Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 156819,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/156819/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 326,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "over which people can make decisions and take risks. What we need, in this nation is not an end to wrangles. That is a very superficial analysis of the problems of this nation. What we need in this nation is the working of the rule of law. We cannot have the working of the rule of law under the present circumstances of the Grand Coalition Government if the National Accord and Reconciliation Act is not implemented. The National Accord and Reconciliation Act lays down the parameters and benchmarks of establishing the rule of law that will make the transition from an authoritarian presidency to parliamentary democracy possible. The National Accord and Reconciliation Act tells us what to do with presidential powers during this period of transition. The National Accord tells us how to undertake the reforms in Agenda No.4 during this time of transition. Therefore, if people are disagreeing and discussing the National Accord and Reconciliation Act and expressing very strong feelings about it, that is good for democracy. It is not unhealthy. It is not tantamount to the so-called wrangling. I think the language of wrangling is negative and unproductive, escapist and utterly intellectually bereft of any reason. We need to lay on the table what the requisites of implementing the National Accord are. We need to address the presidential authority and presidential authoritarian style must end with the transition. We need to make sure that as parliamentarians, we need to take the responsibilities of understanding the process and explain to the people of Kenya, rather than cowing to the so-called wrangling that is making people shy to discuss important issues in our nation. I, therefore, appeal to such authors as those who wrote the current issue of the Economist to discuss with Kenyans who have been through the process of liberation and Kenyans who know what the burdens are in this nation, of establishing the democracy of this nation. They need to discuss with Kenyans who understand the contradictions of the transition and not to begin picking up rumours and half-baked ideas in the streets and put them in a national magazine as a way of explaining the Kenyan reality. I do not believe that I am a part of a cabal, which is only united by their greed. I never entered politics or participated in the political process to bring the second liberation of this country because of greed. If there is greed in the Government, that is part of the contradiction of the transition. Those who are greedy must be identified as such. However, a whole Government and a whole movement for the second liberation cannot be characterised by anyone who is intellectually competent as a bunch of greedy people. That, I object to and will resist and speak against. I would like a Kenyan problem to be understood for what it is and not from a point of view of appearances but from a point of view of reality. If appearances coincide with realities, science would be superfluous. Therefore, I think that the scientific way of understanding the Kenya problem is to understand the nature of the transition and to know that the people of Kenya are committed to dismantling and doing away with the authoritarian presidential regime and to establish parliamentary democracy which is the only political form that will usher in great development in our nation. I support."
}