The recent passage of the finance bill in Kenya has been a deeply controversial and tragic affair, raising critical questions about governance, public participation, and the value of human life in the face of political decisions. Were unrest and death necessary catalysts for the government’s eventual decision to withdraw the finance bill?”
Public participation: JUST A FORMALITY
Public participation is a cornerstone of democratic governance, enshrined in our constitution. It ensures that citizens have a voice in the legislative process, particularly in matters that directly impact their lives. In the case of the finance bill, public participation was one of the critical stages before its presentation to parliament. However, despite significant public opposition, the government representatives appeared to dismiss these concerns, with some exhibiting arrogance rather than empathy. The dismissive attitude of government representatives during the public participation phase suggests that this process may have been treated more as a formality than a genuine attempt to engage with the populace. The public’s distrust in their representatives grew, leading to the decision to protest outside parliament on June 26th, hoping to prevent the bill’s passage.
As frustration mounted, the protests turned violent. Demonstrators breached parliament, and tragically, some lost their lives. Others were abducted or arrested in the chaos. It was only after these deaths that the President decided to withdraw the bill. This sequence of events raises a profoundly disturbing question: Did people have to die for the government to reconsider its stance?
What was so important in the finance bill that it warranted such a heavy toll on human life? The bill included measures like new taxes, increased VAT, higher fuel taxes, and taxes on digital transactions—policies that many believed would exacerbate the financial burden on already struggling citizens. While the government might have argued these measures were necessary for economic stability and development, the public saw them as unjust and harmful The deaths during the protests highlight a severe disconnect between the government and its people. The tragedy suggests that the government might have underestimated the public’s grievances or chose to ignore them entirely. This raises further questions about whether the government truly understands the needs and desires of its citizens, or if it prioritizes its agenda over the well-being of the people it serves.
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, meaning that power belongs to the people. However, in Kenya, there has been a concerning shift where the government is making decisions and implementing policies without the consent of its citizens. The voices of Kenyans are being ignored, and their needs and wants are being disregarded. Despite widespread opposition, the government continues to push through measures that many believe will exacerbate their economic hardships. This disregard for public opinion has left many feeling unheard and marginalized, prompting protests and civil unrest as citizens strive to reclaim their right to be heard and have their concerns addressed.
Who Do the MPs Serve?
Today, citizens of Kenya will again be in major towns to protest under the banners #OccupyParliament and #RejectNotAmend. This follows a series of events that have left many Kenyans feeling unheard and disregarded by their elected representatives. Despite widespread opposition, the controversial financial bill was tabled for its first reading and passed, prompting a crucial question: Who do MPs represent if not their people? Many Kenyans view the proposed measures as punitive, fearing they will exacerbate the economic hardships already imposed by the 2023 financial budget. Despite citizens reaching out to MPs through texts, calls, and protests, their cries went unheeded, leading to the bill’s advancement without substantial amendments. As frustrations mount, public protests continue in major towns like Nairobi and Mombasa, reflecting a nation at odds with its legislative body. Some MPs themselves argue that they owe their positions more to their political parties and leaders than to their constituents, raising a fundamental question: Do Kenyans elect people or political parties?
Where Is the Money?
Kenyans are increasingly asking, “Where is the money?” They argue that despite paying taxes, they see no major developments in their country. Many are comparing the current government with previous regimes, noting that the latter had achieved significant progress within two years. In contrast, the current regime, now in power for the same duration, has failed to showcase any substantial developments. This lack of visible progress is fueling public frustration and leading many to question the effective use of public funds. Kenyans are asking, “If we can’t see what you’ve done with what you’ve collected, why should we pay more taxes?”
Is Kenya’s Debt a Threat?
Politicians affiliated with the government usually say that a significant portion of the money collected is going towards debt repayment. Are those just gimmicks and rhetoric? Rumors abound regarding Kenya’s financial state, and questions arise about whether the President follows through on his fiscal promises. Reports suggest State House plans to spend 1 billion on furniture, and concerns linger about the inadequate answers regarding the alleged 200 million private jet to the U.S. Why does a country in debt allocate funds for the President and Deputy President’s spouses? Furthermore, why do government-affiliated politicians live luxuriously with choppers, expensive clothing, and watches? And where do the millions for weekend harambees come from? Was this extravagance part of their freedom struggle, or is it a newfound entitlement?
These questions underline growing skepticism and discontent among the populace towards the use and allocation of public resources. Transparency and accountability remain elusive, further straining public trust.
Arrogance or Incompetence?
Adding to the public’s frustration is the perceived arrogance of the current leadership. When government officials are questioned by the public, their responses have often been dismissive or even insulting. For example, when the government spokesman was asked about the amount of money used for the President’s trip to the U.S., he hurled insults at the press. Similarly, when confronted about the finance bill’s potential to drive manufacturers out of Kenya, one official nonchalantly responded that they could leave and export their products to Kenya duty-free. Such attitudes from leaders are exacerbating the public’s discontent and fueling the protests, as many feel that their legitimate concerns are being met with arrogance and disrespect. As Isaac Asimov said, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent,” prompting reflection on whether such responses are indicative of arrogance, incompetence, or both in governance.
Who Is Drafting This Finance Act?
Another pressing question amidst Kenya’s current turmoil is: who is drafting this finance act? Many clauses within the bill are baffling to those involved in its drafting, leaving them unable to explain their implications. Speculations abound whether the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank is influencing the legislation, given their involvement in Kenya’s economic policies. This lack of clarity and understanding among the public and even those drafting the bill raises concerns about transparency and accountability in governance. As protests swell and dissatisfaction grows, the demand for clarity on the origins and implications of these legislative measures becomes ever more urgent.
Does Becoming a Politician Make You More Knowledgeable?
The actions and decisions of Kenya’s political leaders pose a crucial question: Does becoming a politician make you more knowledgeable than other people? The disregard for knowledgeable individuals in the policy-making process suggests that expertise is not being sufficiently valued. Effective governance requires leaders to listen to experts, engage with the public, and make informed decisions. When politicians prioritize party loyalty or personal gain over the input of knowledgeable professionals, it undermines the quality of governance and erodes public trust. The current situation in Kenya highlights the need for leaders who are not only informed but also humble and responsive to the needs of their constituents.
Kenyans are not against taxation; what they want is to know how their money is being used. Leaders should understand that they are not the bosses of Kenyans but their servants. Kenyans are against the wastage they see from their politicians. They don’t want the country to fail; they want it to prosper. Moving to the streets is a sign that politicians have failed to understand their language. Kenyans are peaceful and desire transparency, accountability, and responsible governance to ensure their nation’s growth and success.
Commercial banks from industrialized nations create money out of nothing and lend it to less developed countries (LDCs). They are aware of the risks involved, so they charge high interest rates to compensate. When these LDCs are unable to pay the interest, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) step in to bail them out. This bailout money is also created by the central banks of industrialized nations out of nothing and is given to these LDCs, enabling them to pay their interest and address political needs.
With the risk of default now minimized, commercial banks agree to reduce their interest rates to levels that the debtor governments can manage. This cyclical process keeps the game going indefinitely, effectively transforming the IMF and the World Bank into a global central bank issuing international fiat money.
Once this global central bank is in place, the IMF can collect unlimited resources from the citizens of the world through a hidden tax called inflation. This continuous money stream can be sustained indefinitely, as no country has its own independent money.
The essence of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, aiming for equality by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Unfortunately, the poor do not benefit significantly from this maneuver. They often do not receive the money initially, as much of it is siphoned off by the bureaucracies administering these programs. The funds are merely spent until they are gone, leaving no one significantly better off.
Politicians understand that promises to redistribute wealth are popular among voters, who believe it will help the poor, and among socialist managers, who see it as job security. This ensures their election and the continuation of the cycle.
In essence, the global financial system operates on a delicate balance of debt, bailouts, and inflation. While the promise of socialism seeks to uplift the poor, the reality often results in the perpetuation of poverty and wealth depletion, maintaining the status quo for those in power.
chegej120@gmail.com 