Linus was good, Julie was ovyo. Raila had a good night – he was likeable. Uhuru looked tense. Martha was good. Dida was there for fun. Muite is an activist. Kiyiapi excited about his achievement. Mudavadi intimidated.
That is how my friend (name withheld) described the much-awaited first-ever presidential debates in Kenya that took place last night in Nairobi. It gave an opportunity for voters to listen to the candidates and help them make informed choices come 4th March 2013 when they step into the ballot box.
My opinion is that this is a good start but much needs to be done. We need to have a system that will weed out the not so serious candidates who are taking precious time that could be used by the more serious candidates to articulate issues that are of concern to Kenyans. But maybe we also need comic relief in these tense days.
I felt that the moderators were a bit unfair and harsh on only two candidates, Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta, in as far as the issue of tribalism is concerned. The other candidates played the holier-than-thou card by distancing themselves from the vice. Tribalism is not a problem of the Luo and Kikuyu alone in this country, and it cannot be a problem of Raila and Uhuru alone. It manifests itself in other ways in the smaller tribes. We have nepotism, cronyism and clannism. Why are the people in the arid and semi-arid areas like Tana River, Baringo, Pokot and Turkana fighting every day? Is it not a result of real or perceived fear of dominance by bigger clans / tribes in those areas? Kenyans should not cheat themselves that they will deal with the issue of negative ethnicity by blaming only two tribes – Luos and Kikuyus. All of us are in the mix.
I wish the moderators would point out to Uhuru and Raila instances of when they gave their tribesmen and women advantage over other Kenyans, rather than condemning them simply because they have a large following from their tribes. Is it a crime for one to vote for someone from their tribe? Macharia Gaitho captured this very well when he pointed out that the other candidates were simply pretending, because they too would like to have such a following from their backyards. And who would not? Winning elections is about having numbers. Animals cannot vote.
The moderators let Uhuru off-the hook easily on the issue of how he would run the affairs of the country if he won the elections. The simplest question they should have asked to help the audience assess whether he had the capacity to lead would have been, how would he meet with his cabinet if he will be expected to be in the Hague during the whole period that his case would be running? But as usual, they took the easy way out of the situation – burying the head in the sand. Avoiding to tackle an issue is not solving an issue. I was amused that even some of his competitors tried to speak on his behalf. Perhaps playing to the gallery, as way of appealing to Uhuru’s vote block.
I was disappointed with the selection of the studio panelists. Since the debate was going to be on governance, national security and social services, I thought that the organizers should have had experts in those areas. I doubt if that was the case. Other than retired General Opande who is an expert in security issues, and Macharia Gaitho, the other panelists did not fit the billing. They were just the usual suspects we have been seeing on our screens – Atieno Ndomo, Abdikadir Hassan, Atsango Chesoni. My expectation was that each of the experts in a specific area would have interrogated the presentation of the candidates on their area of specialty, to give the audiences a fair assessment of the candidates’ understanding of the issues.
The panelists who were selected are people that we have heard for the last five years and there were no fresh ideas that they espoused. They added no value to the debate. Moreover, they exposed the typical Kenyan way of thinking and doing things. When they were asked about the performance of the candidates at the end of the debate, and none of them was willing to come out and give an honest expert opinion. Does it mean that none of them had an opinion about the whole debate? Why are they experts if they cannot make judgement on issues based on their expertise? Having an opinion does not mean that they endorse a particular candidate. The moderator should also make that clear to audiences.
The panelists were simply afraid to be seen to be aligned to people from their ethnic regions. This was a sad reminder to me that belonging to a tribe in Kenya is becoming a crime. That one cannot speak honestly without being labeled. This is going to impact negatively on our development. No wonder some politicians are asking for an ambassador to be recalled simply because he belongs to the other tribe!!
Generally, I did not hear of any radical ideas that can transform this nation. The debaters just repeated the same tired ideas they have been peddling on other platforms. All of them seemed to know what ails our country but none of them has any new ideas about how such challenges need to be dealt with.
For the above reasons, my perception about the candidates has not changed at all. None of them stole my heart. I doubt whether the performance of the politicians has changed the minds of other Kenyan voters.
Opmerkingen