By Kilemi Mwiria

In addition to our tribal consciousness, the success of most Agenda Four reforms is constrained by time and the wider political and social environment.

The National Accord gave most Kenyans the impression that matters of poverty alleviation, youth unemployment, land redistribution, constitution review, and regional imbalance would be resolved before 2012.

Also not fully taken into account were unforeseen factors – delays related to consensus building on the composition of expert teams, operational guidelines and vested political and religious interests. Debates on Kadhi courts and review of administrative and constituency boundaries are cases in point. Tying people-driven processes to a tight deadline such as 2012 is unrealistic especially when the goal is to overhaul key national institutions.

There was also the false assumption that ethnic clashes took place in 1992 and 1997 because of disputed election results. The truth is, elections were the excuse. Nor were innocent Kikuyu voters living in the Rift Valley subjects of attack because they are the cause of regional imbalances in Kenya. They only happened to be the weakest link in a cruel political game, which has little regard for foot soldiers. What is needed is to enlighten pawns of dirty political contests on their true enemies before 2012.

Poverty, youth unemployment and inequality can only be alleviated through political prescriptions within the context of a Government that allows the right climate for economic growth, increased efficiency and accountability, a larger tax base and appropriate income redistribution mechanisms. The principle of beginning to do the right things for the good of country is great; the challenge is how much time we have to get it done.

The history of most Agenda Four concerns dates back to colonialism. For example, Central, Western and parts of Eastern and Nyanza provinces enjoyed educational advantage over North Eastern Province because most of the first missionaries settled there. Acquisition of formal education came with additional income for acquisition of property and improved employment opportunities — benefits that have been passed on to generations. In the case of Central Kenya, this educational advantage was exacerbated by the mode of settler settlements and the introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tea and by the slow pace at which some of the other communities embraced western commercial and educational values.

More Kikuyus were also assimilated into paid employment away from their traditional homes, thus bringing them into direct competition with other communities. Matters were made worse by the independent political elite’s tendency to exploit the tribal card when apportioning top State jobs, land resources and commercial back up. Thus was born the disease "it is our turn to eat".

To effectively address the problem of poverty and inequality in general, the starting point is an appreciation of the fact that poverty and inequality are not a preserve of the Rift Valley, Coast or North Eastern Kenya. Pockets of poverty are found countrywide. Thus, the principal focus of reform should be on how we reduce the social gap. Likewise, inequalities in land ownership have little to do with region but with a select number of Kenyans owning a disproportionate share of these national and other resources. This landed class include the Kikuyu, Kalenjin, Luo, Kisii, Maasai and others.

We should forget hiding under amorphous and generalised clichÈs such as historical and regional imbalances, which we cannot effectively resolve in the next half century. What is needed is the courage to confront the social gap head on for this is what exploits the imbalances targeted by Agenda Four reforms. Effective implementation of Vision 2030, where all Kenyans embrace positive pro change attitudes and values, is more effective in addressing Agenda Four concerns than would statements of intent to be carried out under a short and politically determined time frame.