Speakers: Dr. Katherine Pearson, Ford Foundation
Dr.
Mohamed Isahakia, Director General,
National Museums of Kenya
Professor Jonathan Moyo, University of the Witwatersrand
Dr. Tade Aina, Programme Officer, Ford Foundation
Dr.
Tegegne Teka, Regional Project Coordinator, OSSREA
& Facilitator of the New Africa Initiative Workshop
The New Africa Initiative: Working for Synergy workshop commenced with welcoming remarks from the Facilitator, Dr. Tegegne Teka, Regional Project Co-ordinator of OSSREA. He outlined the workshop guidelines and the expectation for the two-day gathering. Professor Abdel Ghaffar Ahmed, the Session Chair, made a brief introductory statement and proceeded with the business of the day. He also took a moment and spoke as Secretary General of OSSREA to remind the participants how the New Africa Initiative (NAI) started, the involvement of OSSREA at its early stage, the meeting in Addis Abeba, followed by the meeting in Entebbe. He also mentioned the first workshop that OSSREA hosted in October 1997 in Addis Ababa. In the last two years, he said, OSSREA had nursed NAI and now the time had come for the NAI to stand on its own feet.
Professor Ahmed then asked Dr. Katherine Pearson, the Representative of
the Ford Foundation and the funding organization of the NAI, to address the
workshop.
In a rather an informal speech, Dr. Pearson welcomed the participants,
sharing with them what had happened to her, upon arrival at Safari Park.
This seemed to be Dr. Pearson’s humorous way of informing the group of
what else was going on, on the same grounds, as NAI met. Dr. Pearson mistakenly
gone to the "Constitutional Meeting"
where the Kenyan MPs and the President of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi was expected.
"How ironic is it!" She
said that the President is in the same location.
"There is no connection between NAI Workshop to the Constitutional
meeting of the MPs. Shouldn’t we
really be meeting together?" She asked, "shouldn’t there be closeness
between the two groups as we meet?"
With
those few words, Dr. Pearson took the liberty to recognize her colleague from
the Ford Foundation; Dr. Jonathan Moyo, who was with the Foundation prior to my
coming. "We overlapped for only a
month. But I know this is part of
his work. He is part of the NAI. It
was his work as a program officer." She referred to Dr. Tade Aina who had taken over from
Jonathan at the Ford Foundation, as someone who knew everyone in East and West
Africa. "He is a gold mine of
information about the people and events from the region, and so, I acknowledge
both of you and say, how glad I am to have been able to work with you, Jonathan
and Tade."
Dr. Pearson acknowledged the presence of the Secretary General of
OSSREA, Prof. Ahmed. "OSSREA, of
course, has been birthing and mid-wifing this project," she said as she
recognized the other key parts of NAI. Dr. Mohamed Isahakia and others in his
organization; from Uongozi Institute
in Dar-es-Salaam, Professor Mukandala and from UCLA, Professor Edmond Keller;
Kituo Cha Katiba or the Constitutional Centre for Eastern Africa, DTM and SAREAT.
As she will not be able to participate in the two-day meeting, she
informed the group that Tade and Jonathan were there to cover for her.
"You all have a wonderful time
the next couple of days," she said and "
I know you are doing a very important work, and it is a pleasure to be here and
thank you for having me."
Professor Ahmed thanked Dr. Pearson, and then called on Dr. Mohammed Isahakia, Director General of National Museums of Kenya (NMK), also Chair of the Steering Committee of the NAI to speak on the Committee’s activities for 1997-98.
Good Morning,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
"For those of you who were in
the last workshop in Addis. You’ll
recall that one of the major recommendations that came out of the meeting
towards the end was; the need to establish some sort of a "Steering
Committee" that would coordinate the activities of the various programs,
rather in an informal manner. With
the main objective of promoting synergy, which at that workshop, and even in
today’s workshop, continues to be the major theme.
"I was appointed as the first
chairperson of this "Steering Committee", whose membership is essentially
made up of the various key program coordinators that constitute the NAI.
The Steering Committee as I said, has its main aim; to promote synergy,
partnership, networking both within the program elements, but also with outside
institutions and bodies which have the same aims and objectives.
"The membership of the
Committee include Dr. Mukandala , Dr.
Keller of UCLA, who most of you know, have significant role in NAI. It also has
Jonathan Moyo, who previously was Program Officer at the Ford Foundation and now
project manager at the University of Witwatersrand and OSSREA represented by Dr.
Teka.
"What I would like to emphasize
is the nature of this Steering Committee? It
is simply a very loose arrangement that was set in place with the consent of the
members whose main aim is to help in facilitating the coordination of the
various elements of NAI. We have
not been very visible over much of the year because there wasn’t much progress
made in many of the programs. Hopefully,
in the course of the next year, we will begin to see much more closer
networking, exchange of information, and the general enhancement of awareness
among all of us with the aim of sustaining this program.
"Last
evening, we had a meeting, and I would like to take the pleasure to introduce
the new chairperson, Dr. Mukandala, Chairman of Uongozi School in Dar-es-Salaam
who will now be responsible for coordinating the activities of the Steering
Committee. With those few remarks,
what I would like to do is to welcome all of you to this workshop.
It is certainly going to be a very exciting workshop over the next two
days. There is a lot of progress
that each one of us will be reporting. On
Wednesday, we have made arrangements for those of you, who have not been to our
Museum here, to visit our Museum, and see some of the work that we’ve put into
place, particularly, the exhibit on conflict resolution and peace making.
Thank you very much".
After thanking Dr. Isahakia, for the information he had given the group
on the Steering Committee, Professor Ahmed made a few remarks before
introducing, Professor. Jonathan Moyo.
Our next speaker, Professor Ahmed said, is a person who conceived the
idea of the NAI. An observation he
said, he had made having read the documents, and having had correspondence with
Professor Moyo. "The NAI had been a sort of a promotion of an idea, Professor Moyo had
started way back at the University of Zimbabwe, before coming to the Ford
Foundation. ‘I hope I am
right,’ Prof. Ahmed noted, I think that is the assumption I have made from
reading some of the introductions. He
developed this further to this kind of program, and he has nursed it very
carefully. I think with a lot of
effort, running around, corresponding with people, trying to put them together,
to cope with wild ideas that spring in these meetings and put them in
streamline." Professor
Jonathan Moyo, who was with the Ford Foundation is now with University of
Witwatersrand in South Africa and he is still with you as a partner of the NAI.
Professor
Moyo - "Observations on the Making of a
New Africa: Opportunities and
Challenges for East Africa"
Professor Moyo thanked the organizers for having invited him.
He was happy to be at the workshop as a free person, and not as program
officer. And following Prof.
Ahmed’s remarks that he (Prof. Moyo) had conceived the idea of the Initiative,
Prof. Moyo told the group that it was time to set the record right.
"The NAI was not started by the
Ford Foundation," he said, "because
the Foundation is not in the business of starting things like this.
But rather," he noted, "in
the business of identifying what initiatives are out there, and seeking out
people who are marginalized." It
was the environment in East Africa that made the NAI possible.
The climate of debate and the issues people were discussing then,
facilitated the emergence of the components that now constitute the NAI.
The issues that had brought about such a debate were; in Tanzania for
example, ‘the Bill of Rights’, in Uganda, ‘No Party State’, and in
Kenya, the question of ‘the New Constitution’.
Prof. Moyo then proceeded to outline how each component of the
Initiative had responded to the different aspects of the debate and changes in
East Africa.
Uongozi
School
The new challenge facing the universities in East Africa then called
for a common forum. A forum that
would re-capture the cooperation that had existed between the East African
Universities. According to Prof.
Moyo, events of the recent past had interrupted that process, the ‘one-party
state’, university closures (Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam), and the disruption of
Makerere. Uongozi School becomes a
basis for the revival of such dialogue, and also a platform, upon where future
leaders can speak a common language about issues of common concern to the
region. The University of
California, Los Angeles, UCLA inclusion in this component was important, because
it gave recognition to the earlier connection between UCLA and East African
Universities. Many of the African
Scholars noted Prof. Moyo had some association with UCLA.
Also, the current global environment he said made this connection
necessary.
SAREAT on the other hand, was born from the desire of young generations
of East African scholars, who wanted to emulate what was going on in other
regions of the continent. In Southern Africa for instance, there were research
institutions focusing on issues of concern to the region, SAPES based in Harare,
Zimbabwe and in West Africa, CODESRIA were cases in point.
THE NATIONAL
MUSEUMS OF KENYA (NMK)
The NMK was unique, because Museums are known for preserving the past
culture. And people like Dr. Somjee
are said to be the preservers of the past.
The NMK de-mystifies that because of the need today to re-visit the
issues, which will help our understanding of the present, and resolve some the
question of ethnic differences. This
new role of the Museum was recognized when Dr. Somjee caught the attention at
the African Studies Association in Ohio during a forum organized by UCLA.
DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH MEDIA (DTM)
FORGOTTEN LOT, the film
project of DTM, addresses an important aspect in the South Africa struggle---the
participation of generations; those who took part in the struggle, and those
left behind, but are struggling in a different form. The project also articulates the contribution of East Africa,
which the world knows nothing about. Nyerere
made the South Africans at home, and they become part of Tanzanian civil
society. So, this media is a forum
that talks about that story and what that contribution was about.
FORGOTTEN LOT, was also
relevant to the current debate in South Africa. The question of citizenship, as
you know, South African constitution is the most liberal constitution in the
world. So, the transition in South
Africa is much more pronounced than the rest of Africa.
Also, as South Africa undergoes leadership transition, Vice-president,
Mbeki talks about New Africa----African Renaissance.
It is about "Africa Rising". Prof.
Moyo summarized the issues in the following eight points:
1. The timing of South African re-birth, at the end of the century. This is seen as the beginning time for mankind. It is the re-examination of where we have been and where we are going.
2. There is a need for a debate about the presumed end of colonial Africa, and time has come for the first time to re-define and construct a new identity.
3. With the birth of a new South Africa, it is presumed that racism has ended in Africa. Now, the debate about new identity, the new African.
4. As South Africa goes through a leadership transition, there is also a talk of a new breed of leaders; Mbeki, Museveni and Rawlings.
5. The whole idea of democratic movement and multiparty.
6. The belief that African states will no longer be driven by politics, but by a new liberal economic that is market driven.
7. The question of globalization, as it re-defines Africa, are these new opportunities or are these problems for the continent?
8.
The rise of a new social movement.
As
a result of the debate in South Africa, Prof. Moyo noted some other issues that
had come about; the whole question about who is an African? What is the place of
Africa in the world? How can Africa change the world or the world change Africa?
Professor Ahmed found Prof. Moyo’s speech as having presented some
issues, which could be incorporated into a new agenda.
But critical analysis had to be given to what would constitute that
agenda, so it can be of significance to the Initiative.
Professor Ahmed then introduced Dr. Tade Aina, Program Officer, Ford
Foundation, whom he said had previously worked with CODESRIA, and had lot to
offer to the region. "We are happy to
have him around and we’ll benefit from him."
DR. TADE AINA,
"NAI
: A VISION FOR SUSTAINABILITY"
I am taking a baton from Prof. Moyo, and now have to move forward.
I am happy with the remarks by Prof. Moyo that the Initiative came from
the people. It was not the "Livingstone"
discovery. The Ford Foundation only
facilitated and coordinated the making of the Initiative. The Initiative Dr.
Aina said was a partnership, and he urged the partners to work together, and
take what everyone was doing with commitment, conviction and belief. Africans
must believe and have conviction that a new Africa is emerging from our
experience.
Prof. Ahmed thanked Dr. Aina for his brief comment and expressed the
hope that Dr. Aina would continue to help the Initiative.
Dr. Teka followed with a speech on the role of OSSREA.
DR. TEKA
- "OSSREA’s ROLE IN THE NAI
& WORKSHOP GOALS"
Dr. Teka thanked the chair, and said OSSREA was more a facilitator for
the co-partners. OSSREA was there
to encourage partners to do more, and to come together because everything
depended on their achievements. OSSREA,
he said was interested in expanding the awareness of the Initiative to other
African countries, and so other partners in other parts of Africa had been
invited to the workshop. It was important he noted because "these projects are our
projects, our children’s projects, and every African’s projects."
He then elaborated further on the role OSSREA had played in the past
two years. OSSREA, Dr. Teka said
had lived up to its responsibilities, OSSREA organized the last two workshops;
last year in Addis and today in Nairobi. Therefore,
it was last year that the Initiative partners would come together under
OSSREA’s facilitation.
Dr. Teka then proceeded to announce some program changes and invited
all participants to sign-up for the visit to the NMK.
Prof. Ahmed thanked Dr. Teka for facilitating the meeting activities
for the past two years. The "infant
is now walking", he said. OSSREA was happy to have provided support.
And seeing that the workshop had commenced on a very enlightening note,
Prof. Ahmed wished the participants good luck in their deliberations.
1.
The comments by Dr. Pearson about the "Constitutional Conference" of the MPs taking place on the same
grounds with the NAI, but having no connection, raises crucial issues for the
Initiative partners. Mainly, the
need for relevance, and develop linkages within the East African environment.
It means NAI had to move beyond the confines of research and workshops
into the arena of visibility in relation to issues being debated in the region.
2.
However, the comments can also be read to be more specific in relation to
KITUO CHA KATIBA, whose function
probably needs to be expanded to include mechanisms and structures for
monitoring activities in each country, as such activities related to
constitutional-making or constitutionalism.
In so doing, KITUO CHA KATIBA, would
be part or the organizer, and so basically, KITUO
CHA KATIBA, would avoid being an outsider, or being overtaken by events.
It means KITUO CHA KATIBA, needs to have linkages with those very
institutions that KITUO CHA KATIBA,
seeks to transform. The challenge
then for KITUO CHA KATIBA, is for it
to become East Africa’s eye-lenses into the future and could set the agenda
issues.
3.
To achieve 1) and 2) KITUO CHA
KATIBA, needs have joint collaboration other components for the NAI,
particularly SAREAT, which was doing a lot on constitution-making and
constitutionalism.
4. From the report of the Chairman of the Steering Committee, the Committee needs to be strengthened. The current loose arrangement limits the Committee’s function and responsibilities. As such, the Committee would be in a better position to define the agenda for the annual of meetings of the partners beyond just issues of synergy; but on how to move forward, how to become more relevant to the changing conditions in the region. So, the annual meeting becomes a forum not just for reporting on past activities, but also be the platform, where concrete issues on the future challenge for the Initiative partners are defined.
5. The Steering Committee should also be a body that energizes the Initiative partners, strengthening their work, identifies and assists in providing solutions to program weak areas.
6. On the present debate in South Africa the eight points challenged NAI partners to find relevance. How do these issues enhance the thinking within the Initiative? How does the NAI also influence the South African debate? How does the new East Africa relate to the evolving Africa in general, and does this broad thinking for a new definition of Africa also try to place the continent in her rightful place in the global arena.
SESSION TWO:
PRESENTATION BY UONGOZI INSTITUTE
Chairperson:
Prof. Njuguna Ngethe,
Institute of Policy Analysis
Rapporteur:
Ms.
Bernadetta Killan, EAFUI
Presenter: Prof. Rwekaza Mukandala,
Uongozi School
Prof. Mukandala started by addressing the question; why Uongozi
Institute is important? The
institute is important in order to solve the problem that is characterized by
the absence of dynamism initiative and vision among leaders.
He stated five objectives of the East African Uongozi Institute
1. Giving over 200 selected students leadership skills
2. Increasing knowledge on leadership-related problems
3. Creating network of information dissemination
4. Providing advisory and mid-career follow-up training to EAFUI graduates and other interested public servants in the region.
1.
Developing a global critical constituency support.
Prof. Mukandala further stated that EAFUI’s mission will be
implemented through the following strategies, namely,
1. The Uongozi school
2. Networking with different stakeholders
3.
UCLA coordinated activities.
He explained specific activities of the 1998 Uongozi School that
included educational visits made, recruitment of students in respective
universities and qualifications of
applicants. The composition of
students was as follows: 24 – (57%) Females and 18 – (43%) Males.
There were 4 universities that formed Uongozi School of 1998, namely;
University of Dar es Salaam, University of Nairobi, Makerere University,
American Universities and University of Copenhagen.
Apart from educational visits the programme included formal studies
covering wide range of issues under the main theme of Governance, Democracy and
Development. There were 32 resource persons of which 8 were females and 24 were
males.
The Institute’s future directions fall under four main strategies,
namely,
1) The Uongozi school
2) Research, Publications and Documentation
3) Networking and Information Dissemination
4)
Advisory and Follow-up Training Services.
Prof. Mukandala also stated how the objectives of the Institute will be
measured and assessed.
In terms of sustaining the Institute in the long run, Prof. Mukandala
mentioned various ways including:
1) Mobilization of financial support from donors mainly the Ford Foundation that is currently supporting the objectives of EAFUI.
2) Mobilization for funding from national government budgets through the auspices of cooperating universities.
3) Mobilization of support from private and voluntary organizations in East Africa.
4) Collection of fees from foreign and some local students that will be able pay.
5) Sale of EAFUI publications
6)
Fees from advisory services and training of mid-career leaders and public
servants.
He finally supports the idea of establishing synergy and the institute intends to do the following,
Ø Inviting partners to participate in the activities of the Institute especially the Uongozi School
Ø Using research findings and publications of other partners
Ø Get services from partners e.g.` SAREAT
Ø
Send some students as interns to other partners’ projects.
1.
Prof. Joshua Olewe Nyunya informed the participants of the important role
played by the vice-chancellors of the cooperating universities. They were all very supportive of the Institute’s mission.
Also, the Chief Executive of East African Secretariat was very much keen
to be of any assistance to the Institute. He further said that the Uongozi
School provided a great opportunity for students interaction and learning.
Uongozi School is an important inter- university linkage at student
level.
2.
Prof. Pearl Robinson gave the following suggestions:
· The actual curriculum should give more room for student’s interactions.
· Also the school may bring young leaders in their careers to come and talk to students on issues related to difficulties in leadership role.
· Students should make use of information technology e.g. Internet exploration.
·
The curriculum should include films, novels and plays.
3.
The chairperson, Prof. Njuguna Negthe raised the following questions
· How different was the actual classroom dynamics from a typical university system?
·
Does the Institute have any plans to include students outside
universities?
4.
Mr. Paulos Chane asked why is it that other African countries are not
included in the Institute?
5. A consultant from Rockefeller Foundation/Ford Foundation suggested that students should learn information – retrieval skills from different source e.g. libraries, Internet etc. She is happy to work with the project on this matter.
6.
There was a suggestion that the school should include students from other
segments of society i.e. civic organizations.
7.
Mr. Sabiti Makara asked, How
can Uongozi graduates influence others?
8.
Dr. John Barya expressed his reservations that there is a conceptual
problem with Uongozi school – i.e. is it a training center or a forum for
discussing issues? He also asked,
·
What
were the mechanisms for testing the objectives of Uongozi School especially that
of creating future leaders?
9.
Some suggestions were made that given the fact that next years’ theme
for the school is on ‘conflict resolution’, arrangements should be made for
students to visit refugees camps.
10.
Prof. Mujaju cautions of the financial implications of all the
suggestions made by the participants.
11.
Mr. Nathan Byamukama stated that Human Rights Commission of Uganda is
willing to share its publications with the Uongozi School. He also asked about
the possibilities of creating a permanent structure for the Uongozi School.
12.
Prof. A. G. M. Ahmed asked that why a 25% of USA students in Uongozi
school? He also informed the participants of the available OSSREA scholarship
for senior scholars who can contribute to the Uongozi programme.
13.
Dr. Tade Akin Aina suggested that the Institute should look for linkages
with other centers that are doing the same thing e.g. international leadership
centers. The institute needs support to achieve its dreams.
14.
Prof. Olewe finally stated that all recommendations will be taken
seriously by the Institute’s Committee.
15. Prof. Mukandala finally responded to some of the issues raised.
1) The question of information technology is very important in order to facilitate this type of learning. The school has to be located at the University for technology accessibility.
2) Linking with local communities is important.
3) On expanding recruitment base he said this is extremely difficult as the demand is overwhelming and therefore the choice has to be made.
4)
Emphasized the need for having foreign students in the school.
SESSION THREE:
PRESENTATION BY THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF KENYA
Chairperson:
Dr. John Jean Barya, Makerere University, Uganda
Rapporteur:
Mr. Nathan Byamukama, Uganda
Human Rights,
Presenter:
Dr. Sultan Somjee, National
Museums of Kenya,
Dr. Somjee explained that the National Museums of Kenya have been
working on three areas namely: Ethnicity, Religion and Race.
He indicated that they have gone to the field, got data and documented
them for communication to the public.
It was also reported that the National Museums of Kenya have both
worked with pastoralist and agriculturalist communities in Kenya with an
objective of pushing for the culture of peace.
It was further reported that the current research, the NMK, was engaged
in Traditional Modes on Conflict Resolution. Dr. Somjee suggested that there was
a need to shift from for example looking at the Masai as Warriors to looking at
the Masai methods of conflict resolution. Turning to Religion, Dr. Somjee identified Christianity and
Islam as major religions in Kenya. It
was pointed out even in Moslem societies, the practices of peace making is
different. They approach conflict
and peace from their respective cultural background.
Other minorities and their respective cultures were also pointed out as
having their own ways of resolving conflicts. An example of Asian-Africa was given as one of the
non-indigenous cultures. The pastoralists like the Turkan, Masai, Kenyan Somali
and the Pokat were studied to see symbols and rituals that are applied in peace
making and how peace is understood and negotiated.
Dr. Somjee observed that in his research he found out that there are peace sites which are recognized locally within local communities but are not recognized nationally. A book published recently which looks at eight different groups and how they resolve conflicts was cited.
The issue of recent bombing in Nairobi and its impact on the Muslim
community including the de-registration of some of the Muslim NGOs was
highlighted.
It was also pointed out that a large number of Kenyans were illiterate.
He observed that visuals were important because visual knowledge is
accessible to the illiterates. To
this end local artists from Nairobi are being contacted to help in the
distribution of visual knowledge and a wider public has so far registered.
It was also reported that the NMK have received encouraging remarks
from visitors in the visitors book while also several MA students are doing
their theses on indigenous peace keeping traditions.
Regarding publications, it was reported that five articles and a book
have been published on the NMK’s work. People
specially NGOs have used these materials. The
NMK also has educational programs for school children where they come and learn
from each other’s different ethnic groups methods of resolving conflicts.
Artifacts in the museums were cited as instrumental
as objects used in conflict resolution.
Women were also cited as respected by all traditions among the warrior
communities. An example of a
Greenbelt by women which can resolve a conflict was given to stop a fight.
- There was a question as to whether there was a way to transmit the information electronically.
-
There was also a question as to how the research would get to state
officials and also how it will help the whole of East Africa.
At
this point Dr. Mohamed Isahakia, also of NMK, explained that they were
specifically concerned with knowing how justice is dispensed in these local
communities and then in future issues of local
understanding of human rights would be studied.
-
Regarding content with state officials, Dr. Isahakia said they work with
the local administration. He also
noted that there must be need to explore and harmonize transnational traditions
between Kelangong and the Turkana in Uganda and Kenya respectively and also the
Oromos in Kenya and Ethiopia. He said that he saw an opportunity in working with
Uongozi School.
There was also an issue of arms trafficking in these pastoral
communities like the Kelangong and the Turkanas and the conflicts between them.
The question was what type of conflict will each address inter or intra
conflict?
-
A question was also asked about the relationship between traditional and
government/state forms.
-
A comment was also made to the effect that much as we are putting
conditional forms of conflict
resolution to the museums it seems the African cultures too
were going to the museums after being disseminated by western culture.
Safeguards for our cultures were called.
Dr. Somjee replied briefly, first by thanking participants for their
comments and questions. He reminded
participants that their work was not crisis solving but building on notions of
conflicts and peace. The research
is concerned with how the conflict is resolved.
Participants were told that pastoral groups were engaged
in peace synergy and that respective pastoral groups had a hierarchy of
the authority ranging from a super being to elder and the blood relation.
SESSION FOUR:
PRESENTATION BY THE SERIES ON ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH
IN EAST AFRICA TRUST (SAREAT)
Chairperson: Professor A. B. Mujaju,
Makerere University
Rapporteur:
Ms. Assumpta Oturu, Radio
Station KPFK, USA
Presenter: Mr. Mutahi Ngunyi, SAREAT
The
Session was a report on the activities of SAREAT since the last meeting in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia in October 1999. Mr.
Ngunyi gave a progress report, future directions for SAREAT, its vision and
sustainability, including strategies for synergy.
A discussion and comments from the participants followed and Mr. Ngunyi
responded to most of these inquiries. Some
of the participants congratulated Mr. Ngunyi on his excellent production of the
magazine, which was distributed to all members.
Mr. Ngunyi began his talk by underscoring the East African crisis.
He defined the current changes in two components, one being the ‘Multiple
Transitions’, which he articulated in three points:
a) The generation crisis had given rise to issues of succession and revolt of the elders.
b) This revolt had created governments in waiting, and this had brought about the emergence of a new breed of leaders.
c)
These new breed of leaders had militarism in their politics, and this had
become a way to socialize elders out of power.
The
Second component of the crisis Mr. Ngunyi noted was the component of transition.
The constitution-making was at two levels; it was taking place at the
national level, where the process of constitution-making was on-going.
The different identities, nationalities had come together to make a
covenant. In the case of
Ethiopia, "they
put together a covenant that was interesting, that allowed different
nationalities to form their own countries, if they wanted to."
Now, he said, this was also happening at municipalities, where different
nationalities and groups were putting together a process of covenant making.
We have seen this in case of Kenya in particular, where groups are coming
together to put up rules that are to govern their interaction in regards to
water.
The crisis raises from what he referred to as---- ‘our connectivity’ as a result of the relationships between a
nationalism, ethnicity and identity. The
connectivity, he noted was not only on the national level. His observations of
this process had come from the on going work among the NGOs in civil society. "What we’ve found out from the work we’ve been
doing," he said, "was that there
were some kind linkages between the advancement for rights and poverty
eradication." Most people
involved in the whole process of social commissioning in development work, were
realizing that there were certain issues, given the circumstances which required
the understanding of certain rights. Mr.
Ngunyi gave the example of women in the slums of Nairobi, who were given access
to water. Although the land where
the water was located belonged to the government, the politicians grabbed the
land. In this case, he said those
development agencies involved with the women now found themselves talking about
the issues of land rights.
After introducing the issues, Mr. Ngunyi then proceeded to address the
challenge facing SAREAT. He
summarized SAREAT’s activities from December, 1997 as follows:
1) To set out to capture the politics of a given moment in a transition.
2) To seek certain aspects of this particular transitions, and the new way of doing things, and to broadcasting them.
3) To incorporate these aspects (as mentioned in 2) in the process of planning for transition.
4)
To state an East African position.
All
these had been achieved as listed:
1. We have done a magazine called the East African Alternatives (copies were distributed to members). - This has been put together by journalists in the region, and basically talks about political economy, and the transition.
2. We have sample title for book series on Kenya (titles listed in the back of the magazine).
3. We have made a series of working papers that we have produced. (samples were shown)
4.
We have put together a web-site in which we display all the materials,
magazine and books.
Aside from this, Research Programs to support SAREAT’s publications
were stipulated as follows:
1. We have had on going programs with the University of Leeds Center for Democratization, and we are calling it the democratic policy.
2. Now we have done a survey of 70 democracy/governance, and human rights organizations in Kenya, and we hope to have the same done in Uganda and Tanzania. The results of the later research will be the publication of a paper on the ‘state and civil society in East Africa’.
3. We have put together proposals for some work, and among them one on civil society building.
On issues of collaborative, Mr. Ngunyi stated the following as a
summary of activities for 1997-98.
1. In terms of coalition building, we have done some work with MWENGO, a networking groups for NGOs based in Harare - co-publishing a book.
2. We also have a sabbatical program, for people who are in transition from academia to civil societies or from one civil organization to another. A person can at least take a month or two to go to some kind of reflection and come out with some kind of publications.
3. In April 1998, we had a workshop in Arusha that involved eight countries on constitution-making for Eastern Africa.
4. Tamarin School – a forum where people in Academia, the donor community
and NGOs can come together and discuss ideas on poverty, development of civil
society in East Africa. We have had
discussions in July on civil society in East Africa.
On synergy Mr. Ngunyi spelt out the prospective areas in four points:
1. Internship/SAREAT and the University of Helsinki
2. Hosting the work of the Initiative and linking-up websites
3. Production of newsletter on the initiative activities
4.
Solicitation of manuscripts
Dr. Mujaji thanked Mr. Ngunyi for presenting a very wide range of
activities, and opened the floor for discussions.
DISCUSSION
Dr John Barya commented by saying that he thinks this is one of the
most concrete project in this Initiative. It
can even be touched. This is not to
say others are not concrete, but this is the most concrete.
I don’t know, it seems 1) that you are coming out with so many
publications at the same time. I don’t know if this visible.
The monthly review, then the journal, and of course the general
publications. I don’t know, but is it possible, then that is very good.
The problem of management, the issue of credibility, because once you
say you’ll come out, you have to be constant.
On the program for publishing books, Dr. Barya said it would be useful to
coordinate the activities, so that people can relate.
At least the Center for Basic Research in Uganda would be interested.
Mr. Geoffrey Tukahebwa thanked Mr. Ngunyi for his presentation and proper insight into the work. He then asked a question relating to politics and economic, "you to talk about new breed of African leaders, who have taken over power. Are we looking at these African leaders in economic terms, since they have liberalized the economies, and centralized politics?"
Mr
Tukabebwa then reminded Mr. Ngunyi of the dummies he had shown in Addis Ababa
whatever happened to them? Because
after that, he said we never got the copies of the publication, and then
requested Mr. Ngunyi to elaborate further on the question of multiple
transition.
Mr. John Aluko Orodho volunteered to assist with
the circulation of the journal at the university level.
Dr. Eva Rathegeber (the IDRC) pointed out to Mr. Ngunyi the need to
include the journal in the research index for wider research access.
Prof. Moyo suggested to Mr. Ngunyi to consult with Tade because of Dr.
Aina’s experience in publication. Such
consultation could assist Mr.
Ngunyi to address the credibility issue. Generally,
Prof. Moyo was impressed with the publication and the quality of the material
was very important. But he told Mr.
Ngunyi that it might be necessary to drop some of the journals.
Dr. Robinson expressed interest in the proverbs, and the possibility of
making them available, so she can use them in some of her classes.
Responding to the comments and inquiries, Mr. Ngunyi referred to
himself as a toddler running around very aggressively. He said sustainability
could not be on SAREAT alone, but also on others doing solid research in various
institutions. There is a need to know, who is doing what, and develop
communication with SAREAT on their activities.
SAREAT he said doesn’t have a pool of researchers but can provide the
facilities to be able to publish the work.
There was a need for participants to support SERAT and work together.
Following Mr. Ngunyi’s response, Dr. Tade also congratulated him (Mr.
Ngunyi) on the job well done, and cautioned him to be focused.
On the question of management capacity, he asked Mr. Ngunyi to consider
the following; cost, recovery, circulation, profit/non-profit making. He asked
about what was meant by the alternative research, just out of curiosity.
Dr.
Keller gave Mr. Ngunyi some advice based on his own earlier accounts on
publication agenda. It is hard
work, he said, it was important to do market analysis about the competition out
there. Dr. Keller then gave
examples of journals he had been involved with, namely; Trans
Africa Forum. The other
issue Dr. Keller raised was the need to define an aspect of focus and determine
whether this would be an advocacy journal or not.
It is therefore very important to identify the niche, he said.
Prof. Mujaju, the Chairperson, also congratulated Mr. Ngunyi on the
beautiful work, but asked him to do some occasional paper on Uganda and Tanzania
also, and not Kenya alone.
In
conclusion, Mr. Ngunyi thanked the participant for their contributions.
He said he would continue to consult with Dr. Aina on publications, and
pointed out this had already been on going.
Mr. Ngunyi said he will take up the issue of indexing, and on Bayra’s
concerns, he pointed out that he was not working alone, but had commissioned
other people to help him with the magazine.
On the dummies, he said the issues had been sensitive, but this had been
resolved. On the alternate
research, he said the journal was seen as an alternate to the research done by
outsiders on the region. The research was therefore an alternative to the globalized
position.
COMMENTS AND
OBSERVATIONS AND POSSIBLE AREAS FOR SYNERGY
1.
SAREAT should be a forum for the publication of the work of the
Initiative partners, and could also be part of joint research.
SESSION FIVE: Presentation
by The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) – African Studies Center
Chairperson:
Professor A. B. Mujaju,
Makerere University
Rapporteur:
Ms. Assumpta Oturu, USA
Presenter:
Prof. Edmond Keller, UCLA, African Studies Center
Summary
The
session focused on the James Coleman African Studies Centre, University of
California, Los Angeles. As part of the Initiative, UCLA seemed to play a
strategic role that placed NAI into the center of this whole idea of
constituency building for Africa in the United States. Professor Edmond Keller's
approach to public forums, both at the African Studies Association Conference,
and at UCLA, including involvement in the national summits on Africa appeared to
be efforts to significantly integrate some aspects of the Initiative. Also,
creates awareness for the Initiative with the United States. In a sense, UCLA
under the leadership of Professor Edmond Keller opened the door for both East
Africans and Americans and for the Initiative, it is a window into the world of
the United States of America.
Professor
Edmond Keller, "UCLA/African
Studies Center"
The New African Initiative was seen in the
context of the emerging publications, and efforts of African scholars, who have
demonstrated commitment in articulating the African voice.
A voice that is engaging the process of globalization----just to name a
few examples: the works of Thandika Mkandawire, when he was with CODESRIA and
Jonathan Moyo’s multi-media project----"The
making of New Africa". Africans
want to engage the process of globalization rather than ignoring it or running
away from it and that is what the New Africa Initiative is all about.
That coincides with the Ford Foundation’s efforts in the past two
years.
In the United States, the Ford Foundation
has been funding university projects that deal with across borders and build
bridges in interdisciplinary sense as well as across cultures.
And that seems to be how UCLA to have come to this particular picture.
We were already doing some collaborative work with the University of Dar-es-Salaam,
the University of Nairobi that how it all began.
UCLA has a couple of grants from the Ford
Foundation, one of them is to work with this Synergy Workshop to help develop
and disseminate information about the NAI in the United States.
In this area, we have worked with Dr. Teka on first Synergy workshop. We
also hosted a round table where a number of participants were represented at the
last African Studies Association Conference.
We had presentations from Dr. Mukandala, Dr. Somjee, myself, Assumpta
Oturu, represented DTM and this was to informed American audience about what was
going on with the NAI. But not all
of NAI was represented, we that changes this year because we are having a round
table again. Afterwards, we had a
well attended reception.
However, UCLA became involved way earlier on with the synergy workshop on Uongozi Institute. We were called by the program officer at Ford Foundation to sort think about situating UCLA as part of the NAI. So, we worked very hard, initial with a small grant that Dr. Mukandala managed, we planned, met in Entebbe, and had follow-up meetings in Arusha.
In the early stages of Uongozi School, UCLA
provided education materials, and other kinds of educational resources, computer
hardware and software, books and we produced the recruitment materials.
We recruited students. Again,
we had this idea in the United States, and we still do that we need to
internationalize our curriculum, and get our students to have first hand
experience in living abroad, living in Africa, interacting with Africans.
Within such interactions, misconceptions, stereotypes can be overcome.
Uongozi Institute serves that purpose of breaking down those barriers,
and in essence is the beginning of the building of cooperation and that is what
we need to achieve. So, we
recruited students from American universities, it was not restricted to any
particular nationality, or any particular ethnic group, they just had to be in
an American universities.
We also agreed to identify placement
opportunities for Uongozi fellows once they had completed their year.
We are in the process of doing that now.
We have as part of the budget, the ability to fund a few students who
participated last year and in East Africa there is a budget also.
We have identified places where some of these students might be placed in
the United States or in Africa. We
simply need to know who the students are and who are to be placed, that is one
part that UCLA is doing.
A major aspect that we are doing in the
United States is sort of driving into this whole idea of building the
constituency for Africa. In the
U.S. right now that is a major project. We
have a multi-year national summit on Africa, which is broken down into regional
summits, they have been two held so far.
There are six more to be done over the next few years---all at the local
and regional level, UCLA has been a part. We
are funded by Ford to organize public education forums, and in those forum what
we want to do is to get the African voice on African issues in the American
context. Let the Africans speak for
themselves and interrogate U.S. policy towards Africa and create a dialogue
between Africans and Americans and among Americans themselves.
The whole idea is to build a constituency for Africa.
U.S. policy towards Africa has three components:
1) Democracy and human rights
2) Trade and investment
3) Peace and security
And you will not get trade and investment
unless you get the other two. Bearing
that in mind our public forums concentrate on these three areas of this policy.
Our first event is going to be a conference called "Which Way
Nigeria?" It is going to involve
Nigerians, who will represent the government position and Nigerians, who
represent opposition, various aspects of opposition plus we are going to have
representation from the U.S. government and NGOs.
The
idea is to get American citizens who are not used to looking at Africa in this
way, so they become informed, and if they are informed then they become
influential about what is a good U.S. policy towards Africa.
UCLA’s
involvement with three African universities and all of you in the NAI is a mile
in international collaboration. This is what Ford wanted to accomplish, we think, when they
articulated this position a couple of years ago. We have proved that we can do this.
Thank
you.
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
The
question of how to respond the call for globalization, but engaging
globalization in the context of local knowledge, and how the process of student
interaction at Uongozi Institute provided American Students with a meaningful
approach of interrogating American policy towards Africa.
It was important for Africa to be seen, and Africa to see itself in the
global context noted Professor Keller. In
American classrooms, he said students
were interrogating U.S policy towards Africa and this can also be done
at Uongozi Institute.
The
Chairman, Professor Mujaju injected the importance of the theme---building
constituency for Africa in the U.S. African-Americans had to work with Congress on African
issues. They can do so, just as the
Jews have done for Israel. Professor
Mujaju said the time had come for increased alliances.
He thanked Dr. Keller for his efforts in constituency building for
Africa.
Professor
Robinson introduced the fact that American peoples’ thinking of Africa was
beginning to change since President Clinton’s visit to Africa earlier in the
year. The bombing in East Africa
saw American concern about the loss of African lives, but in the media this
incident brought back the old coverage of crisis.
So, UCLA’s coordinating efforts, Professor Robinson said, needed to be
increased to effect the necessary change. She
noted that Africa’s image was currently under siege as talk about wars and
things falling apart continued, and because of that a lot of work has to be
done. In all this, Dr. Keller saw
an opportunity for more dialogue and collaboration.
OBSERVATIONS,
COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS AND SYNERGY ISSUES
1.
Aside from what UCLA was already doing in terms of public forum for the
Initiative at the African Studies Associations, UCLA could also possibly support
the awareness of the published work of the different components of the NAI among
the public, and the academic communities within the United States.
UCLA could use the already available channels and events could be
organized on the different themes. Authors
of such works, or researchers, or representatives could be sponsored for
speaking engagements.
2.
In engaging in constituency building for Africa, UCLA should also extend
this to the U.S. media, and begin to organize media forums for the purposes of
changing attitude of those who write, and present Africa in the U.S. media.
UCLA, DTM and SAREAT could jointly coordinate such workshops both in the
U.S and in East Africa, because African journalists’ approach to the
continental issues also needs to be changed.
SESSION
SIX: Presentation
by Kituo Cha Katiba -
The East African Centre For Constitutional Development (EACODEV)
Presenter:
Ms. Harriet Busingye, Acting
Director, ECODEV
Rapporteur:
Mr. Sabiti Makara, Makerere
University
Ms. Busingye outlined the project objectives as:
The presenter said that for a number of reasons, the project was only
able to take off in March 1998. That
a Secretariat had been opened in Kampala, Uganda and liaison officers had been
identified in Kenya and Tanzania.
The EACODEV had been registered in Uganda and stakeholder had been
identified. However, stakeholders
are yet to be identified in Kenya and Tanzania.
The EACODEV had taken off with a workshop held in August 1998 at
Entebbe, Uganda. The second
workshop is planned to take place in November and these seminars is to generate
debate on constitutional issues in the region.
It is also planned that the EACODEV will soon have a web page on the
Internet. It is hoped that the web
page will increase synergy among the stakeholders.
During the discussions the following issues emerged:
· First, that the project seems to be having too many objectives, hence the need to prioritise.
· Secondly, it was noted that the project activities seem not to be linked to rural people. It was argued that failure to reach the rural people on issues like land, poverty, ethnicity etc. left the project to the elite.
·
The third issue that emerged is whether or not, EACODEV is an
advocacy organization. It was
clearly clarified that EACODEV was purely a forum for all stakeholders with
varying interests.
In
response to the above issues, it was generally agreed that EACODEV has no
inclination towards a particular group, least it ceases to be a champion of all
interests.
On the point of why it took too long for EACODEV to take off, one well
informed participant cautioned that it takes
sometime to get things in place and that some people like to raise
criticisms rather than suggesting solutions.
It was further suggested that this workshop should do exactly that.
For example, it was suggested that this workshop should lay strategies
for learning regional experiences.
Some of the strategies suggested include:
· That EACODEV should not duplicate what other organizations are already doing.
· That stakeholders should take a more active role in shaping the future directions of the organization.
·
That issues in
each country are different from those in others. So issues pertinent in each country should be identified and
be dealt with specifically.
In conclusion, the participants concurred that EACODEV was very
relevant and desirable in the wake of the proposal to revive the East African
Community and in view of the serious constitutional and political reforms taking
place in the region. That although
implementation of the project had been delayed, it should be given support to
grow.
SESSION SEVEN: Presentation
by Development Through Media (DTM)
Chairperson:
Ms. Helen Kijo Bisimaba, Legal and Human Rights
Centre,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Rapporteur: &nbs