I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Constitutional lawyer Ahmedinasir Abdulahhi dismissal of UDA's 70 per cent lead is upheld because this is exaggerated cheap popularity that lacks statistical validity and reliability.
The potential sources of unreliability and invalidity seem to arise from non-probability sampling or bias in researchers having an unrepresentative sample of 3,152 respondents. Azimio la Umoja and other forces may dismiss this claim as scaremongering, alarmist and ego-boosting tactics.
Yet proponents of hustler ideology appear not confident of a win despite such projection. Their lack of confidence is detectable when they keep on, incessantly, trumpeting that Raila should not protest the polls result.
Similar fear and cowardice are noticeable when they, persistently, focus attention on the President, asking him not to be involved in election matters. Sometimes they go to the extent of hurling insults, which can be interpreted as sour grapes syndrome unleashed by those who may be sensing defeat.
When I wrote my book Impact of Democratic Pedagogy in Public Schools, I appreciated the situation that democratic pedagogy has been entrenched in many classrooms worldwide. In Kenya, the 2010 Constitution has reified and entrenched a government that guarantees the rights of all people, including the president.
If we entrench democracy as implied, we should stop silencing anyone on freedom of speech, choice and calling some people projects of someone else. Ellis and Esler have curiously examined several viewpoints on freedom of speech that seem quite relevant to this debate.
First, they say that many people have quoted the words of Voltaire in his Advocacy of Freedom: “I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Our problem is that we fail to passionately listen to what we do not agree with because we don’t respect freedom.
Secondly, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill in his work On liberty stated: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Third, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes gave a famous definition of the limits of free speech in the case of Schenck v United States thus, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
In such historical context, if it were a situation for example where the ANC leader Musalia Mudavadi falsely alarmed people by shouting or echoing earthquake he would have suffered hefty punishment if this would apply to us.
There are two more key developments that have made Deputy President William Ruto and Mudavadi's parties great scaremongers and retrogressors.
Firstly, Ruto and Mudavadi are crowing about scrapping the Competency-Based Curriculum once they clinch the presidency because it was done in a rush without consultation with stakeholders. The state has dismissed these claims.
The problem with UDA, ANC, Ford-K and other like-minded supporters is that in their overzealousness one of the first casualties will be to stop CBC and the second are conservatism and intolerance.
One example of their intolerance was the sensational remark by Turkana North MP Christopher Nakuleu that: "Our main agenda is to finish Raila Odinga politically." This is diabolical.
First, if CBC is scrapped then what will be adopted is what, though not popular, may be amendable to the hustlers, eg bottom-up plus wheelbarrow-based kazi-ni-kazi curriculum. Alternatively, it may be Kenya Kwanza-based curriculum. In criteria for selecting content, all these would be rendered as not satisfying self-sufficiency, validity, significance, interest, learnability, utility, legislative and feasibility criterion.
This implies that UDA-ANC-Ford-K have underestimated the Jubilee progressives, liberals, 4IR ideal and pragmatists who adopted the CBC programme. In retrospect, as a curriculum expert, we have to plough into Kenya’s curriculum historical foundations to help assess whether we are stagnant or progressing in curriculum development.
In the colonial period, various religious organisations and the colonial government participated in Kenya’s education: Frazer Commission (1909) that recommended education on racial lines; Phelps Stoke Commission (1924) that emphasised practically oriented curriculum; the Beecher Report (1949) and Binns Report (1952) that recommended 4-4-4 system of education for industrial and agriculture-oriented curriculum.
The post-Independence commissions were as follows: Ominde Commission (1963) that established 7-4-2-3 system of education, entrenched English from primary one, abolished racial segregation in schools and put in place National Goals of Education to foster national unity, respect for culture, international consciousness, etc, and the Bessey Report (1972).
Furthermore, we had Gachati report (1976) of 9-4-2-3 education system; the Waruhiu report (1980) increased teachers’ salaries and decreed school milk; the Mackey Comm (1981) that introduced 8-4-4 system with emphasis on vocational/practical-oriented curriculum; the Kamunge Report (1988) recommended establishment of many polytechnics and institutions of technology to provide technological skills; the Koech Report (1999) that recommended trimming of curriculum content to make them manageable for teachers and learners. Then came CBC consisting of 2-6-3-3-3 education cycle. It started in 2017 and is replacing the 8-4-4 curriculum.
There have been many false starts in Kenya’s history, without any proper homogenous progression of one system of education structure to the other.
It is unfortunate to see some presidential hopefuls announcing the scrapping of the curriculum through car sunroofs. Some of them are the ones that scared some persons against the 2010 Constitution, devolution, handshake, BBI, Azimio la Umoja, etc. These are real scaremongers to watch.
All these rebellious attitudes display a lack of patriotism, maturity, diplomacy and professionalism. To scrap an ongoing programme like CBC needs due diligence and very stringent procedures to be followed to reinvent one.
I am sure Raila Odinga, Uhuru Kenyatta, Kalonzo Musyoka, Karua Karua and Gideon Moi, as experienced aspirants, understand that such issues must require a broader spectrum of the Kenyan society before making such roadside pronouncements.
Before a curriculum is developed, participants of the process must be represented from Wanjiku, disadvantaged, diverse communities, industry, teachers, students, curriculum specialists, NGOs, professional organisations, politicians, education/finance ministries, religious authorities and parents, among others.
The findings can be subjected to serious debate through newspapers, radio, TV, seminars, teleconferencing and workshops to reduce scaremongering and skepticism.
Despite all the odds we experience, let us forge on without being scared and silenced: George Washington once said: "If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter."
University lecturer
