Kenya's foreign policy during the Moi and Kibaki eras.

President Mwai Kibaki

Kenya’s foreign policy formulation and implementation have been determined by both domestic and external variables. While comparing and contrasting Kenyans foreign policy during Moi and Kibaki eras we note that there have been more similarities than differences. While president Moi maintained the centre stage, Kibaki maintained a low profile in matters of foreign policy formulation and implementation.

In Kenya president Moi’s foreign policy was unilateral in nature. In this respect, president Moi was more involved directly in regional conflict resolution a peace initiatives within the East Africa region. For instance he was involved direct efforts to mediate internal conflict in the sub –Sahara region. During the internal conflict in Uganda and Tanzania, president Moi’s foreign policy was more involved in terms of state visits which continue to be guided by the principles of good neighborliness, non-alignment and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Never the less  Kenya’s foreign policy during president Kibaki tenure to date remains a mixture of  regional continental an global foreign policy interests set out during Moi’s presidency remains  unaltered. These include: peaceful co-existence, good neighborliness, territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states and adherence to the international regional and global bodies like the United Nations charters and the African Union (AU).

Under the presidency of Moi’s foreign policy formulation and implementation can be characterized as centralized. This included interference in the handling of foreign policy issues by the ministry of foreign affairs and international cooperation.Moi's foreign policy did not provide a relatively open political environment for the ministry of foreign affairs and other government departments who are directly or indirectly involved in the foreign policy formulation and implementation. However, under the current presidency of Kibaki regime, his policy formulation remains ad hoc in nature. Which is best characterized as decentralized and a mixed ad hoc system of policy formulation and implementation. Kibaki foreign policy making has less interference in handing of foreign policy issues by the ministry of foreign affairs and international corporation.He provides a relative open political, social and cultural environment for the ministry of foreign affairs and other cabinet ministers. Arguments rose in regards to Moi’s reign and Kibaki presidency is the system of government. During Moi’s rein the political system was more controlled by the head of state before and after the introduction of the multi-party system. Unlike Kibaki’s tenure the system of governing changed to a devolved system to government as power was distributed amongst other government bodies and individual representatives like the office of the prime minister who is also involved in the policy formulation and implementation. These have also opened wide consultation within the various departments in foreign policy making and implementation. Before any policy or treaty come to affect it has to pass various state i.e. the Agenda setting, policy legitimation, policy and policy evaluation as the end result. These opened avenue for varies government bureaucrats to debate and amend any policy that are intended to affect the foreign policy of a state. Also noted, much criticism space have been realized and public pressure and groups have also come in the formulation of foreign policy in Kenya in the current government of president Kibaki which in Moi’s rein did not exist or existed with minimal effect to the foreign policy formulation and implementation.

Former President Daniel Arap Moi

Kibaki and Moi presidency have been interfered by re-establish donor confidence. President Kibaki has embarked on several bilateral and multilateral initiatives which have reopened doors to donor confidence in Kenyan’s foreign policy formulation. Like for Moi presidency the introduction of multi-party system in Kenya was also as a result from external pressure donor agencies whom he assigned for donor conditionality’s in which the end results interfered with the internal policies of the country as a result a trickle effect to the foreign policy behavior

during his reign. For instance the culture of corruption was instituted by Moi regime followed by Kibaki administration that in tern finds it uncomfortable to fight against it. Although under the Kibaki administration somewhat efforts have been noted due to the new constitution of Kenya which have created a wider inclusive foreign policy making and the current bodies have been reconstituted to. For instance the Kenya Anti-corruption commission –KACC currently headed by PLO Lumumba are still at the brink of handling corruption in Kenya. These consistitute analysis all the appointment procedures of top key government appointees such as the permanent secretaries and ambassador whether they were done in an transparent manner. This enable the key policy makers to be not partisan to the head of state in decision making and at the end results affects the nature of foreign policy formulation and implementation process. During the presidency of Moi the Kenya Anti-corruption did not have the capacity to questions top key government decision makers or policy maker because they made decision in favor of the then president Moi. This affected the Kenyans foreign policy because most of the donor agents and countries did not want any trade ties with Kenya because of the nature of corrupt government officials that were in power at that particular period.

Active leaders are always said to be innovative policy makers and they always have new perceptions and ideas. They are no status quo oriented; president Kibaki and Moi foreign policy formulation and implementation can be termed as active -passive foreign policy maker. An active -passive leader always adopts old policies in decision making process and are said to adopt the wait and act or see nature in decision making process or foreign policy formulation. They are not likely to take risks. For instance in Kenya the issue to a new constitution was the major challenge facing Kibaki presidency .Despite the promulgation of a new constitution in Kenya. He had earlier promised to deliver a new constitution within a year during the 2002 general elections campaigns. These did not happen by then despite fruitless efforts especially in the period leading to 2005 referendum on a new constituition.After which he delivered a new constitution under intense pressure from both political social and external pressure. This reflected much on his behavior in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy in Kenya. Later then, the new constitution changed the nature of foreign policy making in Kenya because of the much powers consolidated at the head of state changed to a trickledown effect in Kenyans foreign policy making which because of other key government departments and ministries are now included in decision making process. During Moi regime the same characteristics were noted before the introduction of the multi-party democracy in Kenya was due to intense pressure from both the internal and external pressure as a result president Moi agreed to allow a multi party democracy in Kenya. This intern also affected the nature of foreign policy formulation and implementation process in Kenya.

Moreover, another feature that differentiated the formulation and implementation of Kenyans foreign policy during the presidency of both Kibaki and Moi regime was their presidential personal diplomacy and involvement in the management of foreign policy. Kibaki had been known in maintaining a low profile in the management in Kenyans foreign policy formulation by involving other departments and parties like the ministry of foreign affairs and the vice president in the diplomatic negotiation of Kenyans foreign policy implementation and formulation. This was seen currently seen in the “shuttle diplomacy” which was to rally other states to support Kenya’s deferral case from the International Criminal court - ICC at the Hague. In contrary to the presidency of Moi regime, he was thick in the management of Kenyans foreign policy. He personally visited many countries to promote Kenyans national interest at the international level. Under the presidency of Moi, Kenyans close relations with the western European countries was strengthened by personal presidential visits. Unlike Kibaki regime state visits have been limited to only summits and international conferences at some level. Most of his state visits are left in the hands of either the Prime Minister Raila Odinga or the Vice president Kalonzo Musyoka whom currently are involved in most of the diplomatic state visits and missions.

Thus the nature of leadership either unilateral or multilateral affects a states foreign policy formulation and implementation process. During president Moi regime it was unilateral and in Kibaki currently is a mixture of both unilateral and multilateral in nature but only time will tell.

End.........//

By Ombado Obado