By Javas Bigambo
I am not tempted to draft a disparaging epistle in disfavor of perennial discrimination in the coastal region. I thus do take robustly as a point of departure, that if it is purely on account of underdevelopment that the coastal region has some activists embrace hollow gravitas for secession, then other regions of Kenya should be the first to secede. Let West Pokot and Upper Northern Kenya be the first regions to secede because they are a hundred fold underdeveloped than the coastal holiday region in the present day Kenya.
If it is on grounds that some antiquated agreement between some Sultan of yore, then let us remember that pre-independence paramount chiefs too came into agreements with colonial and post-colonial powers. Sticking on the traditional history of what the Sultan said is as sour as a giant cranberry. The vanity and presumption of secession therefore emerges as an insolent regional tyranny. What with malicious calls such as “wabara watoke Pwani?” If such profiling clouds their agenda then their clarion call is replete of insignificant energy.
No, I am not oblivious of the impetus behind such secessionist activism. My argument is that at a time when it makes progressive sense to embrace regional integration and a global village much defines human existence, it is grotesque and damaging peccadillo to argue for secession. I know the land issue at the coast is a national shame to the land policy that we have had since independence, and successive regimes have not moved with speed to address that boiling pot. Many other transgressions committed on the watch of the state against coastal natives would make any sensible eyes wet with tears of anguish. The cases of Nyumba Sita, Mlungunipa, Kayabombo and the landlessness that bedevils over 60% of coastal natives should shred the pending Kibaki Legacy on governance.
It would be poignant and maladroit for anyone to argue that the land policy regime since Kenya’s independence has helped anyone, save the ruling class and the affluent. But I have not heard my grandfather call for secession. The Mombasa Republican Council (MRC) should seek counsel on how best to advance the authentic argument on development and resource distribution. Else that perpetual exclusion of themselves is particularly incompatible with the free and unrestrained progressive provisions and principles of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which is sound on how all marginalized areas, must be allocated funds and developed by the national kitty.
The unfettered implementation of the constitution and related calls is what should drive the MRC hoarse so that the whole country, Mombasa included, should benefit. The less sagacious resentment for national cohesion will drive the MRC, like Pharaoh, to unpitied miseries. Did they vote for the new Constitution in the 2010 referendum? Did they know what is contained therein? Have they seen the strength of Chapter Five of the Constitution and Articles 204, 219 and 220? Then they are bound by the strength of the Constitution.
From where I stand, the theoretical problematization of the concept and promotion of secession delineates firm theoretical underpinnings of the Universalist thought of collective growth and the relativist perspective of development and integration. What fundamental principles of territorial independence would disambiguate the right but convoluted arguments of MRC? Spare me the brouhaha and help me make sense of this secession mantra. I have a gut feeling that if not properly managed, the MRC may provide a safe detour for organized crime on that part of the country and end up being a brazen security risk for the country.
Email: jbigambo@interthoughts.co.ke