Absorbing Teachers into County Workforce is a Crime Against the Poor!

“You know what? Before we start blaming outside forces, we must first look inwards and excommunicate the demons within...” Those are the sweet words from my late father, Mzee Lemukol Ng'asike Snr.

Now, let’s come closer home and put this thing called illiteracy into perspective. Is education failure in places like Turkana County as a result of some invisible satanic spirits, national government laxity or just a case of a non-interventionist approach from people we blindly call sons and daughters of the soil?

As much as we apportion blame to national authorities, I believe their local counterparts have serious questions to answer. 

I have moved around Turkana – to its deepest and remotest corners. Seeing children populating kraals during school days despite the presence of a school just across the road demystifies that old notion that children in pastoral lands don't attend classes due to lack of schools. There is something big. An ailment that is geared towards crippling the poor from the source. To lock their minds. To disempower them by building schools and “poaching” the few teachers sent by the Teachers Service Commission to teach them.

Listening to parents urging me not to condemn their children for being at home brought me to a new level. That of scanning public decisions no matter how good they may appear. These people told me that though inexistent school infrastructure could be an issue in other places, their major setback is lack of teachers. That “even the few that were initially posted there were taken by the county government”. I have heard this narrative not just in a single village. It is everywhere.

Which reignited my usual question: in whose side is the county government?  

This is purely a question of interests vis-a-vis politicians, teachers seeking “greener pastures”, society and the vulnerable – particularly the poor and their children. The hierarchical placement of each of these interests shows where exactly the weight lies and how far it will take to change things in favour of the pastoral child.

Let’s unpack this conundrum.

The politician wants to appear benevolent by hiring all professionals. He, undoubtedly, hinges not on the needs of the wider society. It is common knowledge. He is in it to win goals for his side. It is an open political market, you know.

The teacher, like any other creature, has his stomach as the benchmark for his decisions. He wants a full pocket. For your information teachers have created a niche for themselves as major village political mobilisers. Get this from me: in those places I have visited, the teacher is everything. He is a consultant, a mobile library and a trustee on anything public. Good attributes but deployed in poisoned grounds.

The society banks on both the politician and the teacher for support – mental and material. Its vulnerability has, however, elevated its risk status. It may complain and even point out all the problems afflicting it, but it is handicapped. It can't move far. It cries but acts not.

And so, if the society is handicapped, how then should we expect it to curtail the afflictions facing the children? That is where we must come in.

 

Well, there is this thing people call qualifications and the need to offer “any person” a chance to move to a “higher office” so long as he/she is qualified. Then there is this other aspect that remains at the periphery of this exodus. It touches on the impact moving to “higher offices” brings to the society. 

Though many people have argued that teachers have what it takes to be part of this “economic nomadism”, I still hold the view that this argument is hollow and suppresses the voices of the primary beneficiaries of the teaching profession – the children. I agree with people who say devolution has contributed in killing the education sector in the so called marginalised zones.

Then we come to what informs leadership. Should public decisions be informed by the urgency to elevate individual interests at the expense of public needs? Where is honesty in our preachings about promoting education among pastoralists?

Yes, teachers can serve in other capacities but we must agree that their initial postings play a central role in community development.

If the county government won't function minus teachers, then it should be ready to pay the price for its actions. Let it hire double the number of teachers it poached and facilitate their stay in those teacher-less schools. These new teachers should be made to feel that they are the pillars of the society.

By admitting that our people are poor and need special support, this county bureaucracy admits it’s guilty of a crime against the poor. It must reinvent its policies in support of interests of children so as to offload this guilty verdict.

Lemukol Ng’asike is an architect. Email: lemoseh89@gmail.com . Twitter: @mlemukol. 

Pastoralists Land Rights Not Subject to Forced Sedentarisation

With dynamics like urbanization, mineral exploration, emphasis on legal documentation to prove private land ownership, adoption of other economic practices to supplement the diminishing economic power of pastoralism, and of course the power play surrounding the politics of land ownership in Kenya, the debate on whether pastoralists land rights really exist keeps on knocking on our doors.

Tied to this nebulous debate is another tricky concept that may prove to be a blow against pastoralists rights, and in particular the protection of their land. The thing seeks to introduce this requirement that “real” ownership of pastoral land should stem from “permanent residency”.

When distilled further, this requirement simply says for pastoralists land rights to exist, pastoralists must shun nomadism and adopt a sedentary lifestyle – a clear case of cultural substitution propagated as the “perfect way” to secure pastoralists land rights.

I think I know why such ideas have gained prominence. The definition of “real” ownership of land with regards to pastoralists’ lands remains a hidden subject only known to a few people – mostly government bureaucrats and politicians. The motivation behind this cover-up is equally not known to many. But this won't block some of us from poking holes on this skewed thinking.

One, what informs a person’s “permanent residency”? Is it owning a piece of land in say, a town? What about that herder who for the last forty years has been transiting between say, point A and B in search of pasture and water for his livestock? Should we rule out his demands for recognition as a land owner on the basis of him having no well-defined piece of land?

Concerning the existential threats emanating from mineral exploration, why should this particular herder remain optimistic that his views will be sought when land ownership is subject to possession of papers? Could this be a technical move to lock out those believed to be ignorant from profiting from mineral wealth? How can this lost optimism be regained?

Two, if paper ownership is that important to effect pastoral land ownership, does this translate to forced sedentarisation? What informs this belief that nomads are inferior to sedentarised folks? Could it be an advancement of that old narrative that banks on packing people into permanent settlements so as to administratively control them? Must governance be tied to sedentarisation? Does this mean that nomads have never invented their own governance systems that can be adopted by the state?

I can spot the demons who propagate this anti-pastoralists’ narrative. The first is the Kenyan state. It is guilty in many respects. First, it has refused – knowingly – to ask itself the question: “who is a pastoralist?” And by doing so, it has never and it will never know what pastoralism entails. As a result of having not this crucial knowledge, it will never create policies and all other legal instruments that will protect and advance pastoralists land rights. Call it a case of well-crafted sabotage.

The second demon is the county government – that mini-state that is legally mandated to stand with pastoralists. Should it surprise all of us that county governments where pastoralists control significant demographic majorities have taken a back seat on matters pastoral lands? Like the Kenyan state, these mini-states seem to understand one thing: That time to give pastoralists land rights the front space is yet to come. I fail to understand what informs their timing. It is definitely not the citizens’ grievances.

Some farcical propulsion of pastoralists land rights only materialize when the political class smells the presence of oil companies prospecting for oil in pastoral lands. Proactive defense of these rights are totally absent. Ironically, these are the same people we see as saviors!

But this state of hopelessness won’t last forever. Today’s pastoralist is not the same as that clogged-minded pastoralist of the past. The present one knows his rights. He knows who are the barriers towards full realization of these rights, and he hesitates not to explore other options to protect his rights.

The point still remains solid: Securing pastoralists land rights can never, and should never be tied to forced sedentarization. Any move to forcefully effect this skewed concept will be resisted. And so this is what I have to tell those who cling on this shaky perspective: Go try your luck in another planet, not among the pastoralists.

Lemukol Ng’asike is an architect. Email: lemoseh89@gmail.com . Twitter: @mlemukol.