Miguna Miguna and published by Gilgamesh Africa in 2012. The book is a political memoir meant to tell the world of Miguna Miguna's experiences from his return from Canada in 2007 to take part in the election campaign of prime minister Raila Odinga, to his acrimonious suspension as advisor on coalition affairs and falling out with the prime minister.

Miguna Miguna is a lawyer by profession who was, from 2008 until 2012 the prime minister’s senior adviser on coalition, legal and constitutional affairs, when he was indefinitely suspended. He had been a practicing lawyer in Canada where he had fled from Kenya after being arrested and tortured as a student leader in the late 1980s.

The book is written chronologically from Miguna's childhood in Magina village, in Nyando to his experiences in high school at Onjiku and Njiiri's high school. From there it tells of his coming of age as a young adult in NYS and university of Nairobi as a student leader. Finally, it details his subsequent arrest, torture in Nyayo house, exile to Tanzania, Swaziland and eventual asylum in Canada. In Canada, he eventually studied law and settled down, establishing a legal practice and engaging in political activism in university on issues affecting the black community in Canada. The book then proceeds to tell of his eventual return to Kenya to a political career in 2007 up to his suspension as advisor on coalition affairs in 2011.

By reading the book, the impression one gets is that MigunaMiguna was always a young man who was focused, extremely confident, well aware of his rights and not afraid to stand up to authority when he felt hisrights had been infringed upon. This insight goes a long way in understanding why Miguna raised so much hell when he was suspended by the right honorable prime minister as his special advisor.

The book’s main thesis is that RailaOdinga is not a reformer as many believe and that he is a nepotistic, incoherent and does nothing to investigate the alleged corruption by some of his aides. Says Miguna: “As this book will, I hope, show, I came to believe that Raila wasn’t honest or ready for the complete overhaul and transformation of the Kenyan society, starting with its leadership and politics. His rhetoric was intended to woo votes so as to ascend to power. Beyond that, he lacked genuine vision and commitment.” He goes further to state that Raila does not value loyalty. Miguna does this by quoting all the experiences he had with the PM in Canada, as an advisor and member of the ODM strategy team prior to the 2007 general elections, the ODM parliamentary nominations, post-election violence and subsequent mediation and setting up of the grand coalition government.

Miguna'sstyle is one of methodically quoting the dates, meetings and events so as to back up his arguments and theories.

Peeling Back The Mask: A Quest For Justice In Kenya comes across as a deeply personal book. It does provide a very thorough insight into the man MigunaMiguna, by detailing the experiences that Miguna went through from childhood till he was indefinitely suspended as the advisor to the prime minister on coalition affairs.

However, reading the “revelations” on the manner of sourcing for campaign funds and pre-election pacts, one gets the feeling that, “I know all this stuff, and sowhat’s your point exactly?”The point on ODM being made up of “KANU orphans” and Raila Odinga being more concerned with achieving power rather than the fighting for democracy, rule of law and natural justice cannot be lost on any casual observer of Kenyan politics since 2002 or even back to the reintroduction of multiparty politics in 1992.

That Miguna blames his lack of knowledge of Raila's true character and how ODM was to behave in the most trying times prior to and after joining the grand coalition government on “naivety and belief that the good was more than the bad.” To me this is just incredible. Miguna must have known what Kenyan politics stood for when he returned from Canada in mid-2007. Kenyan politics is governed by tribalism, backroom deals, opportunism and singular lack of ideological commitment to issues.

My evaluation of Miguna is that once he made his triumphant return to Kenya, despite the many financial, personal and mental sacrifices he made to the cause of Raila Odinga, he could never really fit in. his repeated criticisms of the lack of intellectual depth, planning and debating of issues in the presidential campaign amongst  all candidates and parties, the shoddy way in which the mediation efforts were carried out and the complete dysfunction of the grand coalition government are bemusing. I fail to see what is so surprising to him in all this.

Peeling back the mask: a quest for Kenyan justice is an OK book. The bitterness, the anger and the frustration so palpable while reading chapter after chapter do not dim the intellectual fire, legal sharpness and force of logic that Miguna Miguna brings to the table. Raila Odinga is not the reformer that many in the political class, media and general public purport him to be.

This argument is presented to the final conclusion with admirable intensity of logic and presentation of well-presented facts and evidence. Reading the book, I got the feeling that it needn’t have taken over 600 pages to get many political analysts to get round to that point of view. It is a book that is well written in parts, although many pages are gobbled up by unnecessary information that gets too detailed. However, I would still recommend anyone to read the chapters on the ICC, and how the ODM side of government eventually got to bargain itself into government following the chaos of early 2008.

Anyone hoping to read the book to get a feel of how the “two sides” of government have interacted since 2008, as well as how they came to being will not be disappointed. For those who have little knowledge of how Kenyan politics is carried out prior to elections, and what drives many of the political class to spend so much of their money and resources to get into government, this book is an invaluable resource. But few will change their mind on how they view Kenyan politics and their preferences. At the end of the day, peeling back the mask reveals open secrets on the Kenyan politics. It is all about the eating, and politicians are guided by their own material interests rather than deeper convictions and ideologies. Tribe is the key factor on how Kenyans vote and will vote. No side is better than the other.

And to me, how and if this can ever be changed is the real mask that we should be trying to peel.

communication as panacea to world problems

i was supposed to type this article and send it for an essay competition...but due to laziness and lack of focus i didnt. enjoy...

The more things change, the more they remain the same. When I think of the challenges facing the world right now, this is what comes to mind. Despite the major technological, medical and scientific advances that have been made over the decades, issues of poverty, hunger, environmental degradation and strife remain as pertinent as ever.

How can so much sadness and strife exist in a world of so much plenty? And how can we ensure that we live a future where our kids have longer, happier and more peaceful lives?

There seems to be little consensus, or dialogue among people on how to solve the problems afflicting the world. Ideology, culture and lifestyle choices that greatly differ among people within and among countries have meant that people cannot sit down and talk to one another on how to solve problems facing them.

The first small step that we should take to beginning to make a better world is to try listening to those who hold different religious, political, social and ideological viewpoints. As Friedriche Nietszche famously said, “convictions are worse enemies of the truth than lies.” People must practice acceptance of those who think in vastly different worldviews, and accept that beliefs, while they are important, can promote anger and negative emotions when people try to force others to renounce “weird” lifestyles and ideologies.

People must rise above societal and political prejudices, and be confident in the protection of the rights of the most marginalized, exploited and neglected of the society even if it makes them unpopular and shunned by their peers. The most revolutionary of people in the world, such as Galileo Galilei and Karl Marx stood up against “conventional wisdom” and changed the world forever.

Secondly, the governments, populations of the world and non-state actors must start cooperating with each other on solving challenges that straddle many boundaries and continents. Issues such as global warming, economic shocks and terrorism, as well as disease outbreaks have overwhelmed governments the world over.

It is obvious that people and their governments have to start assisting each other, and cooperating with each other to solve such problems. Humanitarian intervention is just but one example of tough choices that citizens of the world must make to make sure that when people face major challenges that may be natural and man-made disasters, people can be assisted.

Technology is a major engine for growth and change in the world. Through technological advancements, citizens can keep their governments on their toes, interact with others across continents and be exposed to many economic opportunities and markets.

However, technological gap has been growing between those who have access to the internet and facilities mostly found in major cities and those who are illiterate, old and cut off from the rest of the world by geographical, economic and social barriers. Thus, even the major breakthroughs such as the internet, medical advances and infrastructure have not benefitted those who need it most.

We need to ensure more people can benefit from the scientific and technological advances of the world through education, generosity and massive investment in the scientific and technological sectors of the world.

In conclusion, I think we need to talk more to each other, respect and cooperate with each other irrespective on cultural, ideological and religious differences. This should happen across all economic and social strata in the world, because the problems facing our earth are big, complicated and they will require all the cooperation we can get.

THE REAL STORY OF PARLIAMENT DISRESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION THAT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT

it has been so long since i posted a blog. so much has changed since then, Kenya is now grappling with the implementation of the new constitution. i feel that many of us are yet to grasp how much has really changed since august 2010.
power has been dispersed from the presidency and executive to the county governments, judiciary and most importantly, the parliament.
nowhere is this more visible than in the budget making process. whereas in the past, the treasury and finance ministry would allocate funds arbitrarily with token input from parliament, civil society and the public at large, after the new constitution has revolutionized all this.
parliament has a huge say in how finances are allocated, and the budget estimates brought to the house by the minister of finance must be debated, and necessary AMENDMENTS made by legislators which the minister will then have to take into account.
this is done in the following steps (chapter 12 article 221 of the constitution);

1. the minister brings the budget estimates to the house
2. the parliament debates this estimates and makes recommendations and necessary amendments
3. the minister takes this recommendations into account and presents the final budget statement in form of appropriation bill to the floor of the house.
4. if parliament is satisfied with the statement it adopts it as the appropriations bill and it is taken to president for assent. 

 what has happened is that everything went on hunky dory until step 4. the minister took the recommendations by parliament and ignored them, and on June ? he came with the budget statement that ignored much of the input of the civil society, public and parliament.
he didn't come with the appropriation bill, and on June 22nd 2012, he was in parliament begging parliamentarians to pass a motion to authorize him to withdraw 404 billion Kenya shillings from the consolidated fund so that govt programmes can continue to function
if parliament would have thrown out the motion, government functions would have ground to a complete halt.
imagine all civil servants not being paid, kenyan military in somalia not being funded, embassies, ministries, judiciary etc operations stop just like that.
because of the incompetence/arrogance/disrespect/impunity of the treasury.
this kind of disrespect of the constitution, impunity and law breaking at such an early stage of implementation of the new constitution does not bode well for the future and sets a bad precedent.
in future, when this exploitative, corrupt, bloated and unnecessary coalition government is not there, less friendly opposition parties will not be so indulging.
there will be grandstanding, unwillingness to compromise and partisanship next year at a time like this. the treasury, parliamentarians, civil society and public at large should be very wary of the happenings of June 21st 2012.
instead of focusing on Korean air, Irish ministers, political intrigues and other sideshows, Kenyans should reread, understand the constitution, then we will be able to better hold the executive, parliament and government at large accountable.
next time we might not have such a happy(?) ending.

TRIBALISM IN MASENO UNIVERSITY POLITICS

The recent elections held in Maseno University mirrored the Kenyan national elections in that, they were heavily influenced by tribal alliances. The KKK versus luo alignment has become enshrined in Maseno university politics. Not only are the two different sides completely entrenched in their tribal trenches, but they are financially sponsoring candidates now. Where are we headed to as a university?

Kenyan national politics has always been divided at along ethnic lines since independence, that’s the only way that we seem to know to compete for political positions. This has brought about very sad consequences for our country, such as political violence, tribalism, nepotism, corruption and ethnic divisions. Our university seems to be headed down a similar path, whereby compromise, judging candidates according to their abilities and merit solely is not part of the agenda, rather the top down system where the voters are used as rubber stamps to assent the decision made by the rich and mighty “elders” in the school.

But where will this take us as a university in the long run? Poorer leadership, the students having a smaller voice in their choice for leadership, and tribal divisions in our university. Many political analysts will tell u that there is no ideological backing behind any of our national politicians’ manifestoes and policies. This has been replicated in our university’s politics too.

There was not much difference between the political aspirants’ policies in the September 14^th elections in Maseno. The repairing of street lights, cheaper food in the mace, and installation of generators are policies that have been recycled down the years, and one cannot easily differentiate candidates according to their policies alone. Some of the methods the students use instead are course loyalties, voting in their friends and relatives, and voting for their tribesmen. Hence you will find a voter (mostly the third years who are the majority of candidates in SOMU elections) voting in the most unqualified of candidates just because they share the same course. The fourth years mostly do not bother voting since it is unheard of for one of them to vie for a seat. They are mostly involved in the tribal alliances and financing of candidates, as well as organizing their tribesmen to step down when two or more are vying for the same seat.

But why is it so hard for politics to be based along ideological or even economic classes in African politics? Some people suggest that the tribal identity that cuts vertically across the populations of many an African country is deeper than the economic differences that divide Africans vertically.  Hence politicians find it easier to rally support from their ethnic groups than economic class in Africa. Tribalism is thus a monster that would seem to be too large to slay in Africa, and by extension Maseno University. The taming of this monster is thus the more realistic choice.

But how does one go about taming tribalism then? Consocialism is a method that has been used elsewhere in countries such as Belgium and Lebanon, that have ethnic or in the case of Lebanon, religious differences too deep to ignore in political competition. Consocialism is simply power sharing that is enshrined in the constitution. In such case, all the ethnic or religious groupings are ensured of seats in the national executive, legislative and judiciary. This makes it unnecessary to push the electorate to vote for people of their ethnic group. For example, the tribes that fail to get any seats in the SOMU executive may be nominated into the organization.  

Burundi is a country that has implemented this system of governance in recent years. It may seem to be a radical idea at best or a defeatist one at worst, but it is something that should be considered. Blaming tribalism while offering no solutions to combat the issue, except cheap sloganeering and complaining has not worked for anyone in Kenya since independence.

MY CONCLUSIONS FOR AFRICA AFTER THE LIBYAN CONFLICT

On 15th February 2011, the protests that had begun in Tunisia then Egypt swept into Libya, beginning in the west in the city of Benghazi before other cities and regions followed suit. The Libya leader colonel Muammar Gaddafi vowed to crush these uprisings and sent his soldiers into the fields. The attacks on civilians (some of them violent protesters) by Gadhafi in towns such as Misrata led to un security council resolution 1973 that imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and “authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.” This led to NATO airplanes and helicopters joining the fray in the Libyan conflict that has lasted over seven months, and changing the momentum in the Libyan conflict in favour of the rebels.

Now that the conflict is reaching its final legs, one can attempt to review the happenings that have occurred since February 15^th when the first major protests began, and what this civil war has taught us about the western media, humanitarian intervention, the African union, the fight for democracy and freedom in the middle east, the big man syndrome in Africa, and development and political freedom in the third world.

Humanitarian intervention

According to Wikipedia, humanitarian intervention "refers to a state using military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed." In Libya, this humanitarian intervention was perpetuated by NATO, and some elements of the Arab league. The French warships, British and French airplanes, and American intelligence and Qatari financial support were all rolled out to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians, and bombings of military installations, government compounds, missile and communications centres.

This military intervention was limited to the air operations, although the CIA did send covert operations as reconnaissance operations into Libya. The Special Forces troops from Britain, France and Jordan also entered the country in contravention of the UN Security Council resolution 1973.

The biggest questions arising from this humanitarian question, according to me, include:  1) what were the reasons behind it? That the government used excess force in shutting down the protests is without doubt, but the other reasons the west would have wanted Gadhafi to leave such as wanting a government that was less abrasive in rhetorical terms and to the interests of the west than Gadhafi’s. The Lockerbie disaster and the repatriation of who was supposedly suffering from life threatening ailments, among many other incidents with Gadhafi have soured relations down the years. However, the regime has improved relations recently yet this did not satisfy the west efficiently to stop them from carrying out the attacks.

It is impossible to talk of humanitarian intervention in Libya, or in any other state in 2011, without mentioning Syria. Why hasn’t Bashar al Assad faced the fate of his contemporary? The stronger military, protectors from the neighbourhood such as Iran and Hezbollah have all been touted as reasons. The simple fact is, some dictators will always have a near free reign to do what they want in their country due to the interests of the superpowers and other realistic reasons. Thus the only people who can change their fate are the citizens that are being oppressed. Help from the outside will always come with its complications, and as much as it can have a positive impact, the regional leaders and countries should always have the biggest influence over any interventions in such countries.

The second issue I have with the humanitarian intervention in Libya is the apparent lack of political will and support for the NATO operations in Libya by the populations back home in America, Britain and France, which these politicians ignored at the beginning and went ahead with the operations. This weakness and “leading from behind” led to the unnecessary deaths and destruction of property in Libya that could have been averted. The civil war could have been over in a much shorter time than was eventually the case. Multilateralism and coalition building seems to be the long term legacy left after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but how efficient is this when you need to get a well prepared, well-armed and determined dictator out of office?

The African union

The African Union was at best the smallest voice in the room, and at worst a confused spectator in this unfolding conflict. The African leadership, led by South Africa could offer no meaningful solution to the crisis and came out looking like Gadhafi apologists who were protecting their “king of kings” in the United Nations.

The torturously slow evolution of the African union from a “non-interfering” group to a continental body that can help solve the internal conflicts of the smallest country such as Comoros to the biggest is taking too long. What happened to the unified military? Making the tough decisions that are needed to resolve conflicts in Africa seems to be beyond many of the African leaders at the moment. Is the youth that is spearheading the change in countries such as Senegal, Egypt, Tunisia and Malawi ready to assume this leadership? Is there a new ideology ready to evolve the pan African ideals of Nkrumah and Nyerere to the 21^st century conditions?

The fight for democracy in Africa

The Libyan civil war has also brought to the fore many serious issues in the fight for democracy in Africa. One of the leaders of the transitional national council is, former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil. How democratic and revolutionary is he? Only time will tell. The fight for democracy in many parts of Africa has been always spearheaded by members of the elite that were part and parcel of the same government they are fighting. RaIla Odinga, Morgan Tsvangirai, Alassane Ouattara, Jalil, Kizza Besigye and others always get favourable exposure from the media and many foreigners. However, how democratic are these people who have been intimately involved, either politically, personally or professionally with the same dictators they are trying to oust?

Western media coverage

According to amnesty international, “much western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regimes security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrating who presented no security challenge.” This is despite there being numerous accounts of torched police stations, hanged police officers and mercenaries and violence by the protesters in Benghazi and other towns. The media were obviously trying to show a picture of peaceful non-violent protestors being massacred to their local viewers. This would have played into the hands of the NATO and the political leaders who wanted Gadhafi out at all costs.

Balanced and fair broadcasting of news events from Africa and other parts of the third world by the western media seems to be a dream. Who will tell Africa’s story to the world from our perspective then? Even Aljazeera can only do too much. The more important lesson to be learnt is that even private enterprises will always practice self-censorship, biasness and promote the interests of a given class of people, no matter how “developed” and “free” the society views itself. Hence the citizen TV, NTV etc. of Kenya can only follow this rule. It is time we started asking the media questions and not viewing them as above reproach or criticism, whether the international or local.

The ICC

The prosecutor of the ICC hastily released arrest warrants for Muammar Gadhafi, his son and the intelligence chief after stories of rape, war crimes and using heavy machinery against civilians was reported. This is despite the amnesty international stating that “there is no evidence that mercenaries, aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against the crowds. On several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.” The international criminal court has prosecuted, or issued arrest warrants on Africans, and Africans only, since it was formed in 2003. This is despite war crimes being committed in Iraq, Syria and Guantanamo bay by the Americans and their allies.

The international criminal court’s inability to even complete a case successfully, let alone prosecute anyone not from the African continent needs to be evaluated. The crusade led by Kenya to leave the ICC is laughable and deeply embarrassing at the least. The solution for leaving the deeply flawed and partisan ICC would be to form an African or world court that can prosecute all war criminals from Donald Rumsfeld to Charles Taylor. Anything less than that is not workable, and we are better off with the international criminal court.

The big man syndrome and transitions of power

From strutting African union meetings and the world stage to releasing barely audible audio tapes condemning the rats and mercenaries from “unknown locations,” Muammar Gadhafi has come a long way. No doubt the man had ruled for more than his fair share of time since the last 1960s. The big man syndrome in Africa is well on its way out, yet the exit of some of the longest serving heads of state in the African continent, such as Robert Mugabe, Paul Biya, and Meles Zenawi among others can only be potential sources of conflict and upheaval in this countries. Is the opposition in these countries, the African union and the continent at large any closer to resolving these potential conflicts than they were at the beginning of this year? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Economic development and political freedoms

Many Africans believe that having a “benevolent dictator” such as Muammar Gadhafi is the better option for development, prosperity and stability in a country, rather than pursuing political freedom hand in hand with economic development. However, the development of the middle class that will occur with higher literacy levels, economic opportunities, and better standards of living all suggest that this can only be a temporary ideology. When the people start agitating for greater freedoms, bigger say in government and fighting corruption, the benevolent dictator has to be ready to deal accordingly with this. The response he offers will be the difference between taking his country down Morocco’s or Libya’s path.

In my conclusion, I think that the conflict that happened in Libya may yet occur in another part of Africa, with little or no change in strategy or response from the international community or the Africans. Lessons should be learnt, and I am not sure Africans and the world at large has learnt them.