RE: Scotland: The Nationalist Party Scores Victory in Local Elections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6626207.stm

Basically, what I would like you to notice from the above news item is that movements for new states are everywhere. They are in Europe, Africa, Asia, Americas, etc. Even Scotland, in spite of many years/centuries of existance as part of the Greater United Kingdom family, is not immune from nationalist movements for self-determination.

The success of the SNP in the election marks an important milestone in the Scottish movement for self-determination. Very soon Scotland will be independent. So will Ireland, Quebec, Wales, and a plethora of communities, groups, people, regions that have been hankering for states of their own. Many of these communities have for a long time been denied their right to self-determination in the name of sanctity of the modern state. But they are no longer ready to sit back and wait for their fate to be defined for them by others. They are fighting back. They want self-determination. They want to govern themselves. They want to be in charge of their destiny.

The question that we should ask ourselves when we read about political parties such as the SNP is this: if, even the Scots, after so many centuries of living within the United Kingdom, are not satisfied with remaining within the UK, why should we expect that our fates, our fortunes, our experiences will be any different from that of the Scots, especially considering how we were forced by colonial fiat to live with people we have little in common with in states such as Kenya?

Why do we think that we will ever have it differently? Why do we think that ours will turn out to be different from, say, Liberia, a country that emerged in the early 19th century, and yet, several years after its creation, still suffers from ethnic/regional strife? Why do we think that Kenya will ever work as a state?

Ooh, yes, I know it pays to be hopeful, to be optmistic. Barrack Obama tells us as much in his recently published book called the "Audacity of Hope." But hope does not put food on the table. Hope does not buy medicine when your child is sick. Hope has neither transformed Liberia, Congo, Uganda nor Sudan into a happy nirvana, land flowing with milk and honey.

Hope works best when tampered with some dose of realism. When a state has failed to work and has instead become a nightmare, however hopeful you have tried to remain, that salvation is just around the corner, perhaps that is the time to take a second look at some of the assumptions you have held on to about your state.

That is the time to talk candidly and ask questions directly, however difficult they may be. Is your state truly viable? Is Kenya really workable? Can the Luo and the Kikuyu co-exist? Can the Abaluyha and the Abagusii peacefully live in one state? Can the Kikuyu and the Kalenjin live together as one happy family, each taking care of the other? Can the Luhya and the Mijikenda live together without waiting for the earliest oportunity to sink spear into the other's back?

If the answer to these questions is a "no, "wouldn't it be better to create new, better states and move on, instead of hiding our heads in the sand, holding onto a mirage, hoping against hope that our modern states will somehow one day miraculously transform themselves into stable, coherent entities where everybody lives together like one big happy family?

Yes, the SNP victory in Scotland teaches us many things. One of these is clear: it is better to confront reality. No need hiding your head in the sand forever. No need pretending that if you hide your head in the sand long enough, a problem will magically disappear by itself. Better confront the problem and move on. And if that must mean coming up with a brand new state in place of an old, unworkable one, so be it.

Meshack Owino.