Development at all costs just misses the point

Construction takes place on Outering Road in Nairobi on October 3, 2016. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The political opposition is considered a dreadful inconvenience that needs to shut up and “allow the government to pursue its development agenda”.

  • Civil society has been christened “evil society”, demonised and made out to be a serious threat to our progress as a nation.

  • Jubilee Administration argues that we are poor and under-developed due to our noisy politics and free expression.

There is an emerging clarity on the Jubilee Administration’s philosophy of governance, which can be summarised as one of “development at all costs”. The argument is that we are poor and under-developed due to our noisy politics and free expression. The solution, according to the government, is to cut out procedures and go straight to the point, effectively eliminating the so-called middle-man, in this case more aptly renamed the “meddle-man”.

Indeed, the refrain over the past five years has been that there is “too much democracy” in Kenya, and it is holding us back from achieving our full potential.

The political opposition is considered a dreadful inconvenience that needs to shut up and “allow the government to pursue its development agenda”. Civil society has been christened “evil society”, demonised and made out to be a serious threat to our progress as a nation. The Academy has been dismissed as largely useless purveyors of “Kizungu mingi na catwalk” (lots of English and cat walking), and its role in national development relegated to that of glorified diploma mills.

The final bulwark against totalitarianism, the Judiciary, has suffered the most ignominious fate of being totally ignored. Judges have been dismissed as conmen and enemies of development for trying to uphold laws seen as inconvenient by the State.

COURT ORDERS

In recent days the State has blatantly refused to obey several court orders, and the Judiciary can only look on ineffectually since it lacks the machinery to implement its own edicts.

The Judiciary has been fingered as the ultimate “meddle-man”, and has been given a clear message by the State – toe the line or be ignored. The State controls the tools needed to implement court rulings, and will choose which orders to obey and which to ignore. The premise of this stance is that the Judiciary is an impediment to the rapid development we so desire, and appears to have sided with the political opposition to frustrate government initiatives.

There is, therefore, an ideological contest between those that agree with the government stance that development trumps all, and those that believe that development is meaningless if the citizen does not have the liberty to enjoy it.

The first group believes that forces that slow down development, and those that outrightly oppose it for whatever reason, must be silenced in the interests of the majority that is expected to enjoy its fruits. The second group believes that fundamental rights are sacrosanct, and any initiative must take them into consideration. Development must, therefore, be viewed through this rights-focused prism, and anything threatening the rights of the people must be changed or discarded outright.

STRUGGLE

In my opinion, one needs to reflect deeply on certain age-old but very basic principles when faced with a struggle such as the one we face today. First, why do we need a government? Second, (why) do we want to develop?

It is my considered view that in theory, we establish governments in order to make our interactions with fellow citizens more predictable. The underlying thinking behind this is that we yearn to be free and happy, and we need a mechanism to maximise our freedom and happiness without interfering with our neighbour’s quantum of freedom and happiness.

We, therefore, form government and establish a system of laws in order to deal with this problem.

On the second question, we often agree that in order to maximise our freedom and happiness, we need to create certain conveniences such as communications infrastructure, health systems, education, and security.

RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

These conveniences come at a price that we all agree to pay only because we believe we will all benefit when they are developed. In this basic framework “development at all costs” is unacceptable, seeing as some costs might interfere so greatly with our freedom and happiness as to make development meaningless to those it was meant to benefit. We must develop, yes, but not at the price of dismantling the system of checks and balances that guarantees certain minimum rights and freedoms, and ensures a certain measure of happiness for all.

 Atwoli is Associate Professor and Dean, Moi University School of Medicine [email protected]