Emerging Norms in Social Media: The “Game of Thrones” Effect vs. the “Spoiler Alert” Effect.
This past Sunday, something HUGE happened on HBO’s hit show, “Game of Thrones”. A lot of people saw the episode and went bat-crap crazy, but a lot of people who love and follow the show didn’t see the episode. I love and follow the show and I didn’t see the episode… but at 9:50pm on Sunday I get like 7 texts on top of each other and my Facebook feed and messaging go totally meshuga! Twitter is also going nuts! But, thankfully, all the texts, Facebook and Twitter posts were cryptic or were preceded by “SPOILER ALERT”; so nobody revealed and, more importantly, nobody wanted to reveal what HUGE event had just happened on “Game of Thrones”.
You could say it was collective self-restraint born of collective empathy for those who had not witnessed this event 1st hand, and whose enjoyment thereto would be irreparably diminished if the secret were to be revealed on Social Media before they had a chance to witness it 1st hand. Perhaps a reason for such self-restraint is coz we sort off know our Social Media friends, right?….. So we sort off care a little about them, right?.......... How long can such group self-restraint last in a world of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 24hr cable, information saturation etc.? My experience: 1.5 days.
By early Tuesday, after badgering, hectoring and incessantly complaining to my fellow “Game of Thrones” addicts not to reveal what HUGE event happened on FB, they began to push-back and tell ME to “get off Facebook for a couple of days”. Two of my younger sisters (blood of my blood) were amongst the most vociferous. My youngest sister was like, “Yup bro, you are screwed! If you don’t wanna know what happened, get off Facebook for a bit!” I was getting Facebook shunned!
I was hurt coz I had to choose between not being a normal part of my sisters’ online lives for a couple weeks, and knowing what happened on a TV show that I love, and my sisters were cool with disappearing me for a couple weeks… how crazy is that? But I quickly realized that the whole point of Social Media is that… it is social! And what is more social than an event that cuts across all demographics and gets all demographics to collectively freak-out about the same event…. Like 100MM people saying a collective “WTF???”
It also became clear to me that Social Media encourages, accentuates, and profits from hive and herd behavior. But as an MBA student evicted from my normal “blood of my blood” herd, and now part of a large but scattered herd of strangers who were becoming annoying to everyone else because we happened not to be part of a HUGE social event on TV that the rest of our normal herds wanted to revisit, relive, replay etc….. I thought, “I don’t want to have to choose between being a full part of my online herd and missing out on the joy of singularly AWESOME events that I missed but are still available on DVR a week or even a month later.”
“How can this be fixed?” “How can I remain an active and awesome member of my online herd, without ruining the fun everyone else wants to have online?” and “How can the fix be profitable?”
I’m not smart enough to solve this. I still don’t know what happened on “Game of Thrones” this past Sunday, but I doubt I will make it to this coming weekend (b4 I finally watch the episode) without finding out what happened before. Someone smarter than I (and there are many of you at Kellogg) needs to solve this.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
New Haven FireFighter Race Discrimination case
It's hard to argue with the facts the plaintiff presents. For a challenge to race-conscious policy making, he was an ideal candidate. However, it is also hard to argue with the fact that you can probably identify good math teachers by written tests, but you can't identify good bouncers by having them do multiple choice tests. Firefighters? It seems to me that a written test alone is insufficient to identify the best firefighters. Firefighting, I'd say, includes a theoretical component: that is, the nature of fires, how to recognize the conditions that create firs etc. This can be properly tested in a written test. But firefighting, like police work, also includes a practical, personal and leadership components, e.g. how you react in an emergency and under pressure, and will men follow you in these circumstances. Multiple choice questions cannot reveal these facets of firefighting at the lieutenant and captain level. Does this mean that the New Haven test should have been thrown out? As a matter of the law as it stood prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, I'd say yes!
Nevertheless, I think the Supreme Court's decision was correct in this sense: it forces employers to think very carefully about their hiring and advancement requirements as they relate to the job. Prior to this, the law allowed employers to simply throw out tests in which minorities did not to well because the law made it very easy to sue for discriminatory testing under Tittle VII. The danger was that the possibility of a lawsuit from a minority candidate might cause an employer to invalidate a test for which non-minority candidates went to great lengths to prepare. Now, however, before invalidating any test, employers have to show a "strong basis in evidence" that they would have lost a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by the minority candidate. While this requirement may make it easier for employers to accept a lack of diversity, it, in my view, remains a useful requirement because minorities can still sue and now non-minorities can as well. This can only make testing fairer. Under the new law, New Haven would probably have had to to have included both a theoretical as well as a practical component in its firefighter promotion tests. And that is as it should have been and as it should be.
More broadly though, the Supreme Court's decision also reflects the increasing pressure Affirmative Action policies in general are under. While I think nobody doubts that in this country there are still many advantages and disadvantages attached to one's race, we nevertheless have elected a black man President. This is progress. So while we are probably not yet ready to discard Affirmative Action, I think Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor had it exactly right in 2003 when she suggested that in about 25 years it will be difficult to defend race-conscious Affirmative Action as it is currently constituted.
Nevertheless, I think the Supreme Court's decision was correct in this sense: it forces employers to think very carefully about their hiring and advancement requirements as they relate to the job. Prior to this, the law allowed employers to simply throw out tests in which minorities did not to well because the law made it very easy to sue for discriminatory testing under Tittle VII. The danger was that the possibility of a lawsuit from a minority candidate might cause an employer to invalidate a test for which non-minority candidates went to great lengths to prepare. Now, however, before invalidating any test, employers have to show a "strong basis in evidence" that they would have lost a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by the minority candidate. While this requirement may make it easier for employers to accept a lack of diversity, it, in my view, remains a useful requirement because minorities can still sue and now non-minorities can as well. This can only make testing fairer. Under the new law, New Haven would probably have had to to have included both a theoretical as well as a practical component in its firefighter promotion tests. And that is as it should have been and as it should be.
More broadly though, the Supreme Court's decision also reflects the increasing pressure Affirmative Action policies in general are under. While I think nobody doubts that in this country there are still many advantages and disadvantages attached to one's race, we nevertheless have elected a black man President. This is progress. So while we are probably not yet ready to discard Affirmative Action, I think Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor had it exactly right in 2003 when she suggested that in about 25 years it will be difficult to defend race-conscious Affirmative Action as it is currently constituted.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Can Condoleeza Save Kenya from herself?
That's right!
Ms. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States will be in Kenya tomorrow to help with the negotiations of a power deal between the government represented by a party called PNU and the Opposition represented by a party called ODM. Just so you understand... Condoleeza Rice is the top diplomat of the only super-power on planet earth. And she will be in Kenya to assist in the negotiations (my hunch is that she is coming to give an ultimatum!). And President George W. Bush has made clear what he wants. He wants a grand coalition between the government (PNU) and the Opposition (ODM) so that commerce can resume and confidence in Kenya's long-term stability can be restored.
The sticking point is and has ALWAYS been that the President of Kenya has too much power. Stated simply, the entire Executive and Judiciary serve at his pleasure. In the US, the Supreme court of the United States has the constitutional authority to nullify presidential actions. They can, and have told Bush and other US Presidents that "No you cannot do that! And that is the end of the matter because we are the Supreme Court!" This kind of defiance is unthinkable in Kenya because the judge that dared defy the President would be out of a job the next day. So the negotiations will be focusing on how to reduce Presidential power.
I have to say that I am SUPER proud of the international community. They have refused to ignore Kenya. The disputed election was on Dec 27... over a month and a half ago but yet there is still a concerted international effort to make things right in Kenya. I think the Kibaki govt is slowly coming to this realization: that they will have to compromise and give up some Presidential power. The details are everything.
Personally, I would be happy if the President of Kenya would require parliamentary approval to appoint, AND could NOT remove AT ALL members of Kenya's High Court (our supreme court); that only the parliament could do this. This together with his inability to remove regional administrators at will without some sort of legislative approval. i.e. Provincial Administrators. I will concede that the president's cabinet is HIS/HER choice but on a regional level there need to be checks. These two changes ALONE would be enough for me.
So Condoleeza work will be to find what the Kibaki administration is willing to give up in terms of Presidential Power. This is all that matters. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. In fact this is her mission. She MUST convince Kibaki to give up some Presidential power or else there will be no deal!
Ms. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States will be in Kenya tomorrow to help with the negotiations of a power deal between the government represented by a party called PNU and the Opposition represented by a party called ODM. Just so you understand... Condoleeza Rice is the top diplomat of the only super-power on planet earth. And she will be in Kenya to assist in the negotiations (my hunch is that she is coming to give an ultimatum!). And President George W. Bush has made clear what he wants. He wants a grand coalition between the government (PNU) and the Opposition (ODM) so that commerce can resume and confidence in Kenya's long-term stability can be restored.
The sticking point is and has ALWAYS been that the President of Kenya has too much power. Stated simply, the entire Executive and Judiciary serve at his pleasure. In the US, the Supreme court of the United States has the constitutional authority to nullify presidential actions. They can, and have told Bush and other US Presidents that "No you cannot do that! And that is the end of the matter because we are the Supreme Court!" This kind of defiance is unthinkable in Kenya because the judge that dared defy the President would be out of a job the next day. So the negotiations will be focusing on how to reduce Presidential power.
I have to say that I am SUPER proud of the international community. They have refused to ignore Kenya. The disputed election was on Dec 27... over a month and a half ago but yet there is still a concerted international effort to make things right in Kenya. I think the Kibaki govt is slowly coming to this realization: that they will have to compromise and give up some Presidential power. The details are everything.
Personally, I would be happy if the President of Kenya would require parliamentary approval to appoint, AND could NOT remove AT ALL members of Kenya's High Court (our supreme court); that only the parliament could do this. This together with his inability to remove regional administrators at will without some sort of legislative approval. i.e. Provincial Administrators. I will concede that the president's cabinet is HIS/HER choice but on a regional level there need to be checks. These two changes ALONE would be enough for me.
So Condoleeza work will be to find what the Kibaki administration is willing to give up in terms of Presidential Power. This is all that matters. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. In fact this is her mission. She MUST convince Kibaki to give up some Presidential power or else there will be no deal!
Monday, February 11, 2008
A deal in the works???
It has been nearly a month since I posted anything and a lot has happened since. More Kenyans have died and even more have been kicked out of their homes through ethic cleansing, BUT the international community has not abandoned Kenya. International diplomats of the highest level have been dispatched to Kenya led by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General, as well as frequent pop-ins by the current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, to keep negotiations moving, have brought the seemingly intractable sides close to a power-sharing deal.
Since my last post, Kenyan commerce has slowed to a virtual standstill. This affects more than just the citizens of Kenya. Neighboring countries that depend on Kenya’s commercial arteries are suffering economically. The grim specter of Kenya devolving to chaos would impact more than the Kenyan population; it would have a crippling regional impact. This perhaps is the reason for such a concerted and sustained international effort to broker a political deal that will return stability and prosperity to Kenya.
In a previous post on my blog I had suggested that perhaps the opposition should have used the leverage they had to negotiate for constitutional concessions from the incumbent Kibaki government rather than aggressively and violently disputing the election results. As it turns out, this is exactly what might happen due to Secretary General Annan’s Herculean diplomatic efforts.
The latest word is that a power-sharing deal is imminent with the incumbent Kibaki remaining as President, while a new executive post (Prime Minister) would be created for opposition leader Raila Odinga. The creation of a second executive post would necessarily diminish the currently unchecked power of the office of the President of Kenya. Of course, the devil is in the details, but this, in and of itself, is a HUGE step forward for Kenya. The notion that the Kenya government is willing to countenance a diminution of Presidential executive power is REVOLUTIONARY and cannot be overstated and is to be applauded!!!!
Of course, there are constitutional problems. This deal would require amending Kenya’s constitution and not everyone is happy about this. For one, some voices note that if the opposition joins the government, what happens to multiparty democracy in Kenya? Also, amending Kenya’s constitution, just like amending the US constitution, is no cake-walk. Parties now in positions of power who stand to lose these positions should this power-sharing deal be struck are naturally taking a dim view of the current negotiations and may try sabotage them.
However, as an American of Kenyan heritage who still cares deeply about the well being of the country of his birth, I feel, and have said many times, that the problem with Kenya is that the President has too much power. The entire Executive branch as well as the entire Judicial branch of government serve at his pleasure. Executive and Judicial officers at every level of government can be appointed and, more importantly, be removed at the whim of the President!
This would be the equivalent of President Bush being able to appoint and fire without cause and without any possibility of review from the Congress the entire US cabinet, all top administrators of all federal agencies like the FDA and Homeland Security; the top brass of the armed forces; regional law enforcement leaders (police chiefs); Supreme Court justices, federal judges etc. This, as you can see, results in a situation where winning the Presidency becomes a winner take all, zero sum game resulting in violence and ethnic cleansing rather than lawsuits (as we are accustomed to in the US). If this deal in Kenya can change this dynamic, then I am for it 100%.
May God smile upon Kenya.
Since my last post, Kenyan commerce has slowed to a virtual standstill. This affects more than just the citizens of Kenya. Neighboring countries that depend on Kenya’s commercial arteries are suffering economically. The grim specter of Kenya devolving to chaos would impact more than the Kenyan population; it would have a crippling regional impact. This perhaps is the reason for such a concerted and sustained international effort to broker a political deal that will return stability and prosperity to Kenya.
In a previous post on my blog I had suggested that perhaps the opposition should have used the leverage they had to negotiate for constitutional concessions from the incumbent Kibaki government rather than aggressively and violently disputing the election results. As it turns out, this is exactly what might happen due to Secretary General Annan’s Herculean diplomatic efforts.
The latest word is that a power-sharing deal is imminent with the incumbent Kibaki remaining as President, while a new executive post (Prime Minister) would be created for opposition leader Raila Odinga. The creation of a second executive post would necessarily diminish the currently unchecked power of the office of the President of Kenya. Of course, the devil is in the details, but this, in and of itself, is a HUGE step forward for Kenya. The notion that the Kenya government is willing to countenance a diminution of Presidential executive power is REVOLUTIONARY and cannot be overstated and is to be applauded!!!!
Of course, there are constitutional problems. This deal would require amending Kenya’s constitution and not everyone is happy about this. For one, some voices note that if the opposition joins the government, what happens to multiparty democracy in Kenya? Also, amending Kenya’s constitution, just like amending the US constitution, is no cake-walk. Parties now in positions of power who stand to lose these positions should this power-sharing deal be struck are naturally taking a dim view of the current negotiations and may try sabotage them.
However, as an American of Kenyan heritage who still cares deeply about the well being of the country of his birth, I feel, and have said many times, that the problem with Kenya is that the President has too much power. The entire Executive branch as well as the entire Judicial branch of government serve at his pleasure. Executive and Judicial officers at every level of government can be appointed and, more importantly, be removed at the whim of the President!
This would be the equivalent of President Bush being able to appoint and fire without cause and without any possibility of review from the Congress the entire US cabinet, all top administrators of all federal agencies like the FDA and Homeland Security; the top brass of the armed forces; regional law enforcement leaders (police chiefs); Supreme Court justices, federal judges etc. This, as you can see, results in a situation where winning the Presidency becomes a winner take all, zero sum game resulting in violence and ethnic cleansing rather than lawsuits (as we are accustomed to in the US). If this deal in Kenya can change this dynamic, then I am for it 100%.
May God smile upon Kenya.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Opening of Kenya’s Parliament.
Tomorrow, Monday January 14, 2008 is the official opening of Kenya’s official legislative body -- the Kenya Parliament. Leaving aside, for the moment, the increasing tension in the rest of Kenya, this first Parliamentary session is bound to be the stuff of Prime Time TV… so get your popcorn ready.
The Opposition (ODM) party controls 108 out of 222; clearly not a majority but with alliances they might even reach a super majority. The incumbent government party (PNU) won only 36 seats out of 222 seats; they need desperately to form massive coalitions, and as the incumbent government they can AND have already offered minor parties major roles in the governmental apparatus e.g. the vice-presidency in exchange for their parliamentary loyalty. This, unfortunately, is a movie we have seen so many times before in Kenya -- business as usual. And in truth, this is how democracy ought to work -- horse-trading etc. but in the backdrop of a stolen election things are a little different.
The EU and US resist Kenyan business as Usual
The EU presidency has said "All political parties in Kenya should recognize that it cannot be business as usual in Kenya until there is political compromise which leads to a lasting solution that reflects the will of the Kenyan people, wins their confidence, and helps return Kenya to stability,"
The US, in a welcome change, has, according to the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Dr Jendayi Frazer, said in a statement: "The United States cannot conduct business as usual in Kenya. The Kenyan people recognize that the post-electoral crisis has revealed longstanding problems that cannot be ignored."
This is helpful. Clearly the foreign powers with the most influence in Kenyan political affairs -- the USA and the EU -- have decided that: 1) a recount is not possible due to the time that has elapsed (in addition due to Kenya’s constitutional temporal limitations on recounts); 2) a run-off is not acceptable, because of the cost in human lives, logistics, loss of financial and economic opportunities, investments and the generally unpredictable violence that this might entail. The only feasible solution, then, is to encourage a political settlement between the Opposition and the incumbent government based on the announced result.
Both sides know this and are digging in. Should they decide to stage their standoff in Parliament rather than the streets of Kenya, then most at stake is who elects the powerful Speaker of Parliament and his/her deputy because they largely control the agenda that comes before the whole parliament, including, votes of confidence or lack thereof.
The Ideal Situation
This would be what I outlined in my January 5 post: Fully reproduced herebelow:
“A possible way forward?
In my view, because both sides have red-line positions that seem intractable (Govt: you must accept our authority or go to court to contest it. Opposition: We cannot under any circumstances trust the courts to be fair), BUT both sides have also stated that they are willing to discuss forming a coalition government. Then this cold-blooded political deal seems the only way out of this impasse.
Power of the President
The biggest issue would be what President Kibaki's administration could offer the opposition. This is the biggest issue because, in Kenya, the President is both the head of state and head of government, and has powers to both appoint and REMOVE without cause the highest ranking executive officers (cabinet members, police chiefs etc), military officers (captains, generals etc.), AND judicial officers (High Court justices INCLUDING the Chief Justice) throughout the land WITHOUT any legislative or other review. This makes the President of Kenya basically Superman, or stated more politically, a King! Stated simply, the entire Executive branch, the entire Armed Forces and the entire Judiciary serve at the President's pleasure and Parliament has NO say in who gets to serve and who does not.
Reducing Presidential Powers: A couple of Suggestions
First, perhaps, the post of a Prime Minister could created with, for instance, the power to veto the President's power to remove without cause certain executive, military and judicial officials. What level of unaccountable Presidential appointment and removal power could be a point of negotiation that might be acceptable to both sides?
Second, if the post of a Prime Minister is not possible, maybe, then, the appointment of very high ranking executive, military and judicial officials could be made to require legislative approval of a certain threshold -- perhaps a simple majority. If these two changes ALONE were implemented in Kenya's constitution, they would make a REVOLUTIONARY difference in Kenyan politics.
An Opportunity for the Opposition?
This, perhaps, is what the Opposition should now focus on fighting for. I say this for two reasons: 1) the diminution of Presidential power would mean that obtaining and retaining the Kenyan Presidency would cease to be the zero sum game that it currently is. The stakes associated with being President of Kenya would diminish to a level congruous with other stable democracies. This concentration of an inordinate amount of power in the President's Office is the single most damaging, DIVISIVE and destructive condition that Kenyan political, civil and economic life suffers from; 2) this reduction in Presidential power is also a clearly stated and principal raison d'etre of the opposition itself. This, together with the devolving of power from a nearly omnipotent central government in Nairobi to the different provinces are the clearly stated ultimate goals of the opposition. These are the promises the opposition ran on and with which they won 60% of Kenya's legislative seats, and why 80% of President Kibaki's cabinet was voted out of office.
If the opposition can force these constitutional changes, or something approximating a meaningful diminution of Presidential power in Kenya's Constitution, then perhaps the senseless violence; the horrific rapes and vicious murders; the heartbreaking and unnecessary loss of life; the massive displacement of Kenyan citizens; and even the potential but, hopefully, temporary loss of faith in democracy and its processes would be worth it.”
Tomorrow, Monday January 14, 2008 is the official opening of Kenya’s official legislative body -- the Kenya Parliament. Leaving aside, for the moment, the increasing tension in the rest of Kenya, this first Parliamentary session is bound to be the stuff of Prime Time TV… so get your popcorn ready.
The Opposition (ODM) party controls 108 out of 222; clearly not a majority but with alliances they might even reach a super majority. The incumbent government party (PNU) won only 36 seats out of 222 seats; they need desperately to form massive coalitions, and as the incumbent government they can AND have already offered minor parties major roles in the governmental apparatus e.g. the vice-presidency in exchange for their parliamentary loyalty. This, unfortunately, is a movie we have seen so many times before in Kenya -- business as usual. And in truth, this is how democracy ought to work -- horse-trading etc. but in the backdrop of a stolen election things are a little different.
The EU and US resist Kenyan business as Usual
The EU presidency has said "All political parties in Kenya should recognize that it cannot be business as usual in Kenya until there is political compromise which leads to a lasting solution that reflects the will of the Kenyan people, wins their confidence, and helps return Kenya to stability,"
The US, in a welcome change, has, according to the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Dr Jendayi Frazer, said in a statement: "The United States cannot conduct business as usual in Kenya. The Kenyan people recognize that the post-electoral crisis has revealed longstanding problems that cannot be ignored."
This is helpful. Clearly the foreign powers with the most influence in Kenyan political affairs -- the USA and the EU -- have decided that: 1) a recount is not possible due to the time that has elapsed (in addition due to Kenya’s constitutional temporal limitations on recounts); 2) a run-off is not acceptable, because of the cost in human lives, logistics, loss of financial and economic opportunities, investments and the generally unpredictable violence that this might entail. The only feasible solution, then, is to encourage a political settlement between the Opposition and the incumbent government based on the announced result.
Both sides know this and are digging in. Should they decide to stage their standoff in Parliament rather than the streets of Kenya, then most at stake is who elects the powerful Speaker of Parliament and his/her deputy because they largely control the agenda that comes before the whole parliament, including, votes of confidence or lack thereof.
The Ideal Situation
This would be what I outlined in my January 5 post: Fully reproduced herebelow:
“A possible way forward?
In my view, because both sides have red-line positions that seem intractable (Govt: you must accept our authority or go to court to contest it. Opposition: We cannot under any circumstances trust the courts to be fair), BUT both sides have also stated that they are willing to discuss forming a coalition government. Then this cold-blooded political deal seems the only way out of this impasse.
Power of the President
The biggest issue would be what President Kibaki's administration could offer the opposition. This is the biggest issue because, in Kenya, the President is both the head of state and head of government, and has powers to both appoint and REMOVE without cause the highest ranking executive officers (cabinet members, police chiefs etc), military officers (captains, generals etc.), AND judicial officers (High Court justices INCLUDING the Chief Justice) throughout the land WITHOUT any legislative or other review. This makes the President of Kenya basically Superman, or stated more politically, a King! Stated simply, the entire Executive branch, the entire Armed Forces and the entire Judiciary serve at the President's pleasure and Parliament has NO say in who gets to serve and who does not.
Reducing Presidential Powers: A couple of Suggestions
First, perhaps, the post of a Prime Minister could created with, for instance, the power to veto the President's power to remove without cause certain executive, military and judicial officials. What level of unaccountable Presidential appointment and removal power could be a point of negotiation that might be acceptable to both sides?
Second, if the post of a Prime Minister is not possible, maybe, then, the appointment of very high ranking executive, military and judicial officials could be made to require legislative approval of a certain threshold -- perhaps a simple majority. If these two changes ALONE were implemented in Kenya's constitution, they would make a REVOLUTIONARY difference in Kenyan politics.
An Opportunity for the Opposition?
This, perhaps, is what the Opposition should now focus on fighting for. I say this for two reasons: 1) the diminution of Presidential power would mean that obtaining and retaining the Kenyan Presidency would cease to be the zero sum game that it currently is. The stakes associated with being President of Kenya would diminish to a level congruous with other stable democracies. This concentration of an inordinate amount of power in the President's Office is the single most damaging, DIVISIVE and destructive condition that Kenyan political, civil and economic life suffers from; 2) this reduction in Presidential power is also a clearly stated and principal raison d'etre of the opposition itself. This, together with the devolving of power from a nearly omnipotent central government in Nairobi to the different provinces are the clearly stated ultimate goals of the opposition. These are the promises the opposition ran on and with which they won 60% of Kenya's legislative seats, and why 80% of President Kibaki's cabinet was voted out of office.
If the opposition can force these constitutional changes, or something approximating a meaningful diminution of Presidential power in Kenya's Constitution, then perhaps the senseless violence; the horrific rapes and vicious murders; the heartbreaking and unnecessary loss of life; the massive displacement of Kenyan citizens; and even the potential but, hopefully, temporary loss of faith in democracy and its processes would be worth it.”
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
On Saturday, the political temperature in Kenya dropped dramatically – perhaps because the opposition protestors were tired, or perhaps because Kenyans decided to be reasonable – whatever the reason, we celebrated the chance for a negotiated settlement. We were premature in our celebration and our hopes seem to have been seriously misplaced – nay we were naïve about how politics works in Kenya.
Politics is a Power Game
Politics is about power and who controls power. Today, power exists in 1) the number of gun barrels you control; 2) the number of strong allies you can mobilize; and 3) the strength of the will of the people you are trying to exercise power over.
The Opposition suffers from a serious deficit in all three power bases.
People Power
First, and most importantly for the opposition, after the results were announced, serious questions were asked of the will of the people of Kenya to resist the fraud that had been perpetrated on them and the clearly emerging answer is that Kenyan’s are not willing to risk everything over this election. I say this because the Opposition leaders called for million man marches a number of times and civil disobedience and every time the government’s law enforcement apparatus was able to beat back attempts at organizing widespread civil disobedience and mass protests. The reason this happened was because most of the protests seemed to be concentrated in slums that are easily cordoned off and controlled. Had Kenya’s middle class risen up, things might have been different. This is EXTREMELY crucial because a general uprising of ‘the people’ was the Opposition’s ace in the hole. If the people are NOT willing to rise up and heed your call then what this indicates is that your power-base – the supposedly disenfranchised people – offer you NO power because they are willing to accept a stolen election if it ensures peace over a righteous but personally costly resistance.
Foreign Allies
Second, though many foreign powers have openly stated that the elections were rigged, they said this in a context under which civil war seemed imminent. As the Kibaki administration begins to assert authority by controlling civil disorder, many foreign governments are likely to come to a number of conclusions: 1) Fraudulent peace is better than righteous anarchy; and 2) Better the Devil you know than the one you don’t. Kibaki is a known and favorable quantity in all the indices important to powerful foreign governments – conservative, pro- big business, pro-western, pro-commerce, steady and calm. Odinga, his rival, is, on the other hand, is a charismatic firebrand whose father was a known socialist. Also, Odinga was educated partly in the former East Germany. These facts alone will, and, in my estimation, have already cooled the planet’s only Superpower’s desire to support his resistance. The US has a long history of going to the mat for popular uprisings AGAINST communist/socialist governments. However, when these popular uprisings might bring a potential leftist/socialist to power, the US almost always looks the other way. Initially, the US retracted its congratulations offered to Kibaki, now the official US position, as articulated by Mr. Frazer, is that: there was evidence of rigging but both sides possibly engaged in it, which, is, incidentally, Kibaki’s line. Because the US government is unwilling to support the Kenya Opposition in the way that it supported the Ukrainian Opposition, this robs the Opposition of the most important ally it could have – The government of The United States of America. This, in my view, is fatal.
Military Power
Third, the Opposition has no guns. The top brass of the Armed Forces of Kenya were present at Kibaki’s secret swearing in and have been present at all major State functions. This is a full-throated declaration of their position. Even if the Opposition had guns, would they be willing to use them given their inability to organize effective mass protest? And if they had guns, would this be an appropriate outcome for Kenya?
Kibaki’s moves
If I were a cold-blooded Kibaki advisor, based on the above, I would suggest that he act like there is no controversy, and, more importantly, that he act like he is the magnanimous Head of State offering a coalition to any aggrieved parties. I would suggest that he crackdown on any civil disorder while offering peace and reconciliation. Eventually, the Kenyan people and foreign governments will fall in line as long as he maintains control of civil order. This is the most crucial factor. If total chaos ensues, his administration will fall.
Foreign Governments
Foreign governments have limited interests in intruding in African elections as long as the African government is not too repressive and shares certain bedrock values with the foreign government e.g. free commerce. Beyond this, a foreign government’s main interest in any internal African power struggle is in sitting back and waiting to see who emerges victorious and then deciding whether to work with them. After all, if Kenya’s own people are unwilling to stand up and fight for what many believe is a fraudulent election, why should London, Paris or Beijing care?
Conclusion
My considered opinion is that the Opposition has been thoroughly out-maneuvered. Their ace in the hole – a mass uprising – is not going to materialize. Mr. Kibaki seems to have better read the character of the Kenyan people.
Politics is a Power Game
Politics is about power and who controls power. Today, power exists in 1) the number of gun barrels you control; 2) the number of strong allies you can mobilize; and 3) the strength of the will of the people you are trying to exercise power over.
The Opposition suffers from a serious deficit in all three power bases.
People Power
First, and most importantly for the opposition, after the results were announced, serious questions were asked of the will of the people of Kenya to resist the fraud that had been perpetrated on them and the clearly emerging answer is that Kenyan’s are not willing to risk everything over this election. I say this because the Opposition leaders called for million man marches a number of times and civil disobedience and every time the government’s law enforcement apparatus was able to beat back attempts at organizing widespread civil disobedience and mass protests. The reason this happened was because most of the protests seemed to be concentrated in slums that are easily cordoned off and controlled. Had Kenya’s middle class risen up, things might have been different. This is EXTREMELY crucial because a general uprising of ‘the people’ was the Opposition’s ace in the hole. If the people are NOT willing to rise up and heed your call then what this indicates is that your power-base – the supposedly disenfranchised people – offer you NO power because they are willing to accept a stolen election if it ensures peace over a righteous but personally costly resistance.
Foreign Allies
Second, though many foreign powers have openly stated that the elections were rigged, they said this in a context under which civil war seemed imminent. As the Kibaki administration begins to assert authority by controlling civil disorder, many foreign governments are likely to come to a number of conclusions: 1) Fraudulent peace is better than righteous anarchy; and 2) Better the Devil you know than the one you don’t. Kibaki is a known and favorable quantity in all the indices important to powerful foreign governments – conservative, pro- big business, pro-western, pro-commerce, steady and calm. Odinga, his rival, is, on the other hand, is a charismatic firebrand whose father was a known socialist. Also, Odinga was educated partly in the former East Germany. These facts alone will, and, in my estimation, have already cooled the planet’s only Superpower’s desire to support his resistance. The US has a long history of going to the mat for popular uprisings AGAINST communist/socialist governments. However, when these popular uprisings might bring a potential leftist/socialist to power, the US almost always looks the other way. Initially, the US retracted its congratulations offered to Kibaki, now the official US position, as articulated by Mr. Frazer, is that: there was evidence of rigging but both sides possibly engaged in it, which, is, incidentally, Kibaki’s line. Because the US government is unwilling to support the Kenya Opposition in the way that it supported the Ukrainian Opposition, this robs the Opposition of the most important ally it could have – The government of The United States of America. This, in my view, is fatal.
Military Power
Third, the Opposition has no guns. The top brass of the Armed Forces of Kenya were present at Kibaki’s secret swearing in and have been present at all major State functions. This is a full-throated declaration of their position. Even if the Opposition had guns, would they be willing to use them given their inability to organize effective mass protest? And if they had guns, would this be an appropriate outcome for Kenya?
Kibaki’s moves
If I were a cold-blooded Kibaki advisor, based on the above, I would suggest that he act like there is no controversy, and, more importantly, that he act like he is the magnanimous Head of State offering a coalition to any aggrieved parties. I would suggest that he crackdown on any civil disorder while offering peace and reconciliation. Eventually, the Kenyan people and foreign governments will fall in line as long as he maintains control of civil order. This is the most crucial factor. If total chaos ensues, his administration will fall.
Foreign Governments
Foreign governments have limited interests in intruding in African elections as long as the African government is not too repressive and shares certain bedrock values with the foreign government e.g. free commerce. Beyond this, a foreign government’s main interest in any internal African power struggle is in sitting back and waiting to see who emerges victorious and then deciding whether to work with them. After all, if Kenya’s own people are unwilling to stand up and fight for what many believe is a fraudulent election, why should London, Paris or Beijing care?
Conclusion
My considered opinion is that the Opposition has been thoroughly out-maneuvered. Their ace in the hole – a mass uprising – is not going to materialize. Mr. Kibaki seems to have better read the character of the Kenyan people.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
A Ray of Hope
Two important things have happened in the last two days since my last post.
Ineffective Opposition Mass Protest
First, the Opposition's attempts at organized mass protest in the capital city of Nairobi with the aim of bringing down the incumbent Kibaki administration have been largely thwarted by the effectiveness of a special unit of Kenya's law enforcement known as the General Service Unit (GSU). These are paramilitary riot control shock troops but t
hey are also a SWAT team. Anything the regular cops can't handle the GSU is called in, hence the name General Service Unit -- they are up for anything. The GSU has kept the city center free of protesters, both violent e.g. local street thugs, and peaceful e.g. one of my sisters. The inability for the opposition to force a collapse of Mr. Kibaki's administration through mass protest reduces their options to ascend to power and puts pressure on the opposition to compromise.
Lack of recognition of newly "elected" Kenyan President
Second, the vast majority of the world has refused to recognize the validity of the presidential vote tally due to well-documented "irregularities" (outlined in my first post herebelow). The EU formally dismissed the presidential election results as lacking credibility and called for an international audit. The US retracted an initial congratulatory message to Mr. Kibaki. The UK expressed deep concern about the "irregularities" associated with the tallying of the Presidential vote count and also has not congratulated Mr. Kibaki. France has been the most outspoken and has outright rejected the presidential election results as rigged. The Canadian ambassador ahs been seen publically with the opposition leader. Many other countries have remained silent. This lack of recognition by important countries in the world reduces the options of the Kibaki administration to hold on to power and puts pressure on president Kibaki to compromise.
A situation ripe for both sides to compromise.
Because of pressure from the international community at large, and from international dignitaries like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, both sides have backed down from their initial hard line positions. The opposition initially insisted that President Kibaki must first resign before any dialogue could occur now they are open to the formation of a coalition government without a resignation. Mr. Kibaki initially insisted that the elections were free and fair and that no recount or re-run of the election would happen. Now he too is open to a coalition government as well as a re-run if the Kenya courts demand it.
Still far apart
This is definitely progress! However, the two sides still remain very far apart. The Opposition insists that any coalition government would be only a caretaker government whose sole purpose would be to organize an new Presidential election within 3 months, which, they are sure they will win. The administration, naturally rejects this because to accept this would be to tacitly admit that the current results are fraudulent. They are NOT going to do this. They need the opposition and the international community to accept the validity of the currently contested election results. This is their red-line position.
No more violence
For it's part, the administration demands that no coalition government will be discussed until the violence stops and there is law and order which is, on its face, a reasonable demand. However, violence can just as easily be fomented by the government as it can by the disgruntled opposition. Still, it is also in the administrations interests to have violence cease because it needs to be seen as being in control of the country.
Electoral challenge in Kenya's courts
The administration also insists that any change in the officially announced results MUST go through Kenya's Constitutional Processes. Again, this, at first blush, is wholly reasonable. However, the constitutional processes that now remain for challenging the election results can only go through Kenya's courts because a recount, by law, can only happen within 48 hours of the announcement. So the only constitutional and legal remedies left to challenge this fraudulent election are the Kenyan courts which are notoriously corrupt and known to be beholden to the government.
Effect on Opposition on court challenge
If the opposition were to follow this path and the courts verified the current result, then legally and constitutionally the opposition would be in a double bind because: 1) the duly constituted (but totally corrupt) Electoral Commission of Kenya initially verified them making them legal; and 2) The Supreme Court (again corrupt) added its august imprimatur on the result. If this happens, there are no more legal options for the opposition and, God forbid, violence and civil war will be the only way to force the government from power. This is the trap the opposition fears it will be led into if it accepts to contest the result in Kenya's courts. This is the opposition's red-line position.
A possible way forward?
In my view, because both sides have red-line positions that seem intractable (Govt: you must accept our authority or go to court to contest it. Opposition: We cannot under any circumstances trust the courts to be fair), BUT both sides have also stated that they are willing to discuss forming a coalition government. Then this cold-blooded political deal seems the only way out of this impasse.
Power of the President
The biggest issue would be what President Kibaki's administration could offer the opposition. This is the biggest issue because, in Kenya, the President is both the head of state and head of government, and has powers to both appoint and REMOVE without cause the highest ranking executive officers (cabinet members, police cheifs etc), military officers (captains, generals etc.), AND judicial officers (High Court justices INCLUDING the Chief Justice) throughout the land WITHOUT any legislative or other review. This makes the President of Kenya basically Superman, or stated more politically, a King! Stated simply, the entire Executive branch, the entire Armed Forces and the entire Judiciary serve at the President's pleasure and Parliament has NO say in who gets to serve and who does not.
Reducing Presidential Powers: A couple of Suggestions
First, perhaps, the post of a Prime Minister could created with, for instance, the power to veto the President's power to remove without cause certain executive, military and judicial officials. What level of unaccountable Presidential appointment and removal power could be a point of negotiation that might be acceptable to both sides.
Second, if the post of a Prime Minister is not possible, maybe, then, the appointment of very high ranking executive, military and judicial officials could be made to require legislative approval of a certain threshold -- perhaps a simple majority. If these two changes ALONE were implemented in Kenya's constitution, they would make a REVOLUTIONARY difference in Kenyan politics.
An Opportunity for the Opposition?
This, perhaps, is what the Opposition should now focus on fighting for. I say this for two reasons: 1) The diminution of Presidential power would mean that obtaining and retaining the Kenyan Presidency would cease to be the zero sum game that it currently is. The stakes associated with being President of Kenya would diminish to a level congruous with other stable democracies. This concentration of an inordinate amount of power in the President's Office is the single most damaging, DIVISIVE and destructive condition that Kenyan political, civil and economic life suffers from; 2) This reduction in Presidential power is also a clearly stated and principal raison d'etre of the opposition itself. This, together with the devolving of power from a nearly omnipotent central government in Nairobi to the different provinces are the clearly stated ultimate goals of the opposition. These are the promises the opposition ran on and with which they won 60% of Kenya's legislative seats, and why 80% of President Kibaki's cabinet was voted out of office.
If the opposition can force these constitutional changes, or something approximating a meangingful dimunition of Presidential power in Kenya's Constitution, then perhaps the senseless violence; the horrific rapes and vicious murders; the heartbreaking and unnecessary loss of life; the massive displacement of Kenyan citizens; and even the potential but, hopefully, temporary loss of faith in democracy and its processes would be worth it.
The stage is set for Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Odinga. May God give them the wisdom, compassion, and HUMILITY to make a compromise that benefits all Kenyans.
Ineffective Opposition Mass Protest
First, the Opposition's attempts at organized mass protest in the capital city of Nairobi with the aim of bringing down the incumbent Kibaki administration have been largely thwarted by the effectiveness of a special unit of Kenya's law enforcement known as the General Service Unit (GSU). These are paramilitary riot control shock troops but t
hey are also a SWAT team. Anything the regular cops can't handle the GSU is called in, hence the name General Service Unit -- they are up for anything. The GSU has kept the city center free of protesters, both violent e.g. local street thugs, and peaceful e.g. one of my sisters. The inability for the opposition to force a collapse of Mr. Kibaki's administration through mass protest reduces their options to ascend to power and puts pressure on the opposition to compromise.Lack of recognition of newly "elected" Kenyan President
Second, the vast majority of the world has refused to recognize the validity of the presidential vote tally due to well-documented "irregularities" (outlined in my first post herebelow). The EU formally dismissed the presidential election results as lacking credibility and called for an international audit. The US retracted an initial congratulatory message to Mr. Kibaki. The UK expressed deep concern about the "irregularities" associated with the tallying of the Presidential vote count and also has not congratulated Mr. Kibaki. France has been the most outspoken and has outright rejected the presidential election results as rigged. The Canadian ambassador ahs been seen publically with the opposition leader. Many other countries have remained silent. This lack of recognition by important countries in the world reduces the options of the Kibaki administration to hold on to power and puts pressure on president Kibaki to compromise.
A situation ripe for both sides to compromise.
Because of pressure from the international community at large, and from international dignitaries like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, both sides have backed down from their initial hard line positions. The opposition initially insisted that President Kibaki must first resign before any dialogue could occur now they are open to the formation of a coalition government without a resignation. Mr. Kibaki initially insisted that the elections were free and fair and that no recount or re-run of the election would happen. Now he too is open to a coalition government as well as a re-run if the Kenya courts demand it.
Still far apart
This is definitely progress! However, the two sides still remain very far apart. The Opposition insists that any coalition government would be only a caretaker government whose sole purpose would be to organize an new Presidential election within 3 months, which, they are sure they will win. The administration, naturally rejects this because to accept this would be to tacitly admit that the current results are fraudulent. They are NOT going to do this. They need the opposition and the international community to accept the validity of the currently contested election results. This is their red-line position.
No more violence
For it's part, the administration demands that no coalition government will be discussed until the violence stops and there is law and order which is, on its face, a reasonable demand. However, violence can just as easily be fomented by the government as it can by the disgruntled opposition. Still, it is also in the administrations interests to have violence cease because it needs to be seen as being in control of the country.
Electoral challenge in Kenya's courts
The administration also insists that any change in the officially announced results MUST go through Kenya's Constitutional Processes. Again, this, at first blush, is wholly reasonable. However, the constitutional processes that now remain for challenging the election results can only go through Kenya's courts because a recount, by law, can only happen within 48 hours of the announcement. So the only constitutional and legal remedies left to challenge this fraudulent election are the Kenyan courts which are notoriously corrupt and known to be beholden to the government.
Effect on Opposition on court challenge
If the opposition were to follow this path and the courts verified the current result, then legally and constitutionally the opposition would be in a double bind because: 1) the duly constituted (but totally corrupt) Electoral Commission of Kenya initially verified them making them legal; and 2) The Supreme Court (again corrupt) added its august imprimatur on the result. If this happens, there are no more legal options for the opposition and, God forbid, violence and civil war will be the only way to force the government from power. This is the trap the opposition fears it will be led into if it accepts to contest the result in Kenya's courts. This is the opposition's red-line position.
A possible way forward?
In my view, because both sides have red-line positions that seem intractable (Govt: you must accept our authority or go to court to contest it. Opposition: We cannot under any circumstances trust the courts to be fair), BUT both sides have also stated that they are willing to discuss forming a coalition government. Then this cold-blooded political deal seems the only way out of this impasse.
Power of the President
The biggest issue would be what President Kibaki's administration could offer the opposition. This is the biggest issue because, in Kenya, the President is both the head of state and head of government, and has powers to both appoint and REMOVE without cause the highest ranking executive officers (cabinet members, police cheifs etc), military officers (captains, generals etc.), AND judicial officers (High Court justices INCLUDING the Chief Justice) throughout the land WITHOUT any legislative or other review. This makes the President of Kenya basically Superman, or stated more politically, a King! Stated simply, the entire Executive branch, the entire Armed Forces and the entire Judiciary serve at the President's pleasure and Parliament has NO say in who gets to serve and who does not.
Reducing Presidential Powers: A couple of Suggestions
First, perhaps, the post of a Prime Minister could created with, for instance, the power to veto the President's power to remove without cause certain executive, military and judicial officials. What level of unaccountable Presidential appointment and removal power could be a point of negotiation that might be acceptable to both sides.
Second, if the post of a Prime Minister is not possible, maybe, then, the appointment of very high ranking executive, military and judicial officials could be made to require legislative approval of a certain threshold -- perhaps a simple majority. If these two changes ALONE were implemented in Kenya's constitution, they would make a REVOLUTIONARY difference in Kenyan politics.
An Opportunity for the Opposition?
This, perhaps, is what the Opposition should now focus on fighting for. I say this for two reasons: 1) The diminution of Presidential power would mean that obtaining and retaining the Kenyan Presidency would cease to be the zero sum game that it currently is. The stakes associated with being President of Kenya would diminish to a level congruous with other stable democracies. This concentration of an inordinate amount of power in the President's Office is the single most damaging, DIVISIVE and destructive condition that Kenyan political, civil and economic life suffers from; 2) This reduction in Presidential power is also a clearly stated and principal raison d'etre of the opposition itself. This, together with the devolving of power from a nearly omnipotent central government in Nairobi to the different provinces are the clearly stated ultimate goals of the opposition. These are the promises the opposition ran on and with which they won 60% of Kenya's legislative seats, and why 80% of President Kibaki's cabinet was voted out of office.
If the opposition can force these constitutional changes, or something approximating a meangingful dimunition of Presidential power in Kenya's Constitution, then perhaps the senseless violence; the horrific rapes and vicious murders; the heartbreaking and unnecessary loss of life; the massive displacement of Kenyan citizens; and even the potential but, hopefully, temporary loss of faith in democracy and its processes would be worth it.
The stage is set for Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Odinga. May God give them the wisdom, compassion, and HUMILITY to make a compromise that benefits all Kenyans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)