Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 442955,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/442955/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 225,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "coalitions represent two separate visions and ideas on how to manage the national security crisis. Whether we like it or not, the challenge of national security has evolved so much whereas we have refused to evolve with the times. They say that if you fail to keep up with the times, you perish. Over the last 20 to 30 years, we have had similar capacities and similar challenges of managing national security; the Moi regime, the “ Nusu Mkate” Government and this particular Government. The resources have not been fundamentally different, but why is it that there has been more insecurity in the last couple of years with the same resources than we have witnessed before? This is because people have refused to change with the times. Times have changed and so must we. The truth is that the new Constitution lays down an elaborate mechanism on how to manage national security. It has shifted the paradigm of security to a more democratic police and a democratic national security arrangement. If we insist on ethnicizing and politicizing our security agencies; then we will get this catastrophe because decisions are made that are emotional. When you look at a situation, rather than looking at it as a Kenyan issue, you say that we have been targeted as a community. This raises and escalates the fears and concerns and polarizes the country even deeper. This is why when Kenyans talk about de-ethnicization and de- politicization; they want to have an objective arbiter in terms of how we manage our organs of national security. Madam Temporary Speaker, paradigms of security management have changed drastically. We continue to use rightwing strategies. We might think we have no belief systems but we are rightwing in our approach to security. Right now, various Senators have spoken here undermining the role of education whereas security is no-longer a brutal act; it is a science. People go to school to learn it, people graduate to simply manage national security both from a pro-active and a re-active sense. There is research that goes into security. Do you think those hardware and software in national security manufacture themselves? There are people who apply their genius towards these kinds of issues. So, you cannot come here and undermine the role of education or undermine the role of human rights. Countries that have had a better human rights record have had a better security arrangement system. When you come and talk about brutal force, there is the Constitution which limits that brutal force. Therefore, let us not argue as though times have not changed. That is the problem that we have; we have an archaic security arrangement and security leadership. They have refused to conform to the signs of the times and realize that this country has shifted and that these things have been managed in other countries successfully. You cannot apply a George W. Bush strategy of 20 years ago and expect to win. You do not alienate an entire group of people through profiling. You integrate them in organs of national security so that they can make an impact in terms of helping you in pro-active security. You are laid back, you do not learn, you are not critical, there is no debate, there is no discourse and then you expect somebody from Form IV as one of our colleagues said here to manage your national security; you will perish. People are getting more sophisticated. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}