Written by Bruce Oduk�

1)� � Wrong Approach.
There are so many differing opinions as to the cause of the violence. Koffi has not decided which one to believe, and he is quoting all the theories in his initiative. Without a firm idea as to what caused the problem he is solving, he cannot succeed.

2)� � Biting Off More Than He Can Chew.
Koffi made a grave mistake. He is trying to tackle all of Kenya�s problems. From ethnic cleansing to poverty. All to be accomplished before he leaves. It is not possible. He should have restricted himself to what initially brought him here, to broker a ceasefire. He also needs to accept and declare that the deeper problems are beyond him and can only be solved by Kenya�s leadership. Poverty, Triablism etc cannot be cured at Kilaguni.

3) Independence.

It is increasingly clear that he is not Independent. The Western powers keep saying that they support his efforts but by their very actions make it clear that he is a figurehead sent to impose their ideas. Thus, he is only grudgingly accepted. A semblance of independence would allow him build real confidence from the parties.

4)� � History.
Forced solutions, and in particular coalition governments, have a recurring history of failure around the world, just like the majority of �quick fix� solutions for Africa from the west. Remember the �SAPS� to fix African economies? How about the Somalia prescription? The Ethiopian election report by EU Observers in 2005? The list is long.

5)� � The Players.
None of the teams wants �to agree�. Each wants �to win.� In reality, it is easier to negotiate by recognizing a winner and then making a case for some sort of benefits to the loser, rather than trying to imply that equality is possible for both parties.

6) Priorities
It is possible that within the negotiation team members, some are guilty of sponsoring violence actively, and probably ethnic cleansing. The matter of the killings and murder is seemingly being given secondary status to the issue of seats in Government. This is a wrong message to send Kenyans. The real problem can never be disputed elections, because this is a worldwide phenomenon. The real problem lies in murder of political opponents. This cannot be excused no matter what election violations.

7) Rule Of Law.

In the long run, this is Koffi�s worst bequeathment to Kenyans. He should have found a way to legitimize a judicial way to solve the crisis. When he came and trashed a judicial option, he created an animal that will live with us for years to come. Koffi should have at least made suggestions about how to ensure speedy and fair speedy judicial arbitration, even foreign judges. Trashing the Judiciary as completely as he did is something that Kenyans will pay for dearly in future.
Nothing brings chaos into a modern state more rapidly than when you justify disregard of due process. It encourages and justifies the citizen�s use of unlawful means to address grievances.

Published by Korir, API africanpress@getmail.no

By Bruce Oduk�

Germany.

This has been touted as a success story in coalition Governments. Last week, the negotiators in Kenya were treated to a talk on how the German coalition model has worked. The critical factor in the German model has been that coalitions are discussed and forged before elections because all the parties agree that there is no single party capable of forming Government on its own. This fact ensures that a coalition is likely to survive.

Belgium.

This has also been a touted model. However, in 2007, after spending over five months discussing how to form a Government, serious cracks emerged in the coalition. The coalition here is made up of two large groups, the Flemish speakers (60%) and the French speakers (40%). Right now, the Flemish side has been undermining their French opponents to the point where a division of Belgium into two looks increasingly likely.

Afghanistan.

In 2000, the feuding parties in this country were forced by the international community to enter into a Grand Coalition government. A few years later,the coalition collapsed, the war there was at an all time high, and continues to this day.

Iraq.

The international community also forced a coalition in Iraq. The result is too painful for me to detail in this article. What is relevant is that the countries that were very vocal in forcing the coalition now want to pull out of the mess and leave it for the Iraqi people.

Lebannon.

This is another forced coalition. Right now, the Lebanese Government and it�s coalition partner, Hizbollah, are at each other�s necks. The reason that war has not broken out between them is only that the Lebanese army is too weak and is forced to sit by and watch while Hizbollah�s activities endanger the Lebanese people, including regular attacks on Israel.

Gaza

The ill fated coalition between Fatah and Hamas did not last a year before heavy bloodshed resulted. This had followed an election in which Hamas won but the Fatah PM held onto some elemnts of power, again with US and UN backing, who called for power sharing between the parties.

The above examples are only a few.
Another key problem with the idea of a grand coalition in Kenya is the speed with which it is being pursued. It is a joke to gamble with the future of a country by having eight people sit in a lodge and make binding decisions for its citizens in a couple of weeks.
The final problem is that since these are opposing parties, it is contradictory to ask them to �agree to share power�. This is NOT the foundation of democracy.

Published by Korir, API africanpress@getmail.no

��By Patrick BashamFormer UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told Kenyan MPs that the international tradition is to join the two sides in a conflict in a Grand Coalition (i.e., in one government) to enact reforms. Well, not exactly, Your Excellency. The historical record shows us that grand coalitions are actually anti-reformist. What is it that we are trying to achieve with a grand coalition government? Kenya can achieve more with a strong opposition with a coherent agenda than to include them in government where they and their new �partners� will compete to politically outsmart one another.How can Gernot Erler, the German Deputy Foreign Minister, make a compelling comparison between Germany and Kenya in this context? After all, The Economist magazine describes the grand coalition (comprised of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union and the center-left Social Democratic Party) that governs Germany as �ill-tempered� and �more inclined to squabble than act.�Chancellor Merkel has been unable to implement the free market economic reforms that Germany needs because these policies are anathema to the Social Democrats. The result is policy paralysis on the major issues. Consequently, the economy is drastically underperforming.As German economist Michael Burda has written, �The grand coalition is failing because the politicians still do not agree on the correct solution to Germany�s problems.� Professor Burda explains that, �The tough items on the agenda�are still on the table. Most important, a common, agreed-upon diagnosis of the problem is necessary.�Usually, there is a de facto senior partner in any grand coalition, which quickly leads to resentment within the leadership of the junior partner. Where no senior partner exists, there is a state of equilibrium or inactivity caused by opposing equal forces, and political stasis is the result.Kenyans who expect a German-style Grand Coalition to solve systemic political, economic, and social problems will have their hopes dashed. Grand coalition governments will agree on a small number of items. Critically, however, they will not agree on the major issues of the day; rather, they will agree on the minor, often trivial issues. What do the two major parties get out of governing together?� Political scientists Wolfgang C. Muller and Kaare Strom oversaw the most comprehensive empirical research into the experience with coalition governments in Western Europe. They found that, in practice, the only thing that matters to each of the major parties is how their own party performs, not what happens to their coalition partners.Yet, grand coalitions are highly dangerous, in electoral terms, for the parties that join in government, especially for the party currently in power. The presence of grand coalitions frustrates voters, who (correctly) determine that it offers them no real choice in government. Most governments do not maintain their strength in the elections that follow their term in office. In Germany, for example, popular support for both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats is at its lowest levels in decades.In Germany�s neighboring country, Austria, the 13 month-old Grand Coalition between the major center-right and the center-left parties has had a most undesirable outcome. The principal beneficiary has been the racist right wing, which has capitalized upon the government�s inaction by successfully exploiting public�s fears over immigration and globalization. �Power-sharing agreements that looked good on paper have failed in recent conflict settings, such as Rwanda and Burundi. In both of these countries, in which majority-Hutu and minority-Tutsi ethnic groups have a history of violent strife, efforts to find solutions by creating power-sharing democratic institutions proved to be insufficient in overcoming deep distrust and the perception of mutual victimization. In both cases, the power-sharing experiments broke down and violent clashes ensued; in Rwanda, the 1994 genocide scuttled an incipient power-sharing pact, a deliberate move by its perpetrators.�Kenya cannot benefit from a grand coalition until the overriding prerequisite for reform is in existence. Systemic political reform requires a pro-change consensus not merely among Kenya�s political elite but, most importantly, among the Kenyan people, themselves.Power sharing will only succeed if the underlying problems are adequately addressed. Political and ethnic conflicts are commonly influenced by the ownership and distribution of resources. The economic problems that often parallel political inequalities must also be addressed for political power-sharing arrangements to succeed in preventing or mitigating conflict in the long term. According to Professor Liam Cosgrave, in any power sharing arrangement, cohabitation with former enemies may be difficult, and parties may be unwilling to accept each other�s genuineness despite the conditions of the power-sharing agreement. Hence, an agreement does not guarantee peace and stability.Power-sharing arrangements among ethnic groups can mitigate or exacerbate ethnic conflict. Groups resisting formalized changes in the political structure can initiate violence. It can be difficult to decide which groups should be included and excluded, and under what conditions. Further, proportionality can generate opposition, even violence, from the relatively advantaged peoples and sub-regions.An international community promoting power sharing in a situation of deep conflict runs the risk of potentially rewarding aggression or appeasement of extremists, or it may induce parties to share power insincerely when they are still deeply suspicious of each other.In practice, power sharing maintains, legitimizes, and strengthens groups� claims against the state, reinforcing and entrenching ethnicity in the political system by freezing group boundaries in the political system through statutory reservation of offices for specific group representatives. Consociational institutions are anti-democratic because they can stifle opposition politics, and the absence of an opposition party may reduce the government�s accountability.Nevertheless, if it becomes necessary to have some form of power sharing in Kenya, it the principles of Kenyan democracy, based on the presidential system, should not be violated. Hence, the negotiating teams must make provisions that the President has the leeway to appoint his cabinet, etc., from across the spectrum of political parties. The issue of proportionality should not arise, as it is not provided for in the current constitution.Those at the negotiating table must not make Kenya a case study in failed power sharing. Instead, they should take the time to produce a long-term, workable solution. The alternative is to power share in haste, repent at leisure.# # #

The writer is a Political scientist – He directs the Washington-based Democracy Institute.

Published by Korir, API africanpress@getmail.no

Written by Joseph Murimi and Ayub SavulaThe Government Parliamentary Group (GPG) has ruled out the creation of prime minister�s position as the key to unlocking the political impasse.

Written by Cyrus Kinyungu and Karanja NjorogeA political solution to the political crisis must be constitutional, President Kibaki has said.

Wrtten by Scott Morgan

The Current President of the United States is accussed by many of being a lame duck. This is a term that means he will be taking actions that will shore up his Legacy. Or even take steps that will change how both the world at large and the citizens of the United States should view how he has handled his presidency (8 years in office.)�

Currently the President is on a week long goodwill visit to Africa. The stated purpose of this trip is to see how PEFAR (Presidential Emergency Funds For AIDS Relief) is working, to Generate New Economic Contacts and to see how Democracy is working in several Nations.

The situations in both Darfur and in Kenya were sure to be brought up as He made his trip.So Imagine His suprise when MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) sent the President of the United States a letter. It had a request for assistance. The Group was asking the Bush mediate their Dispute with the Nigerian Federal Government in Abuja. And what they were asking for wasn’t anything to be taken lightly either.

Now various experts will debate whether or not that MEND are Terrorists or Insurgents. After all they have attacked both Nigerian Government Outposts and the Oil Facilities of several Major Multi-National Companies in recent years. They Have Kidnapped Foreign Oil Workers as well to raise awareness for their plight.

The Niger Delta Region Generates Income for the Nigerian Economy but few Dollars are Invested in the Region unless they are used for the Development of the Petroleum Industry.The Reason that MEND is asking for the Mediation of the United States is plain to see even to the casual observer. The Group simply does not believe that the current Nigerian government will act in good Faith. Based on this belief they made their Proposal to the President. After all having a third party broker negotiations can yield positive results in a much shorter time than having direct contacts between parties in conflict.

So what is the proposal that the group made? Basically the Group wants their leader freed from jail in Angola so he can negotiate on their behalf. Then they make some key demands and concessions in their proposal. In exchange for their starting a cease-fire that will lead to a possible disarming the Delta Rrgion as a whole if the Nigerian Government agrees to it. But there is one interesting aspect of the proposal that the rebels are bringing forward. Funds are transferred from Abuja to both State and Local Governments in the region.

Poverty is a real problem and there have been some complaints of corruption in all Levels of Government. They would like to see an increase in funds to alleviate some of the problems that plague the residents of the region such as poor health care and potable water. Another potential issue is the economic damage caused by oil exploration in the region.

President Bush could take on this task to further promote the Interests of the US. Security in the Gulf of Guniea region is paramount to US interests and not just for oil. Both drug and human trafficking are becoming major problems in the region. Liberia is re-emerging from a decade of civil conflict. So if the US can have a positive influence on a situation of internal strife then the US should take it. This should be done for good reasons, however and not for the legacy of a President.

Published by API africanpress@getmail.no