|
I
|
n the Bible the story
is recounted of the first King of Israel. His name was Saul, son of Kish from
Gibeah. In every sense of the word he looked regal. Tall, charismatic, handsome
and noble no other man bestrode the landscape like he did at the time. Despite
the fact that in his early days he was merely a herdsman looking after his
father’s herd of livestock he still oozed leadership potential. A day came when
a few of his father’s donkeys strayed away and he and a servant were forced to
look for them. Their search took them to Ramah where was domiciled the prophet
of the most high, Samuel. They had now walked for miles and were on the verge
of abandoning search because let’s face it, what are 7-10 donkeys anyway
compared to the herd of probably 500 left home? The servant he travels with
knows a thing or two about prophets and suggests that the search would be made
all the more easier by consulting Samuel. The two men resolve to make a
bee-line for Samuel’s home. They find the old man outside, probably just
chilling and recounting past glories. Immediately Samuel catches a glimpse of
the lanky and stately Saul from among the crowd something is stirred in him. He
hears the immutable and unmistakable voice of Jehovah saying a leader may be
within Wi-Fi range. This is at the height of the clamour by Israel to have a
King like the surrounding nations. They opine about being in need of a tactical
leader and reference frame to always give them the rallying cry that will imbue
them in battle against their neighbours, who they have to surmount to inherit
in peace and prosperity the ‘Promised Land’. The yammering had become
unbearable and Samuel ran the matter by God who dismissively okayed their
wishes. So when Samuel saw Saul something gladdened his heart. Saul warmly
welcomes the party of two, wines and dines with them and helps them find the
donkeys. They depart grateful for everything. In due course Samuel assembles
the people at Mizpah in Benjamin and organizes them by tribe and clan and draws
lots. After a short but interesting process involving walking sticks Saul’s
staff comes up and he is king-elect. Of course some people are riled by both
the process and its product. Samuel secretly calls Saul and anoints him king. A
few weeks later the Ammonites prepare to lay siege on Jabesh-Gilead. They have a
huge force and are renowned for their brutality after victory. Surrender to
them is not favourable either as the vanquished will be forced into servitude
after having their eyes gauged out! An SOS message is sent to Israel and a
battalion rallies behind Saul. By now Saul has psychic powers consecrated by
the Lord and fighting with a sword personally delivered by the Supreme Deity.
He delivers a stunning victory and in euphoria laced with jubilation men and
women congregate in Gilgal crowning Saul as their King. He is magnanimous
enough to refuse retribution against those who opposed his election as King
initially. Here henceforth, things take a downward spiral as the dark side of
Saul is revealed. He becomes quick to anger. He turns disobedient against the
same Lord who no less delivers the sword with which he roundly smote the
Moabites, Edomites, Aramites and arch-rivals the Philistines. He goes soft on
the Amalekites preserving their King and choicest livestock for himself. However
among his vices, none is more pre-eminent in ignominy as the choice to become
fiercely jealous of one of his priced upstart sensations, future King David. In
an instance of bad timing, he infuriates Yahweh who deserts him just when the
Philistines have assembled their most valiant army yet. Saul panics and decides
to consult a witchdoctor who has no good tidings either. In an impulsive nay head-strong
onslaught decides to go into battle sans-Dei. He is roundly defeated and the
rest is history. As sages put it, “power corrupts but absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”
Why would I recount
this story in such depth, in my current capacity as one with neither grounding
on theology or divinity but also no intentions of becoming a preacher? It is
just that the same missteps that were the bane of the Israelites approximately
3500 years ago are the same bedeviling the Kenyan society in 2018. We just
don’t have any tool to sift through the wheat so as to take out the chaff. As
far as selecting a suitable leader is concerned we are easily beguiled by
outward beauty, charisma, wealth, subtlety, height, linguistic flair, the suave
mannerism and booming voice ignoring all the other more important
characteristics requisite for the most suitable leader. Instead integrity is merely
a by-word as we prefer to elect overtly corrupt leaders simply because in our
ambiguous comportment and misreading of the scriptures quote the verse, “He
without sin should cast the first stone.” The wise will tell you that the most
distinct form of irrationality and imprudence is seeing an obstacle on your
path and instead of avoiding it, believing that some unknown force will make
its hand seen and save you from that injudicious manifestation. Famous Science
juggernaut and innovator Prof. Albert Einstein is credited with the quote about
insanity being the act of replicating past actions expecting a dissimilitude in
results.
Many are the times
when we lay preference to cursing the darkness instead of lighting the candle. How
many times do we delude ourselves with statements like these?
·
He will
change.
·
My
kinsman, my shortcut to riches.
·
He has
our best interest at heart.
·
She is
‘Bae wa Nairobi.’ She stared at me during campaigns. She likes me!
·
His peers
are definitely more morally bereft.
·
He
finishes his speeches with ‘God bless Kenya’ thus he is a righteous leader.
Just like many others
I would have the same problem identifying the more morally upright leader on
face value. This is a delicate art sometimes even requiring a trade-off. By
this I mean accepting some minor misdemeanours for the greater good. In the
United States in recent times we have had George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as
former Presidents. George W. Bush was considered a morally upright character
and polished individual who sought to enforce such a moral high ground upon
society. Unfortunately his performance as a president and in lieu of the
economy and unnecessary battles leaves much to be rued. William Jefferson
Clinton may not have covered himself in lights if the moral compass should be
the prism through which you compare him with other former American Presidents.
Incessant slip-ups with female interns and White-house staffers yet during his
time USA enjoyed an economic boom thanks to good fiscal policy, the executive
and economic decisions he undertook. This is the severe dichotomy among the
choices we have to make but is a conundrum we need not have. Call it the opportunity
cost of one over the other.
Notwithstanding, history
is replete with examples of popular and charismatic characters who eventually
became despotic leaders. None fits this mould more than Adolf Hitler. Wikipedia
describes him as an astute politician, demagogue and Pan-German revolutionary.
This was not always the case. Born in Linz in the former Austria-Hungary he was
merely a young man inspired by Fine Art which he studied and practiced. He
eventually moved to Munich to eke a sustenance. Come August 1914 at the start
of the first World-War he was enlisted into the Bavarian ranks; an
administrative error as he still held Austrian not Prussian citizenship,
consequent to panicky and the erratic way of war. Nonetheless, he distinguished
himself in battle as a brave and reliable dispatcher. In October 1916 in the
heat of the battle of the Somme he was wounded in his right thigh and blinded
in a mustard gas attack. All the same he soldiered on and even played dead to
avoid capture when his entire contingent was massacred. He subsequently was
awarded the Iron Class, 2nd Class honour and eventually the Black
wound Badge notwithstanding his low rank. As Germany made reparations, he
subsisted in the Headquarters drawing cartoons and illustrations for the Army
publication.
His conscription into
politics just like the army was incidental as he had been on assignment as an
Intelligence Agent to infiltrate the then serious opposition contender, the
German Workers Party (DAP). Thinking of him an ordinary devoted party-affiliate,
he was given the podium by Chairman; Anton Drexler, to try and drum up the
audience on party policy. His oratorical gift shone ever so bright on the day
and the topic dear to the audience was anti-Semitism. Both his political career
and abhorrence for the Jews was basically born on the same day. At every twist
and turn he capitalized on populist sentiment, the then Party member #555 gave
vitriolic bar-room speeches that captivated his audiences. He kept to his most
popular scape-goats whom he blamed on the populaces’ financial hardships. He is
said to have been so gifted that he virtually hypnotized men in large
gatherings with his voice and had a sort of flame in his eyes for smaller
audiences. Giving vitriolic sermons on national pride he evinced the kind of possessed
hysteria that left many writhing on the ground and some experiencing bizarre feacal
incontinence as has variously been reported.
Come 1923, in feigned
rage he guilefully resigned from the party to force a take-over bid as Chairman
of the newly renamed NSDAP- National Socialist German Workers Party
colloquially dubbed the “Nazi party.” Impressive to note is that he even dipped
into his Fine Art mastery to design the Nazi-party standard bearer, the
‘Swastika.’ In November 1923 he led an attempted coup on the German leadership and
was arrested, charged with high-treason and incarcerated. He served 5 years in
jail. In 1932 despite fiery rhetoric and support of many of the country’s
renowned industrialists, he lost a two round presidential election to Paul von
Hindenburg, then incumbent. Come 1933 fortune
smiled his way again thanks to the Great depression. An ineffectual minority
Government saw influential politicians Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg
along with other industrialists and entrepreneurs prevail on Hindenburg to
appoint Hitler as Chancellor to give the Government a veneer of legislative
majority which he reluctantly agreed to. This was a non-party affiliated
position as a leader of Government. On 2nd August 1934, just a day
after legislation was enacted to abolish the post of President after the ageing
Hindenburg left office, the veteran ‘conveniently’ died. Having roped in the
executive and legislative arms of government, the Führer now became Head of
State and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He used the legislature to
pass the ‘enabling-act’ to deviate from the constitution on specific matters
and enact some laws on his own volition without parliamentary approval. He with
laissez-faire sentiment now in earnest commenced his purification (creation of
the Aryan race) by de-Semitization, de-capitalization and de-Marxization of the
German nation. Hitler got his wish and began the extermination of the Jews in
the Holocaust. Hubris permitting, he invaded Poland in 1939 over frivolity. This
is how Germany triggered World-War 2 and effectively began her own downfall. They
were decisively defeated and he eventually committed suicide. The tale of
Hitler is the classic tale of how populism can be abused to create despotic and
utterly diabolical machinations just to satisfy the parochial interest of a few
to the detriment of a planet in general.
So that begs the
question, what kind of leaders should we elect to Statehouse? We must accept
that this man or woman will be a subset of society and needless to say none is
perfect, without sin, blot or blemish. All the same, the Presidency is such a
vital and far-reaching office that only the best suited minds in any country
deserves a place therein. A president can influence the political will to get
any agenda pushed through and he is also expected to exist as a symbol of a
nation’s unity. Thus it behoves us to ensure that we do a considered selection
process for whomever occupies that seat controls our destiny for today and deep
into the future for our progeny. Important to note, the major problem with
electing reprehensible characters as Presidents is accountability. Who will
have authority to oversight them? So there can be no two ways about it. For my
compatriots in Kenya, we can no longer have tribal patronage as the key
consideration if at all we are interested in realizing an all-inclusive,
development-oriented destiny as a nation. We must take cognizance of our nation
as an agglomeration of nation-states and so we have to deliberately accommodate
all our ethnic identities in the awareness of brilliance as evenly distributed
but opportunity only sparsely. Also in the year 2010, Kenya promulgated an
audacious and progressive pristine constitution as a multi-sectoral process, a
befitting tribute to our maturing as a democracy. Moreover, it was a product
borne out of the great expense of the blood, sweat, tears and sacrificial
leadership from our forebears. So I would implore my dear countrymen to perform
a critical analysis in future. To kick off the probe, who were in the side that
opposed the referendum process which birthed this dispensation? We must
remember that Kenya is currently treading a path of positive reform after
suffering too many wasted years in the past to condone any more that will be
the consequence of choosing the wrong man for the Presidency. In concomitance with
that, once we have a name or a list; the answer to the question above, we must then
scour our conscience about the prudence of expecting such a man or woman to
preserve and live vicarious to the letter, spirit and tenets of this same
constitution!
The Questionnaire
which I would implore each and every one to carry in that conscientious patch
of mind that will be primal to surveying the leadership style we envisage has
these keystone concerns:
1.
Does this
leader really care about me or could he leave me to harm as collateral damage?
2.
Is this a
man of integrity or will he trade me for a bowl of lentils (Or 10,000
Shillings)? [Or Both]
3.
Is he sufficiently
noble to possess loyalty to both I, national ideals and his political partners
or are they prone to betrayal, as only a traitor can?
4.
Is there
any principle whose sanctity he respects or he simply enjoys the life of
depravity and disorder trusting only divine providence for a salvation?
5.
Is he a
man who can exercise authority in decision making or will he flatter like a
flag pandering to the whims of the side that his bread is best buttered?
6.
Does he
preach water and drink wine or he exemplifies his ranting?
7.
Are they effective
role models or merely as Texans say, “All hat but no cattle?”
8.
Does he
practice fidelity or simply collects women and children like round stones from
the riverbed?
9.
What is
their stance on impunity vis-a vis liability?
10. Would you rather have one who tells you
sweet nothings or a realist to provide the SMART (Specific Measurable
Attainable Realistic Time-bound) analysis to manifesto items?
11.
Do you
delude yourself that your preferred leader has to steal public funds for future
campaign purposes?
12. Does your leader give hefty
contributions to Harambees during the day only to return demanding a
reimbursement at night?
13. Should your leader really give you that
50/- or 100/- to boost electability?
14. Should I continue having a war mongers
for a leader or do I deserve better?
15.
Should I
be comfortable with a supposedly ‘reformed’ narcopreneur cavorting as a leader
or would I rather that long-suffering ‘squadi-guy’ who has now morphed into the
chairman of a Matatu Sacco?
In his considered opinion, Nicolo Machiavelli argued
in his best seller; The Prince, about the need for laws & structures to
enforce morality. In respecting the rule of law we are always implored to
respect our institutions but I dare aver with unrestrained contrition that it
presents a challenge respecting institutions that have themselves lost the
moral authority to demand the same. We are under obligation to elect people
with the autonomous drive towards self-regulation and an uncompromising obeisance
to the strictures of the law and if not we are under no obligation to elect
them. To him who much is given so much more is expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment