Whether or not he allows political reform in Kenya, Daniel arap Moi’s days as ruler are numbered, reports Ken Opala from Nairobi
PRESIDENT Daniel arap Moi’s 20-year unbroken hold on power in Kenya is under siege, and probably in its terminal phase, following waves of public protests to reform the Constitution. The key demand is that elections, due to be held before January, should be free and fair.
At least 13 people – including children and students – were killed on Monday when police acted against defiant pro-reform crowds in several towns. On Wednesday, armed police stormed lecture rooms and residences at the University of Nairobi. The university was shut.
On the same day, in a possible sign that Arap Moi’s tough tactics might be succeeding, the public did not respond to an opposition call to attend a rally at Nairobi’s Central Park.
Given the stand-off, analysts argue, the 73-year-old Arap Moi’s reign may be a thing of the past, whether the reforms are undertaken or not.
“It is now abundantly clear that the bankrupt Kanu [Kenya African National Union, Arap Moi’s ruling party] regime intends to maintain itself in power through violence and acts of terror,” said the mainstream opposition in a statement in mid-week. “This is the direction from which nobody can emerge a winner.”
Analysts say Arap Moi has placed himself in a Catch-22 situation. If he agrees to reforms, his days as head of state would be numbered. Reforms would ensure free and fair elections, but observers says Arap Moi has never directed any democratic polls since he took over in August 1978 after the death of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s first post-independence president.
The other option, argue analysts, is that he rejects the calls, with the result that he is forced out through popular revolution. Arap Moi has hinted at such a possible scenario in previous remarks.
“We wonder whether Kanu intends to rule over graveyards and ruins in this country,” said the opposition statement.
Opposition parties, churches and non- governmental bodies involved in governance have now joined ranks to press for reforms before elections. “The church will not sit back and watch the country conflagrate into violence and chaos. We support dialogue now, not tomorrow, if there is genuine political decency left,” said Bishop John Njue, chairman of the Kenya Episcopal Conference.
The church blamed the government for “progressive genocide” against its own people: “How many Kenyans must die that we may have the desperately needed reforms? What other signs must we look for in order to act to avert an imminent crisis?” Njue asked Arap Moi.
Although the popular drive is in the form of a crusade for law reform, analysts argue it is meant to break Arap Moi’s autocratic rule which is widely blamed for the deterioration of the country’s economy and widespread human-rights violation over the last two decades.
Arap Moi, who has ruled through strong-arm tactics, including extra-judicial detention of critics, suppression of the press and the use of security agents to silence dissent even within his own party, argues that the Constitution can only be reviewed after the elections, and not before. But the reform crusaders – mainly university lecturers, lawyers and church leaders – argue the president’s stand is intended to enable his regime to rig the elections in his favour.
The opposition fears that the electoral commission appointed by the president will serve Kanu’s interests. It is widely accused of massive rigging in the 1992 elections. The reformists are also asking for the Constitution to provide for a coalition government.
If Arap Moi does manage to weather the current storm, it will be the second time he will have beaten down a popular uprising. In 1991, it was only through international pressure for democratic and economic reforms, in the form of an aid- freeze, that compelled him to give in to demands for multi-partyism.
Yet the change from a single party to pluralism was hurried and was never reflected in any constitutional amendments. This meant that “a multi-party Kenya kept operating under single-party rules”, says a Nairobi-based foreign diplomat.
Western pressure might now again prove a factor. “The real source of political violence in Kenya is not just the government’s unacceptable strong-arm tactics, but its failure to take the essential, concrete steps to create a free and fair electoral climate,” the United States State Department said this week.
No country has threatened to cut off Kenya’s vital low-interest loans because of the violence. But on Monday, the International Monetary Fund gave notice of its impatience with government corruption: it warned that it might suspend a $280- million low-interest loan unless a five- year-old financial scandal is settled.
Arap Moi is surrounded by a clique, drawn mainly from his Kalenjin tribe, which is accused of bleeding an economy already ailing from years of mismanagement and neglect. For obvious reasons this group is uncomfortable about the prospect of constitutional reform.
During Monday’s violence, police entered a Protestant church and bloodied several people (including clerics), stormed the University of Nairobi exam hall and shot a female student, and broke into houses to flush out people seeking refuge from the mayhem. Business stalled in major towns.
Yet the president acted as if all was well and chaired a summit of the Inter- Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) at State House in Nairobi. Later, a joint opposition statement urged his resignation as IGAD chairman, arguing he had no moral authority to head the body as his own nation needed to be listed on the IGAD agenda as a conflict zone.
The summit sought to resolve the Sudanese conflict, and draw together feuding factions and the government of President Omar al-Bashir.