I am currently reading Kitty Kelly's biography of the Bush family. It is not a well written biography. Rather than just telling their story, she continually interjects her judgments on them and their choices. But, her best efforts to the contrary, one is able to construct a relatively independent view and  evaluation of the characters.
It is fascinating how one family can produce 2 presidents within 12 years of each other. John Adam, the second president also had his own son become a president of America in the early years of America's independence. Closer to home, in Kenya and in Africa, the Kenyattas, the Kabilas in Congo, and the Khamas in Botswana have also produce multi-generational heads of state but I doubt that anybody would seriously view the African examples as models that if emulated would lead to good things.

In reading the history of the Bush family, a few threads start to emerge that seem to echo threads in other high achieving narratives. My conclusion so far is that their achievement is tied to money and connections. Samuel Bush - the originating patriarch is an affluent businessman in Ohio. But his wealth is not trans-generational i.e. it does not offer the ability to maintain or secure a comfortable lifestyle for even the first generation of his descendants. They do get something when he dies but they are not able to leverage his wealth to support themselves or to create new wealth.  beyond the first generation.

What his wealth does, is it allows him to send his kids to top prep schools and to elite universities. The value of these institutions is (a) it changes the way the children think about themselves. In being in the company of wealthy and successful people they view themselves as wealthy and successful or destined for wealth and success - this is what Alliance did for those of us who went there. His descendants are careful to ensure their children likewise go to institutions that have the same effect. America, as imperfect and unequal as it is, is probably more egalitarian than any other society in human history. And it is interesting to observe that most of the people who have made a mark in America have passed through an elite institution even if they dropped out. At least every third or fourth success story will have Harvard or Stanford or Yale somewhere in there. This is certainly true in politics, business, academia,  the arts, and the non-profit world.

But it is not necessarily true in Kenya today. The independence generation certainly had a high correlation between success in government/business and the school you went to. But today, such a connection is not as certain.

My conclusion therefore is that part of giving your kids the foundation for success is to ensure they are (a) able to build the right mindset about themselves - by being around communities and individuals that view themselves ad world-changing leaders and that (b) they are able to build relationships that they will leverage down the road to help them achieve their goals.

If I bring that down to Kenya, then the conclusion is that sending your kids to the right schools is absolutely essential. The right schools are schools that have a tradition of excellence and leadership - ala Alliance, Starehe, Strathmore AND/OR schools where society's elite send their kids. These are the expensive schools that were primarily the domain of expatriates but that now have increasing numbers of Kenyan Africans. If your kids go to these schools, then (a) it will help them to perceive themselves as part of society's elite  and the leadership (b) they will have an opportunity to build relationships that they can leverage later on in life.

Now, this won't guarantee their success. Their achievement will come down to their personal choices.

But in terms of giving your kids a foundation for success, this seems to be as good a place as any to begin. Ask yourself (a) "which kinds of environments will cause my kid to perceive themselves as a leader in excellence and achievement? (b) where does my kid need to interact so that he can develop comfort with the upper classes and build connections that will be useful later? Go out and create access to those environments

Sociopaths

When driving to work this morning, I saw a green tow-truck pull ahead of a matatu and then block it off. A policeman got out of the tow-truck, and apprehended the matatu driver while the tow-truck team proceeded to set up their chains so they could tow the matatu to the police station.  These few seconds of activity caused traffic to back up for about 300 metres. 

It made me reflect on the importance of respecting the rule of law. The relative safety, smoothness, and predictability that we need to live life is predicated on an assumption that there are certain rules that most people will follow most of the time. If I thought there was a 50% chance a waiter might choose to spit in my tea, I would never order tea outside of home.

But the desire for predictability is unconsciously tied to an assumption that someone somewhere will ensure the rules are followed so that those of us who are motivated to follow the rules get a fair shake.

In the public spaces, this responsibility of ensuring that everyone more or less adheres to the rules is given to law enforcement or the police. When individuals in a society begin to disregard the imperatives issued by law enforcement officials, this is a sign of anarchy that must be arrested immediately or else society will decline precipitously and the predictability we all want and expect will evaporate putting everything up for grabs.

Whereas we are all justifiably suspicious that the law enforcement official might be more interested in obtaining a bribe from the law-breaker, it is more important for society and for our own self-interest that we stand on the side of respect for law-enforcement officials.

Recently, I observed a situation, outside of the public sphere, and more within private and relational spaces, where person A carried out actions that indicated a reckless disregard and contempt for others, in the process creating exposure to a very real risk of physical harm for person B. Person B, on the other hand had a clear understanding of rules of decency and appropriate behavior and appealed to a higher authority for justice and fairness. 

In reflecting on this situation over time, I have come to the conclusion that person A is operating within a context where they have not been taught to have respect for third parties or to understand what constitutes decent rules of human behavior. 

A sociopath is defined as a person whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. There are many signs in our society that we are breeding sociopaths - exemplified by the typical matatu driver whom we are all becoming like. Even if we get the short end of the stick, it is important that we do not lower ourselves to the socio-pathic behavior that is so often manifested around us.