MUSEUMS SHOULD NOT PROFIT FROM 'STOLEN TREASURES' MR. BRITISH PRIME MINISTER

For how much longer should past colonisers continue to posses and profit from items seized from their former colonies? For eternity? This seems to be the view held by David Cameron, the British Prime minister.

According to a news report carried by BBC online, Cameron flatly refused calls for a prized diamond last worn by the late mother of Queen Elizabeth, to be returned to India, where it was mined.

And his cunning explanation apparently has more to do with the fear of opening up the way for other claims and less to do with a reluctance to admit any wrong-doing.

"If you say yes to one you suddenly find the British Museum would be empty..."

In essence, what the British Prime minister is saying is that his country knows too well that apart from the Koh-i-Noor diamond, there are other ill-gotten treasures, historical sculptures and ancient artifacts donning the many impressive museums scattered across the UK.

And many such institutions charge entrance fees, meaning the museums are deriving commercial value from possibly 'stolen treasures.' Isn't that supposed to be illegal?

Perhaps time is nigh for international laws to be drafted to compel countries like Britain to return what rightfully belongs to other nations, having had the misfortune of being colonised by plunderers.

If the BBC is truly not a government mouthpiece, it should perhaps have closely interrogated Cameron's remarks about the famous diamond, which has been part of the Crown Jewels for more than a century.

But trust them to prominently and extensively quote a historian, who questions the validity of India's quest to have the Koi-i-Noor returned to its rightful owners.

UK ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND THE MISSING PUBLIC RALLIES

As the election campaign period in the UK gives way to the actual voting day, any keen Kenyan observer would by now have noticed one glaring omission. There has not been any single public rally addressed by the three contenders for Number 10 Downing Street.

Public rallies in Kenya have become like a must have for any politician seeking an elective post. And for the leaders serving in government, this translates to an open-ended license to mobilize state resources to whip up support for their re-election bid.

For a sitting President or Cabinet minister, this inevitably it seems, is a perfect opportunity to misuse taxpayers funds to grease their campaign machinery. They will criss-cross the country or constituency in convoys of fuel-guzzling government vehicles with civil servants in tow, which gives them an obvious advantage over their opponents.

For the shrewed politicians, no pre-panning efforts are spared in order to ensure that their public rallies are well attended. Even if it means hiring crowds and transporting them to the venue. The TV camera, they have been 'well' briefed, likes large crowds.

Here in the UK, those seeking  to be Prime Minister have no deep seated penchant to address mammoth crowds. Instead, they are content with addressing small groups or even individuals, as they move from door to door, selling their campaign pledges in homes, factories, schools, hospitals or even social clubs. Special addresses are given in conventions or town hall  like meetings, however.

Many of the campaigns by Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown could have most likely pass unnoticed, were it not for the media. And come news time, one is likely to only come across the campaign activities of these three candidates, with an occasional coverage of other parliamentary aspirants. Unlike in Kenya, where nearly every seeker of elective seats wants coverage.

Of course the socio-economic and political dynamics at play in the UK are markedly different than those found in Kenya, especially when it comes to the culture of cash handouts to entice voters. But that still does not make it out of order to question the obsession with public rallies in Kenyan politics.

Think of the wasted manhours, the pilfering of public resources and the associated election malpractices perpetuated through public gatherings like incitement and hate speech. Is the public rally a necessary platform for politicians to sell their policies or campaign pledges?

As proved by the UK election campaigns, there is a better alternative.