Why land is too important reform issue to be left out of presidential campaigns

By John B Osoro

Without question, recent advisories issued to politicians requiring them to desist from using land, as an election issue, was a serious error in judgement among the State officers concerned.

It is bad policy to let public servants to determine what issues aspirants shall feature in political rallies unless they knowingly break an existing law.

The simple fact that an issue is emotive automatically ranks the same highest among matters of interest to voters. Let those opposed to measures proposed by an opponent point out in rallies their alternative better policies to right perceived injustices.

Among many definitions of politics is that telling us that politics is about allocation of resources and that is why land is the serious issue Kenyans may want the next government to resolve. The fact that putting up a house in Karen means buying land from an individual at an amount equivalent to or more than the cost of construction of an entire four-bedroom one-storied house, automatically qualifies this as juicy subject to engage voters during rallies.

The two State officers may have been technically right in issuing directives about this matter at a different date in the calendar, however, politically they were wrong. They should not have done so now.

The rallying cry in political gatherings countrywide is that politicians should stick to issues and veer away from personal, tribal, and other irresponsible attacks. Unfortunately, the land issue in Kenya happens to be a matter of central concern albeit an emotive one which no one is willing to address conclusively.

What is this in the land issue that makes Government shudder despite repeated expensive commissions’ attempts to resolve it?

Can we afford to ignore the land issue that is central to the reforms ingrained in the Constitution?

Given the history of this ever deferred issue, is it not true that only a Government that is bold enough to make the land issue a matter of priority can effectively tackle it fully?

The argument that land should not be a campaign issue for the simple reason that a commission is in place to deal with the matter is misleading. The outgoing administration was able to delay, alter, or ignore drafting of critical constitutional enabling legislation despite the presence of a Constitutional Implementation Commission.

The purpose of a General Election is to provide a ready platform for measuring public opinion on what form of government the people desire and what issues shall be tackled once representatives take over the annals of government. The decision to determine which issues will motivate the electorate to vote for a party to office shall not be a province of State officers whatever the excuse.

In any case, is the land issue not about poverty, unemployment, injustice, inequity, inequality, injustice (historical or otherwise), unfair distribution of State resources, maintenance of water towers, acquisition of public resources through corrupt means, etc?

Public servants must exercise absolute caution when commenting on matters likely to draw them into the political fray. Otherwise, the public might begin to question their neutrality as State officers; even commissioners they work with may end up divided right in the middle plunging the nation into confusion.

Another institution, which appears to progress insensitively at this very volatile time is the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK). It is difficult to believe that CCK is not aware that a few days before a General Election, the interpretation of any punitive institutional actions against a media house are subject to interpretation as designed to benefit or injure one or other party in the contest.

Whether or not Royal Media Services acquired frequencies without authority, switching transmitters off-air now means an attempt to sabotage political groups perceived friendly to the broadcaster. The best option is to wait until the end of the polls and then switch off the frequencies, if the law is on the side of the CCK.

Both parties should however ignore statements from either political party castigating CCK action since they may not have time to read lengthy briefs on what is really happening to make informed decisions on the matter.

Once elected, the same politicians may not have the power or interest to protect Royal Media Services if indeed it irregularly acquired frequencies reserved, inter alia, for aviation or other purposes. That is if our political system has matured sufficiently to allow institutions to operate without undue interference.

Osoro works for Centre for Policy Analysis