If we abide by the law, there should be no ageism

By MUGAMBI NANDI

KENYA: I sit somewhat uncomfortably between youth and old age. Geriatrics will most certainly not accept me among their number, and the youth have no doubt that I am not one of them. I belong to that category called the “middle age,” which likes to identify itself with the youth, for the licence and benefits this association bestows. The desire to look youthful is the reason we cannot tell a Kenyan politician’s age by his pitch black hair, the result of some skillful artwork. For his age, we must look at his gait.

The youth are the present and the future of the nation. They drive change and innovation. They supply labour. Hail the youth! On the other hand, the youth sometimes live in utopian idealism. From there, they have expressed their dissatisfaction with the recent appointments of chairmen of parastatals. Their objection has been more about age and the recycling of unsuccessful politicians, than about competence. The false notion that board positions can reduce youth unemployment when in fact they are part-time roles has also been peddled around. We must also not be so naïve so as to think that persons who are appointed to public office represent us, a tribe, clan or age group. They are not meant to. They owe their first duty to the organisations they head.

If we abide by the Constitution, there should be no ageism - discrimination on the basis of (old) age - except in limited cases where age, a certain level of mental acuity and physical agility are key factors in the performance of the task at hand. Age comes with the experience and wisdom required for the “referee” and leadership role played by a Chairman of a Board. Of course there is an age at which the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. The President would be wrong to appoint someone who has attained that age to public office. Whether an individual performs or not is mostly a function of his competence, personal attitude and discipline. Age has very little to do with it, as we have all seen with the County Assembles, Governors and Parliament.

Since politics is about competition for political power, it would be naïve to expect the President to appoint his political enemies to key positions in public service. It rarely happens even in the most advanced democracies.

Losing in a political contest should not itself disqualify a person from holding public office. There should be no stigma for losing an election. Election losers provide a reservoir of leaders in succession planning. Imagine if Mwai Kibaki had been written off after his first two attempts to unseat Moi! 

We must wake up to the reality that once elected, the President acquires the right and power to appoint people whose capability and suitability he personally (not collectively with us) believes in.

His prerogative in making appointments is limited only by the Constitution. Woe unto him and the country if he squanders this right by allowing himself to be misled by nefarious advisors. As citizens, we have a duty to tell him if we think that he is wrong. However, he has the last word on whether to use or to ignore our views.

*********

Last Sunday this column ended abruptly. It should have ended thus: It is worth noting that the next election in South Sudan is due in just over a year, in 2015. This should be the forum for making choices about the country’s leadership.

President Kiir and Dr Machar must put their country first. They must not pursue parochial interests. They must unite their people. War is an expensive affair which, even with all its oil, South Sudan cannot afford to engage in. My heart is not prepared for yet another sad story from Africa.