What’s with Kenyans and dialogues? Passing through Amsterdam on my way to Helsinki last week, l used the stop over to talk to fellow Africans who were on transit from Africa about the much anticipated power-sharing deal in Kenya.

I dwelt a great deal on the need for Kenyans to “dialogue”. I spoke of what had been said about Kenayans dialoguing and the feeling of of déjà vu. I pointed out that Kenyans had held public dialogues in 1998 and 2002 but these could not stop the country from plunging further into madness. So, what has changed now?

l knew I had covered both the 1998 and 2002 Presidential elections, so I was aware that Kenyans actually come up with concrete suggestions to deal with their own problems. The reason why these strategies were not implemented was that the then leadership was not interested in doing the right thing for Kenya.

The people who were supposed to undertake the implementation of the outcomes of any meaningful transitional dialogues were not keen to do so.

This time round the power-sharing administration of President Mwai Kibaki and prime minister-disgnate Raila Odinga would abide by the outcomes of any dialogue.

So, Kenyans, it would appear, will continue to dialogue, despite my scepticism about such public debates.

The problem with the on-going talks was one of credibility. In 1998, the IPPG talks overwhelmingly called for a security environment conducive to economic recovery and participation in political, social and religious activities. But by 1999, the security situation had greatly deteriorated as the government began its assault on the opposition groups.

So by the time Moi called the 2002 general elections, politicians such as Mwai Kibaki were saying that for the gathering to be a success it was crucial that immediate action be taken to implement the IPPG recommendations made at the 1998 negotiations.

Opposotion politicians and human rights activists had called for the ban on mass political activities to be lifted. They argued that the ban deterred Kenyans from participating meaningfully in political life.

In 2002, the organisers of the National Conventional Conference (NCEC) urged all Kenyans inside and outside the country to use the opportunity to build democracy and political consensus. They promised that no opinion or disposition would be considered too extreme. The government spent hundreds of thousands of US dollars to organise spread propaganda. But in the end, as one politician pointed out, nothing came out of it.

So the coalition administration will have to go one better on the issue of dialogue among Kenyans. The election that brought Mwai Kibaki to power stands challenged.

The elections have been described by the EU has a ‘disaster’ for Kenya because the transitional government of Mwai Kibaki was not working. It was grinding to a halt.

So the government produced by the Dec 27 election must take the responsibility of moving the country forward – or risk to fall.

In holding elections when we did, Kenyans rolled the dice. We could have had a leader who was not responsible and was not interested in democracy or good governance.

However, that is what we got, we have a president who is not interested in democratisation and economic development. But he has taken up a position that is overtly centralised, with too much power invested in the president. So we need reform.

Kenyans now have a situation of give and take and consensus building where we either quickly learn the art of political compromise or get into a stalemate and people keep complaining that things are not happening fast enough.

It is in this context that we have to view governance reform that must happen within the framework of constitution reforms. We have institutions that did not make provision for rigid checks and balances. Therein lies the challenge of reform that must begin now.