A number of bloggers and netters have been persistently trashing those they disagree with in various forums, accusing them of being supporters of “status quo” and “impunity and corruption.” Those so accused have been busy responding and defending against such such accusations. Apparently unknown to the first group, no one is happier than the masters of impunity and corruption themselves when these two sides fight and call each other names as they do, especially given the politicians on the ground are doing the same thing.
My conclusion as I point out below in response to one of the bloggers, is that while bloggers and netters are busy fighting each other and the politicians are busy fighting each other on the ground, masters of impunity and corruption may be the last ones laughing by taking advantage of the divisions and fights among those wishing to end their reign to drive one of theirs into the presidency.
In other words, if people don’t wake up, we can have a repeat of 1997 when a fragmented opposition failed to unite and remove Moi from power.
The masters of impunity and corruption can easily equally take advantage of the fights and otherwise lack of cooperation among those who wish to end impunity and corruption and end up having one of their own elected president and really laugh out aloud as they continue wallowing in their ill-gained wealth and punish those who dared challenge them, including you and I and the rest of the country.
That said, the following is my response to one of the netters busy calling other progressive minded bloggers and netters “supporters of status quo, impunity and corruption,” when in fact, they are not:
The argument you make below is horribly divisive, I am convinced you don’t see how but let me try to explain why:
Other than individuals who directly benefit from corruption and impunity and their derivative beneficiaries (cronies, enablers, family members, and fellow comrades in crime and vice), all of Kenya is for ending corruption and impunity.
It is naive for one group or another to solely lay claim to be the only ones capable of pursuing this otherwise noble objective of ending impunity and corruption, to the exclusion of everyone else. We all want to do this, except for the masters of impunity and corruption and their beneficiaries.
The question is, how do we rid ourselves of these dual vices that are at the core of what ails our country.
One school of thought is, let’s get in leadership only those who are committed to ending the vices and have a track record that they can be trusted to do so as required under the criteria set forth in Chapter Six of the Constitution, of course, in addition to meeting other constitutional requirements.
The other school of thought is, let’s get rid of everyone currently in leadership otherwise euphemistically referred to as “the Old,” regardless of their involvement in, or promotion of these vices and regardless of whether they meet the criteria set in Chapter 6 of the Constitution or not.
Separate and apart from these two schools of thought, there is a third, not school of thought, but the very masters of impunity and corruption and the beneficiaries of the vice who would fight tooth and nail to maintain status quo for they and only they stand to continue benefiting from the vice.
The logical flaw in your argument below is, you have taken an “us v them” approach to address a situation that involves three distinct groups; in other words, in theory and in practice, you have reduced everything to two sides (good and evil) when, in fact and in reality, there are three sides to this:
There are those who want to end impunity and corruption by electing new leadership of proven reformists who are committed to ending the dual vices (the first group I describe above), which is Group or Side A.
There are those who want to end impunity and corruption by electing new leadership that is entirely comprised of newcomers regardless of whether they have the experience necessary to lead or not, the litmus test being they are free of the vice (the second group I describe above), which is Group or Side B.
And then there are those who do not want to end impunity and corruption (the third group I describe above), which is Group or Side C.
If I were good in graphics, I would draw 3 circles with two intersecting each other and a third on its own to show these relationships. I am not, so I’ll leave it there.
In the two circles that intersect, Group/Side A and B from above, the intersection represents ending impunity and corruption.
The third lone circle represents masters of corruption and impunity, Group/Side C.
You are making the implausible and illogical argument that one of the two circles that intersect (A&B) actually intersects with C, when clearly neither of them does.
You don’t even need facts to determine or conclude that there is no connection between Groups A/B with Group C, given the premises and to prove this visually, simply draw the circles as described and you’ll readily see neither A nor B intersects with C, yet this is precisely your argument below, namely, one of the two groups (A or B) is connected to C and that’s just not true.
In other words, you are making the argument because one of the two groups that agree on ending impunity and corruption (A and B) is connected to Group C, a group which does not want to end impunity and corruption because you disagree with the other group’s strategy or solution to ending the dual vices, when there is no connection between the two in fact and in reality.
You are obviously wrong.
In the good v evil sense, both Group A and Group B are on the one side, and Group C is on the other!
In war parlance, the common enemy for Group A and B is killing the enemy inside the intersection between the two. To do so, both sides would need to, and must in fact work together for this sole purpose and not to make each other enemies, which, if they do, namely, make each other enemies, the two circles will be killing each other leaving the sole Group C victorious in the end even without as much as lifting its sword!!!!
Do you get this my friend?
So, rather than using this divisive language calling others supporter of Group C, merely because you disagree with their strategy, you should find ways to work with them to slay the common enemy of corruption and impunity.
When you urge professionals at home and in the Diaspora “NOT play Homage to Hero Worship, Political Sycophancy and Personality Cult at the expense of real issues affecting Kenyans,” I assume you are not referring to those on your same side of fighting to end impunity and corruption (the two Groups A and B).
When you say, the “Old Order have brain-washed some of their supporters to an extent that they end up defending the status quo while singing Change! Change! Change.” I assume you are referring to those who are aligned or support the masters of impunity and corruption in Group C.
When you say, “It’s neither sincere nor practical to have a leader worth over Ksh 50 Billion representing people who cannot even afford a meal of Ugali and Sukuma Wiki regularly,” I wonder why you exclude those worth, say, KSh 1 million representing people who cannot even afford a meal of Ugali and Sukuma Wiki regularly?
Your lamentation reminds me of these Right Wing Nut Radio hosts in the US who railed and wailed against candidate Barrack Obama when he was running for president questioning, among other things, why would Obama be elected president when his half-brother was living in a “shack” with “less than $1 a month.” One of the nuts even went as far as calling for fundraising to raise money which he in fact did but nobody knows where that money went; the half-brother certainly never received a penny of it.
This was, of course, nothing but a desperate attempt to derail the candidacy of Barrack Obama that failed miserably as wise Americans would have none of that.
None of these Right Wing Nuts cared one bit about Obama’s half-brother or whether or not he had anything to eat; he could have starved himself to death and they could care less; they just twisted and distorted facts and came up with this concoction in their shameless efforts to paint Obama as uncaring when he is not.
The problem of poverty and poor living standards in Kenya has been and continues to be a collective and colossal government failure.
Again, this is a war most of us are on the same side (Groups A and B) that we must fight to win. Given the collective billions of dollars sent home annually, those of us in the Diaspora are doing our part already and I assume those of you on the ground are doing your part as well; we just now need to combine forces and elect good leadership from the top to collectively fight to end poverty and uplift the living standards for all of our people, especially the monies we send home does not reach because no everyone is on the receiving line or simply because there are more hands extended than can be filled with the available dough among those in sight or in line.
We cannot possibly accomplish this by turning against each other and calling each other names.
Rather, we can as soundly and clearly as possible, chart our way to that promised land of economic prosperity, less poverty, improved and better living conditions, peace and a new Kenya we can all once again individually and collectively say we are proud to be and be seen that way again by the world that once held us up very high among African nations.
We can only do this by first learning to love or at least respect and value one another, especially by supporting our respective presidential candidates and other leaders without treating those who support other candidates as enemies or “supporters of corruption, impunity and status quo” when clearly that’s not the case.
Peace, Love and Unity.
Copyright June 2011 Samuel N. Omwenga, Esq.