Editorial
The quest for self-governance and self-determination was a bug of sorts that grew in the late 1950s and germinated into a tendril that covered the early 1960s.
Many Africans who had hitherto been classified as inferior beings by a snot-nosed colonialist elite agitated, rightly, for the right to Independence.
They felt they could do a better job at sharing and exploiting the natural resources of the African continent rather than wait at the bottom of the stairs for whatever scraps they could get.
Their wishes were granted, one African colony at a time. Kenya included: In 1963. And a new rabid disease was discovered called grabiosis, although most strains of this virulent malady have proved hard to eliminate.
Therein lies the problem morphing under the aegis of Mombasa Republican Council (MRC).
As power was handed over to the better-educated leaders in the hinterland, the former coastal supremacy gradually became a distant dream. The coast was just a place to journey to for its sandy beaches, warm, humid weather and idyllic holiday destination.
The new elite also became afflicted by the grabiosis and forgot that the coastal were also a part of the newly independent nation and literally shared out huge swathes of this beach headland.
And half a century on, an underground movement is stoking rebellion and spoiling for a fight. Some are even openly calling for secession of the Coastal Strip from the rest of the Republic of Kenya.
Do they have a point?
Yes and No. Do they also deserve land title deeds for ancestral parcels? Yes. Has the pace of development of the Strip been lethargic compared to the rest of the country? Yes. Does this make them Second Class Citizens? No. And should they continue to agitate under the banner Pwani Si Kenya (We are not a part of Kenya)?
Most definitely not!
But that is not the problem since all of the above are questions that need national interrogation for a lot of years, generations and water has since passed under the bridge of nationhood and an answer to any or all of these would mean different things to different interests.
cosy relationship
Problem is the apparent double-speak that often obtains from government when in crisis or during election years. Sample this: When reading the State of the Nation speech, the President roundly condemned the MRC as a stateless outfit (by their pawn admission) that should not be given an ear. Prime Minister Raila Odinga seemed to echo this sentiment then.
Less than a month on, the PM appears to have mellowed and proposes some sort of accommodation. But seeing as he was on the campaign trail, we may understand the context of his remarks. However, similar accommodation comes from yet another presidential candidate Musalia Mudavadi and many other coastal elected and religious leaders. So, what has changed?
The Minister for Internal security swiftly hacks down any such pledges and vows to continue with a planned crackdown against MRC such as were conducted against other proscribed groups in the past like Mungiki, Sungusungu, Sabaot Land Defence Force, Angola Msumbiji, February Eighteen Movement, among many others.
However, come electioneering time, politicians of all shades and persuasions have found it difficult to stick to principle and keep a safe or respectable distance from groups that threaten public order in any way. We saw this cosy relationship in the run-up to the last general election as some well known politicians even embraced different faiths and took up elders’ mantles across communities for the sake of the anticipated vote count.
Which way should the rest of the country face? Are the MRC the voice of the Coastal Strip? Which part of government are they going to talk to? If so, when?
