Young Turks’ should drive real change, not just selfish entitlement to positions

By Anyang’ Nyong’o
[email protected]

Let us not continue to misuse the concept “Young Turks”. It portrays the media in very bad light. The Young Turks were never people looking for any “entitlement” from any political order; they have always been reformists or revolutionaries imbued with ideas to change society through radical reforms or revolutions. To ascend to positions of power to gratify youthful ambition is simply the antithesis of being a Young Turk. In reality, that kind of claim to being entitled to a power position because of youthfulness can itself elevate people to power who are content with the status quo and are anti-change.

Kenyans may never forget a group of young people called Youth for Kanu 92, YK92, propped up by the state in 1992 to ensure the survival of Moi’s regime and frustrate the popular pressure for democratisation in Kenya. In large measure they succeeded. It took 10 more years before the reformist NARC government could be elected. YK92 could not possibly be called a Young Turks movement despite the youthfulness of its proponents.

The concept “Young Turks” originated from the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century. It was then that a group of medical students who had for some time been conspiring with soldiers formed a nationalist reform party to get rid of the absolutist monarchy of Sultan Abdulhamid II. In 1908, having formed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), they succeeded in removing the Sultan’s regime from power through a national revolution and established the Second Constitutional Era, with the CUP ruling from 1908-1918.

Likewise, the Young Turks in Kenya of the early nineties were committed to bringing democratic change through constitutional reform and regime change. The one-party regime, in power since 1969, had ruled through draconian laws, denying Kenyans their human rights and underdeveloping society economically and socially. The Kenyan Young Turks had themselves experienced the ruthlessness of the authoritarian regime for over a decade, suffering several ignominies like detention without trial, torture in the Nyayo House torture chambers, incarceration in police stations, social isolation and even political exile. Baptised by political fire, they never ceased to conspire and plan in the underground for the national democratic revolution.

When the opportune moment came in 1991 with a changed world political conjuncture in their favour, they joined hands with progressive social forces in politics and civil society to establish a broad united democratic front called the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD). It is this united democratic front, originating from earlier political movements like the Kenya Socialist Party, the National Democratic Party, Mwakenya and Saba Saba that provided the political impetus for the constitutional reform of 2010. This was a clear demonstration that change takes place over time; it cannot therefore be brewed as an instant cup of coffee in one event called elections. Throughout the decade of the nineties the Kenyan Young Turks remained at the forefront of progressive politics in Kenya. They had a history, which has always been recognisable in the struggle for the Second Liberation. They were never self appointed messiahs ready to apocalyptically bring some imagined change to any political party or institution by dint of age. Reducing the concept of Young Turks to mere age differences in the struggle for change is therefore not only a travesty to the history of our struggle but also a terrible sign of laziness in social analysis.

Having put that unnecessary debate to rest it is vital to note that grooming leadership among young people is in itself an important political project for any progressive political party. That is why the ODM created the Young Orange Democrats as an organisation and an arena for active participation in party affairs. More than that the party constitution bars nobody from seeking any party position on grounds of age, sex, religion, region or ethnic identity. But the party also recognises that the diversity among its members needs to be reflected in its governing organs. The party constitution as amended in the last NDC took cognizance of this and the membership of the governing organs resonates well with the need for diversity.

Party members expect those seeking to be elected to the National Executive Council to sell themselves on the basis of ideas that will help improve the party, make it stronger and position itself as a winner in the next General Election. It is not enough to point out that the incumbent leadership has failed the party.  That could well be true. The question, however, that needs to be answered is: if indeed that is true, what plans and programs of actions are you, the aspiring candidate, proposing for the party to improve its performance? Is there anything in your own past history in politics, or civil society, that can sell you as a reformer, a progressive manager or a visionary? Proposals for change should not be a secret weapon of a candidate but should be openly presented to delegates for interrogation.

Party members should not seek to build this party on the basis of the politics of entitlement based on age, sex, region or religion. On the contrary, while the party leadership must reflect diversity within the party and its being reflected in representation, ability based on commitment to the party and truck record in leadership should provide criteria for the suitability of a candidate.

A good number of those who have declared intention to run for posts in the party have been MPs for varying periods of time. However long they have been in Parliament all have had time to demonstrate their service to the party and Kenyans. Here again it is not the volume of words spoken that should matter. More important is the quality and significance of contribution with reference to party policy and the basic needs of Kenyans.