For ‘big four’ to succeed, Uhuru should not be prisoner of interests

As the politically turbulent year 2017 came to an end, eyes focused on President Uhuru Kenyatta. His handlers and speech writers crafted two documents which, when taken together, aimed at setting the national pace in foreign policy and development projections. Delivered two weeks apart, the statements on PanAfricanism and the Big Four pillars; jobs, food, health, and shelter, sounded visionary.

Uhuru’s “Big Four” likely guiding principle would depend on synchronised domestic and international forces acting together and could be in the same league as three previous pronouncements.

First was the 1965 Sessional Paper Number 10 on African Socialism and Its Application to Planning in Kenya, which defined Kenya as a “socialist” country that was very comfortable behaving capitalistically.

Second was Daniel Moi’s proclamation of “Nyayo” principles of governance that implied tight political control of society and adoption of “redistributive” economics. Third was Mwai Kibaki’s Vision 2030 which remains the reference point for major undertakings. Now there is Uhuru’s effort to lump every socio-economic development project under one of the Big Four rubrics. Would this qualify to be a “doctrine”?

Planning ahead

Doctrines tend to be policy statements on long-term intentions on emerging or particular challenges. They also tend to be foreign policy-oriented, stating the intentions of one country towards others. There are three probably best known “doctrines” with long term global effect, two from the United States and one from Britain. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine, in response to likely additional European imperial penetration and to domestic political exigencies, claimed the Western Hemisphere to be an American preserve.

The second was the 1947 Truman Doctrine that set the stage for US cold war pre-occupation up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The third was the 1916 Balfour Declaration during the Great War in which Lord Balfour committed Britain to assist the World Zionist Organisation to establish a “home” in Palestine.

Among the consequences of that declaration was the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine and the confrontations that still dog the Middle East and the world. Among the affected are African countries as Kenya.

Israel and Kenya are products of fluctuating British imperial policies. In 1903 Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain suggested that the World Zionist Organization make Kenya their home but the Zionists were interested in Palestine only. On the day Netanyahu visited Kenya, Uhuru announced half of what would be his doctrine, the PanAfrican stress on accommodating Africans to invest in Kenya. Such investors, African and extra-continental ones like Israel, would boost Uhuru’s nascent Big Four theory of political economy.

The challenge

The Big Four, predicated on maintenance of national political stability, is in competition with a destructive counter dream represented by the losers of the two 2017 elections.They are resourceful, get money from the same Jubilee government they want to bring down, and know how to play up the media Donald Trump-style.

This is by creating irresistible “news” in their deliberate effort to scuttle the Big Four dream. Their intent is to disrupt normal activities in dramatic ways that would keep the media and the people discussing them continuously; they seem to be good at it.

The viability of the Big Four development strategy would depend on how the national government handles this security challenge. It has four choices, or combination of choices.

First, the state has organs and personnel trained to handle people who deliberately break the law and wait to see what would happen.

Such organs should act as appropriate. Second, the elected government can, and probably should, ignore the brigade and concentrate on delivering on the Big Four. Third, the Government can avoid surrendering power to law breakers in the purported name of peace.

Fourth, another mistake would be to allow foreign entities to dictate how Kenyans should settle political disputes. It is unlikely that Uhuru would undermine his own Big Four programme by surrendering to law breakers or accepting foreign dictates. If he did that, his doctrine would be stillborn.

Prof Munene teaches at USIU.