Whispers of the Unheard! – Part 3.

In answering his question, I jumped in with my own theory. My take was quite simple. Looking back at the formative years of this country, it is easy to spot similarities between the men that were assassinated. JM, Pio Gama Pinto, and TJ were all politicians whose leadership transcended tribe. At a time when tribal politics was all the leverage politicians sought for posturing and positioning purposes, these three men had chosen to travel the road less traveled and were rewarded for it. It was that extra quality that enabled them to melt through tribal barricades without putting on the pretentious smiles of most politicians which endeared them to all and sundry. This was also their Achilles heel because those pretentious smiles of their fellow envious politicians lit the way to their respective deaths. They had bright political stars and the powers that be saw that it was easier to eliminate those pawns that were on the path to being crowned queen, the most powerful piece in the game. Their blindness to tribe that accorded them adoration from the masses politically meant that they had a clear path to the presidency that only death could stop, and so they died. With them died that symbol of nationhood that we are frantically searching for today.

This was the time when Parselelo Kantai made his way into the tent. After an apology and a brief introduction, he listened for a while and then posed quite a potent question. He asked whether any of us had ever watched the documentary series “Makers of a Nation” by Hillary Ng’weno. We all had. He then asked whether any of our politicians had integrity because gauging from this documentary series, one would be hard pressed to find any one politician whose principles were not contingent on the political mileage they stood to gain.  The same people took up outrageously opposing stands depending on the political tides and hence the difficulty in confidently attributing certain core values and principles to any of these politicians. So going back to the assassinations, he asked whether any of these “heroes” had any integrity and hence the reason died or were they destined to follow the morally bankrupt route that their colleagues who lived did. Can we confidently assert that they were beyond reproach or have we just given them the benefit of doubt because they died before we could find out?

Alkags, another author who had just launched his book – a compilation of short stories by old men and women whose voices were unheard – joined the conversation at this point. He had come in earlier but was busy eating a bugger behind me. His mind was set. Informed by the intricate knowledge he had garnered while interviewing the older generation for his book, he was convinced that it all came down to being on the right side of an argument. He figured that since very few politicians in Kenya would be considered principled, the positions they took on any one issue were based on what they stood to gain. He said that those who were assassinated were not morally superior, they did not have the integrity we claim they had, and they would not have “saved” this country had they lived; they were just politicians who were on the right side of the argument at the times of their deaths. He argued that even today, if a politician with a track record tainted with corruption like a graffiti wall were to die, accidentally or not, Kenyans would claim that he was assassinated for his beliefs and dub him a hero. He was convinced that we would have hated these guys like the rest of them if they had lived, for integrity in Kenya is subject to convenience.

When Alkags was done, this guy of Indian or maybe Caucasian descent said that whichever way we chose to look at it, it came down to what Marvin (me) said. He said that it was also his belief that those who were assassinated had to die because of the political threat that they were becoming. They represented what the politicians of the time and also today’s both within and outside the establishment feared the most, leaders who would not be coerced for fear of losing tribal votes because they already had all ilk of voters in the bag. He wondered if we found it curious that only those leaders who could without travesty transcend tribal lines were the ones to meet the assassin’s bullet. This definitely exacerbated tribal mistrust by creating rifts between tribes and in retrospect, it was the classic case of divide and rule policy that politicians have been reaping from to date. He then requested us to ask ourselves whether we were really serious about putting an end to tribalism because all the actions we had taken as a country suggested the contrary to be the case. For instance, instead of urging them on and nurturing them, we killed the only leaders who never hid behind tribe; the very people who were the symbol of a tribe called Kenya. And even in today’s charged atmosphere of tribal alliances that began back then, one gets the feeling that if such versatile leaders with nationwide appeal as TJ were to emerge, they would be met by a bullet from new age assassin on the orders of old age politicians or their apprentices.

And it has nothing to do with tribe is my belief. People from my own tribe will kill me if they thought that my nationalistic outlook will deny them the leverage of consolidating tribal votes for posturing purposes. And nothing said it more clearly than the words of Okuku, the brother to Tom Mboya when he addressed mourners at the funeral of JM Kariuki. Borrowing from the now famous words of the German reverend, he said and I paraphrase “when they killed pinto, you kept quiet because you are not Indian; when they killed Mboya, you kept quiet because you are not Luo; now they have killed J. M. Kariuki.”

—

Part four will follow tomorrow…

When Crimes were Simpler…

I was still very young. We woke up one morning to find our kitchen window wide open. It did not take a genius to figure out that we had been robbed. We went outside the house and sure enough, we found the evidence of the activity that took place the night before. From our window to the gate and beyond, we found a tract; not two like those made a bicycle, not wide like those made by a car; just one tract like that made by a wheelbarrow.

We followed it like breadcrumbs with the eagerness of cartoon characters believing that it would lead us to the perpetrators of this heinous crime. But no sooner had it reached the main road than it ended. The tarmac road was a street away and the few cars that roamed the roads then in addition to the human traffic had done a good job of wiping the tract away. We returned to our house, the entire neighbourhood kids behind us and we were eager to hear my mum’s assessment of the damage. This was after all her kitchen and my dad had probably never set foot in there . She said that her Sufurias including the one she had soaked because we had eaten Ugali the previous night, her frying pans, her spoons and basically every other utensil that was in the kitchen that night had been stolen including the ones holding the leftover food. The food went too.

The second time we were robbed was less dramatic but with the same wheelbarrow. My Dad with his blue second-hand Datsun was the victim. He woke up in the morning and on starting his car realized that the battery was missing. These bastards had come at night, popped the hood of the car open, took the battery and put it in the wheelbarrow and wheeled it away.  My dad was stark raving mad. Over the next few weeks or months, for security he had an electric wire connected to the body of the car just in case those thieving bastards came back. We had not heard of alarms in those days, not even on TV.

Our last experience with thieves was a wrong call. There we were, sleeping; me and my bro on one bed in the other room and my mum and the twins (then very young) in the other. My dad had not yet come home because he used the car for a few hours every night as a taxi to supplement his monthly income. Suddenly in the dead of the night, we heard the loudest pounding on the door as if in a frantic effort to break it down. My mum SCREAMED! The louder the pounding got, the more deafening her screams became. But unlike tradition, nobody showed nor showed any signing of coming to help. Eventually, these guys identified themselves as cops and cursed my mum over and over because of her screams. I was under the bed at the time. They announced they were looking for thieves (which my mum had mistaken them for – I WONDER WHY?) A lady with four young kids was not enough to convince them to leave her alone; she had to go borrow money from the neighbours to bribe them to leave. She had already given them all she had and they were not satisfied.

So effectively, the third time we were robbed, it was by the cops. Corruption did not start yesterday.

But that was it. Over the years, people who had been caught stealing were killed. Many had passed through our estate as they ran towards the slum area adjacent to the park. We usually followed the mob and found the alleged thieves either being stoned, being burnt, or already dead. We never knew what they stole, where they stole, or whom they stole from. And dead men don’t talk. Rumours however abound with people telling their versions of the story. But it was never nothing more than a purse, clothes from the line, a bicycle etc. There were these two who had stolen mattresses and on being caught, were tied in between the mattresses and lit up. They died a very painful death.

But that was then. A robbery mission for thieves involved going to steal without raising any alarm. Stealth mode was their modus operandi and simple things the objects of their desires.

But increasingly over the years, crime changed. Crime was no longer about stealth but about force. The balls that the police had back then to slam our door in the dead of the night had now transferred to criminals. They came to steal with big stones to knock door downs, machetes to threaten to harm or harm the occupants and came in large numbers so as to carry as much as possible. Whereas we had grown in an estate with wooden doors, wire mesh grills, where fences were imaginary or wooden or natural (thorny trees); new building that came up were built had with wooden doors but reinforced with an outer metal door, metal window grills, and high-rise brick fences topped up with broken glasses. Force was being met with force.

Still it was not enough. Where people were resourceful, criminals were creative. They no longer used brute force to make their way into a house but rather came equipped. They came with padlock cutters which were also used to also cut the window grills, some came with oxygen tanks to burn through the grills and metal doors, and there was a case where these bastards carried a grenade just to force open a door. Money now became the difference between safety from robberies and being victims. Those with money hired the best security agencies whose numbers had now surged. They also had electric wires surrounding their fences and well fed big-ass dogs guarding their homes. And just in case, they had a gun in the house and bodyguards with them the rest of the time.

But criminals got guns too. Safety was no longer a priority in our homes alone but everywhere else too. What was being stolen was now not just in the homes. The game had changed. There was money in the bank, money being ferried to the bank, value of the car, jewels, phones, laptops etc and this is what the target became. Carjacking increased, muggings became rampant, ngeta became a noun, and crime had evolved yet again. The victims had to become creative. We bought cheap phones, used plastic money, carried laptops in paper bags (kando ya nyanya na kitungu) and made every other effort to make ourselves least likely to be potential targets. But now crime became personal. When these thieving bastards find you with a cheap phone, they have the audacity to insult you and break the phone and encourage you to buy phones worth stealing. They find you with a debit or credit card and force you at gun point to withdraw everything and max-out your credit card.

From personal, crime became brutal and inhumane. People no longer just lost they property, they lost more. They no longer just steal from you now. The hijackings were never complete without a dead driver or a raped woman and increasingly men too. Now they also cut private parts off. The Mungiki tortured and then cut the heads of their victims off. And with human life seemingly worth less today than ever before, killers for hire has become a thriving business in Kenya. Kidnappings for ransom in now the fad among the criminal fraternity and given all these, I am scared what will happen next.  I talked to mum the other day and she told me of a case in a Nairobi estate where kids sent to the shops are drugged, molested and left for dead. I missed the story on TV but honestly, when we can turn against our own children like this; haven’t we reached the end of the line?

What happened to the days when crimes were simple? When you would wait until I was asleep to steal my shirt from the line. What is happening to our society?

A wife cannot trust his husband with their daughter; a mother cannot trust her brother or even father with her daughters; you cannot trust your neighbour with your kids; a man cannot trust his wife with the pin number; a parent does not trust the teachers with his/her children; the owner does not trust the watchman with the property; a father is not sure whether these kids are his; and everyone in society is potentially a threat to the next person in any number of ways. Just in the last month, a maid stabbed her employer to death, a young mother threw her just born infant from the balcony, a head teacher was ejected from school by parents for raping their daughters, a kidnapped Sudanese child was brutally murdered because the ransom was not paid, and KES 33 million shillings was stolen through a collusion of cops and robbers.

Can we take all these in our stride and if we can, I wonder what will shock us enough to stop, think, and wish for the days when crimes were simpler.

The RINGERA–MAU TRADE-OFF: Controversy vs. Compromise!

I remember vividly an episode of Boston Public that I watched a while back where this teacher could not bring herself to compromise on a heated topic. Every time that it seemed they would reach some deal, she would say something that would throw the whole thing into disarray. At one point, the head teacher of this Boston Public  just lost it after this lady yet again refused a deal that was proposed. “Why do you always snatch controversy from the jaws of compromise?” he snapped. This lady then cowered and went ahead to compromise on the issue at hand.

But is controversy such a bad thing and compromise an exceptional quality. I think not. Today, Ringera, he of the cover-up corruption fame and toothless tiger excuse games was on the one end of a controversy and the Mau issue was on the other. If you ask me, both of these things should never be susceptible to compromise. Ringera is a stooge of the president and all his morally inept loyalists and nobody with a moral fibre in his/her body should be on the side of his illegitimate and illegal appointment. The Mau is too important an eco-system to even be a subject of debate as to whether people should evacuate or not.

Over the past few months, the Mau has been at the centre of debate that has pitted politicians against each other. The beneficiaries of Moi regime’s dishing out of forest land were vocal claiming that “our people” need to be compensated first. One need not be a prophet to see the vested interests and greed in the likes of Isaac Ruto and his other mouthy counterparts who seem lost to the power that words have especially ethnically motivated ones. On the other hand of the debate were other thieves who having been on the receiving end of corruption allegations for a while now saw this as a chance to call out their partners in crime as thieves hoping that it would lessen the corruption glare that has been with since the Angloleasing and the election debacle.

While the Mau debate was heating up with accusations and counter accusations, the president thought it best to consolidate his corrupt ways by reappointing the only person who had a stellar performance in turning a blind eye and claiming he had not teeth. The country went ballistic in shock and horror because this appointment was not only illegal; it was done in such a way that even laymen knew something was up. I watched the parliamentary proceeding that followed this appointment and I was impressed to say the least. It was a massacre against the government effort to defend the Ringera reappointment and to even stop a parliamentary committee from discussing the estranged reappointment. It was strange to watch the Justice Minister who just a few years back called for the resignation and investigation of Ringera now fervently defend him.

The cabinet was split on the issue and the few men I respect in this Government, Prof. Anyang Nyong’o and James Orengo said it best when they told off their cabinet colleagues on this issue. Strange though is the fact that the person who moved the motion to discuss this thing is the same Isaac Ruto who thinks that maize and wheat are worthy replacements of trees in the Mau. But all the same, the government lost, the motion passed and the committee on legal affairs discussed the Ringera affair whose report was to be tabled and debated in parliament today, Tuesday 15, 2009. From reading the mood of the members of this committee, it was clear even before the report was tabled what the verdict would be. The majority of the country (save for the PM was has avoided this issue like a plague (letting those with guts like Orengo take it on), the VP who is a b*tch eagerly singing the tunes of the master like he sang for Moi for so many years, and a few other characters who have something to hide and Ringera is the safety deposit box) has been apprehensive about this appointment.

Foreseeing an overhaul of the president’s illegal appointment of Ringera, the subjects of controversy became points of compromise. A meeting by the side of the coalition supporting the Ringera reappointment resolved to scratch the backs of those MPs who can retire on the billions of shillings they hope to illegally garner from the compensation package of the Mau evictees. In return, they will turn a blind eye and see no evil in the Ringera reappointment. It would therefore be a win-win situation for both parties when it comes to the voting on the Mau and Ringera reports. But not quite, today, there was only enough time to ensure one win. God! It was so embarrassing seeing the very MP who just weeks, days, ago wanted everybody out of the forest or in the least only the legitimate cases compensated suddenly “strongly” believe that anybody with a title deed, legality aside, should be adequately compensated. So the motion was amended to that effect and it passed. So the thieves of the Moi regime get to steal one more time but only because by doing that, they will allow the thieves of Kibaki’s regime to not only cover their tracks on past robberies but to in future steal knowing that it is their wolf that is guarding the chickens.

Michuki, the man who brought sense to our roads; the man who gave the order of shoot to kill Mungiki’s whenever they went on their murderous campaigns; the man who raided the Standard building  and had no apologies to make; the man who in now in charge of the environment was a frustrated man today. I must say that I disagree with most of what he has done over the years. The raid on the Standard was just callous and so was his attitude when the police took the shoot to kill order too far until it reached a point where it was difficult to differentiate between the Mungiki and the police. But even so, that is a man I would vote for if he ran for president, even at his age. The reason is simple. Whenever the man makes a decision, he stands by it and will not shy away from engaging you when you put him to task. You got to give it to a man who is willing to stand up and fight and today he did not disappoint when he let parliament feel the hit.

“We have sunk too low. If the Ringera issue is more important than the Mau issue where people have to trade, I must confess that I am ashamed to be in this Bunge,” said Michuki in a fit of rage after those from his camp suddenly switched sides to support what they had all along opposed until this morning when it was politically convenient to support it. I guess Michuki finally felt the pain of being played. Sweet words had been whispered into his ear, people fought for his cause, shouted on his behalf, and even when he asked whether his ass was fat, he was told no and he was happy. But today morning, someone better packaged than he moved in next door and suddenly he was relegated to yesterday’s cause, a lost fight. He got dumped in front of parliament and he was bitter. How dare they? He confessed that he was ashamed of Bunge in the way so many of us have been for so long. I guess he just realized even his colleagues, one of whom is my MP, were shouting about the Mau only because it was the right side of the argument; it was politically convenient because it resonated with the pubic; but then a major piece in the chess board moved and the leverage moved with it. It was a checkmate to him and he never saw it coming and hence the reason he was so angry.

So tomorrow is another day and we are all waiting to see whether the compromise holds? I am especially curious to hear what the mouthy Isaac Ruto who moved the Ringera motion will now say. I want to hear him justify why Ringera is the person for the job now that his efforts to get compensated for the illegal allocation of land he was given is almost won. Because in the same way that those calling upon the Mau eviction never really cared about the Mau or the environment, he and his friends in the Mau axis probably feel shit about Ringera or corruption. It was just another piece in the chess board that he played to inflict pain on the other side.

So now I am taken back to the issue of controversy versus compromise. There are things that are too important to compromise and the Mau and Corruption and this coalition government are the perfect examples. There should be basic minimums in what can be compromised beneath which we should snatch the controversies from the jaws of compromise. We all have those principles that we can never compromise and I am curious what yours are?