January 22, 2005

OPINION

LESSONS THAT AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS HAVE TO LEARN FROM AMERICA WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS

Kenyans who watched CNN's Inside Africa program last Sunday evening must have been a happy lot. I was happy too because a group of young Kenyans did us proud. Inside Africa cameras caught them articulating their views on HIV and Aids to none other than Collin Powell, the outgoing Secretary of State of the United States of America. Listening to their eloquence through my satellite radio, I was convinced that in the youth of this country, there is potential for world-class leadership if only they were given a real chance to realize their capabilities. And Powell seemed to be thoroughly impressed by them.

Which brings me to my next point. In the dying days of Powell's role as America's international diplomat, he has been a frequent visitor to Nairobi, not because terrorists have bombed us. He has seized every opportunity to be here whenever there was a major break through in the peace negotiations among warring parties in the DRC, Sudan and Somalia.

Now that his time is up at the White House, another African- American in the name of Dr. Condoleezza Rice is poised to replace him. And had it not been for the in-depth probing and tough talking of the democratic senators at her confirmation hearing, she would have assumed office soon after George Bush's inauguration.

Whether Dame Condoleezza Rice will be more useful and more sympathetic to the land of her ancestors is not the subject of this discussion. If anything, she has been described as being too close to George Bush for comfort and Europeanist in training and ideology.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing came a few weeks after that of one Gonzales who was also nominated by Bush for the office of Attorney General. The two hearings, if one watched them live as I did, had one thing in common. The senators sitting around the table, Democrats and Republicans projected a sense of purpose and decorum. They were civil and respectful but tough. They asked sensible questions, turned the professional and career records of the candidates upside down, all in an attempt to confirm that these candidates were suitable for the positions they were vying for.

For Gonzales the sticky point was that as legal advisor to President George Bush, he had advised that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Afghanistan and Iraqi detainees because terrorists were not considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. In the opinion of some Senators, this could have been the reason there were tortures and mistreatment of detainees in Iraqi prisons and other detention camps by American soldiers. And there was evidence that the man was caught with his pants down for having given the President wrong advice.

As for Condoleezza Rice, her problem arose as a result of being George Bush's National Security Advisor at a time when Americans invaded Iraq in pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction when in fact there were no such weapons. But tough Condi was not about to be put down. She eloquently told the Senate Hearing Committee that invading Iraq had more reasons going for it other than Weapons of Mass Destruction. In her opinion, Saddam was a dangerous tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction on his fellow citizens, had invaded Kuwait, launched scud missiles against Israel and had strong ambitions to revive his nuclear programs after the Gulf War had destroyed his facilities and installations.

Watching Condoleezza Rice's performance at her confirmation hearing, one was left with the feeling that she was a perfect combination of brain and beauty, a basic prerequisite in American politics. Equally important, she displayed a vast understanding of international issues and was pretty focused on international democratization and liberty for all around the globe.

She let it be known that it was the duty of Americans to make it possible for every individual anywhere in the world to "do business in the city square," an American way of saying that human beings have a right to transact business anywhere freely without intimidation and harassment within the law.

As much as she would focus her attention in the fight against terrorism globally, she was determined to find a lasting solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through dialogue rather than monologue with world leaders.

Equally important for her would be closer working with the United Nations agencies, NATO and other important international institutions. She made it be known that she would drive an American international policy with substance and her closeness to Bush would most likely make her more effective on the international arena. It was not lost on observers that she had very little to say on Africa beyond remembering that the US was dealing with terrorist situations in Kenya and Somalia.

Having listened to Dr. Rice ahead of the Bush inauguration, one was left with this eerie feeling that her utterances at her confirmation hearings were too similar to George Bush's speech to be mere coincidence! Did Bush and Rice discuss their foreign policy and write the President's speech together?

Having said that, what lesson do we learn from this process for our governments in Africa? The most obvious lesson to learn from this system is the transparency that accompanies public appointments. What the American system is telling us is that there is nothing really wrong with appointing relatives and friends to critical public offices. Just appoint them if they are experienced, qualified and can pass the litmus test of the Senate Confirmation Hearings.

There is one fundamental thing that these hearings do to people who offer themselves for appointments. It lays their lives bare. As the Senate Committee prepares for these hearings, the media are given the leeway to dig up every possible dirt in your life from childhood to the present, whether you were abused as a child, grew up in a broken family, smoked marijuana at one point, your academic records, which schools and universities you attended, your academic performance, your marital status, whether you are a serial lover, adulterous or have been alcoholic at one point. Other issues that may come up are whether you served in the military or dodged drafting when you should have served in the armed forces. Every thing is laid bare including whether you have been caught speeding or driving under the influence of alcohol.

In other words, this process is not for weak at heart or the faint-hearted. A few nominees have been known to bolt out at the last minute on realizing that their dark past would come to light with devastating consequences for their families.

In a nutshell, what the Americans are saying is that they don't have to have angels appointed to critical public offices that have a lot of responsibility and massive impact on the lives of Americans. But, one thing is for sure, such positions are not meant for obvious and known crooks, drug dealers, pirates, scoundrels, thieves and moral decadents. A measure of decency is a requirement. Secondly, other than decency, merit is mandatory.

Yes, our leaders in Africa must stop the habit of appointing relatives and friends in positions of responsibility without probe and clearance from our respected public institutions. These people must convince our societies that they deserve such high positions, even if they are relatives and friends of the man in power.

The only dilemma for Africa is that we in most cases elect scoundrels and known thieves in to political leadership in the first place. Once we have done that we have in a way confirmed to them that their character is just fine with us. The next thing we know is that our public service systems are bloated with birds of a kind

Can the African electorate stop bad leadership in its tracks before it is too late?

Jerry Okungu
Director
ACEMEPA - The African Center for Media and Political Analysis
Nairobi, Kenya

Contact Jerry Okungu
Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums

Social bookmark this