Advertisement

The revolution deferred: Corruption crackdown should have started in 1963

Friday June 15 2018
toon
By TEE NGUGI

In his Madaraka Day address, Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta said he would be escalating recent robust actions against corruption.

He has in the past issued stern warning against corruption kingpins embedded in his government, some, by his own admission, in the Office of the President. But as if making a mockery of the president, theft of public money became even more blatant and audacious.

This time around, however, it would seem that the government’s warnings are backed by substantive steps, as seen in the arrest of top government officials involved in the latest heist at the National Youth Service.

Why were these tough measures not taken in 1963? The question is rhetorical, but it emphasises the point that looting was perpetrated by highly placed government officials who could not be expected to take action against themselves.

This state-sanctioned looting meant that hospitals, schools, roads, etc, were not built. But by using a low standard of measuring it, governments were always able to argue that the country had made huge progress.

In the same address, Uhuru continued this tradition of inferring progress by use of a fundamentally defective method of measurement. He compared the state of a number of amenities in 1963 with what is available today. He inferred progress by comparing two destitute situations, one of which is equivocally less so.

Advertisement

Both Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi would compare Kenya to strife-torn African states, and declare the country a haven of peace and progress.

But, of course, they would forget to mention that this was a superficial peace, maintained by an extensive and intrusive police apparatus. And the progress they referred to could be discounted by any number of more neutral and meaningful ways of measuring.

Self-serving measure

This use of a low standard of measurement was not unique to Kenya. It has been a means of assessment deeply ingrained in Africa’s body politic since Independence.

As intimated, like all other policies of the new rulers, it was a self-serving measure. It served the purpose of camouflaging the increasingly glaring fact that the freedom and prosperity promised by Independence were diminishing with every year.

More insidiously, what it has succeeded in doing over time is to inculcate in us low expectations of ourselves. Thus in our situation, a “D” score is fine, even worth celebration because it is not an “F.”

This is a crippling mindset that has nurtured mediocrity, laxity, official and personal irresponsibility, and selfishness. It has ultimately eroded the set of values around which a country builds its nationhood.

That is precisely the reason why the 2010 Constitution included a section on national values.

It is worrying that Kenya’s leadership persists in using this measure of self-assessment, because it indicates that our ambitious economic and social aspirations, as articulated in Vision 2030, are not anchored in a national ethos that demands the best possible performance by public officials, and which engenders, in us all, a mindset that expects nothing but the very best from ourselves.

Has Kenya’s performance been the best possible since Independence? Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other failed and failing states could use the president’s yardstick and infer great progress.

Somalia, for instance, could claim that it has more schools currently than at Independence, and the DRC could argue that it has more kilometres of tarred road now than it did at the end of colonial rule. Surely, this way of measuring progress guarantees that Africa will forever remain an “F”-scoring continent.

Spectacular growth

Economists tell us that South Korea’s and China’s spectacular growth came about because they invested heavily in education and technology.

What is also acknowledged, but not widely spoken about, especially in Africa, is that they also invested in a change of mindset.

In the past, they accepted the slow rhythm of traditional life, with its myriad disabling beliefs and practices, as part of their culture. Explicitly or implicitly, they viewed the pastoral life as having certain essentially Chinese or Korean values which would be lost if modern notions of development and social progress were adopted.

But then, as a matter of policy, they transformed the way they thought about themselves. Now they wanted, not just to be themselves, but the best in the world.

They did not infer progress by comparing their current state of development to that at the turn of the previous century. They did not infer greatness by comparing themselves to Laos or Bangladesh.

Therefore, underpinning South Korea’s and China’s progress has been spectacular social engineering. Africa will need no less a mental and social revolution in order to make true progress.

Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political commentator.

Advertisement