Go easy on the referendum push; Kenya is hardly prepared for one

Thirdway Alliance of Kenya leader Ekuru Aukot has now gathered 600,000 signatures, 400,000 shy of the one million needed to pass through the first stage of the planned referendum. FILE PHOTO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • Any push for a referendum will have to be politically-driven and voters will only cast their ballots the way their representatives tell them to.
  • There is also the issue of changing the governance structure whose proponents talk of a drastic change from a presidential to a parliamentary system.

The raging debate on whether Kenyans should amend their eight-year-old Constitution seems to be mutating into a contest between two teams trying their best to score own goals. It has always been obvious that at one time, there would be a need to review it, for no such document can be attain absolute perfection.

In fact, it was said there was no problem with 80 per cent of the contents of Constitution 2010, and only 20 per cent displeased some people.

Now it is emerging the proportion of the content that requires amendments is higher than that, and that some of the contentious issues do, in fact, require more than simple amendments; another referendum is required.

However, this country cannot afford yet another high-stakes contest at this time either in terms of material costs or social-political cohesion.

AMEND CONSTITUTION

The fact of the matter is that this debate is not going away any time soon because almost everyone believes the Constitution must be amended in one way or another, the only difference being exactly what, when, and how. I was amazed the other day when I listened to three eminent political personalities, all of whom were prominently involved in making the 2010 Constitution, agree in unison why a review is vital.

They all carefully avoided mentioning the term, “referendum’’ and instead kept talking about the need to amend the document. There must have been a reason for this circumspection. Could it be that the term is so politically loaded that none of them really wanted to paint themselves into a corner just in case the tide turned and nobody saw sense in a hurried referendum anymore?

POPULAR INITIATIVE

As stated clearly by the Constitution itself, there are only two ways it can be changed: through popular initiative (folks collecting a million signatures), or through Parliament. The problem with the latter is that legislators are hardly likely to welcome any change that would affect the status quo especially when it touches on their own welfare, and so that route is clearly closed. The first option is infinitely more appealing, but there is a catch — the general ignorance of the masses.

As is patently clear, any push for a referendum will have to be politically-driven, and as has been proved in the past, voters will only cast their ballots the way their representatives tell them to. This has ramifications beyond the regrettable herd mentality which afflicts us all during periods of political uncertainty.

It means that gradually, we are slipping back into an election campaign mode with all the evils associated with it, which is too early after two years of electoral chaos and inconclusive outcomes.

ROBUST DEBATE

Secondly, it is understood that after a robust debate, the kind of questions voters are supposed to answer through a “yes” and “no” format should be brief, simple, and binding. However, the devil will be in the details. For instance, I have been an avid believer in the need to drastically reduce our representation in the various national and county legislatures. This would obviously mean merging some counties, constituencies and wards. It would also mean changing the boundaries of those electoral units.

Yet we are told by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission that although the boundaries review has, technically, already started, it cannot be completed until a census is carried out, which must be done next year and the results released in 2024. If electoral boundaries cannot be revised until then, and yet some people insist we cannot go into the 2022 elections before the referendum, how will these timelines be reconciled?

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

And this is just one example. There is also the issue of changing the governance structure whose proponents talk of a drastic change from a presidential to a parliamentary system. This proposition has just succeeded in raising suspicions that these people have their eyes firmly fixed on the 2022 presidential succession which is why they are insisting on an early referendum. The whole issue has, as a result, turned completely toxic.

My own feeling is that changes in the structure of government, though important, can wait because it has never made any sense to subject a presidential contestant to a popular vote and then make the winner a constitutional cypher while giving a discredited institution, Parliament, the power to choose the head of government.

By whatever title, whether prime minister or president, Kenya’s chief executive will be chosen by the people through the vote. It is only common sense.

***

A chap was overheard declaiming his knowledge of current affairs in a crowded place: “These African Union chaps must really have their ears on the ground. When they heard that former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, a trained engineer, was helping build bridges in Kenya, they decided to give him a try in the rest of the continent. All he needs to do as the AU Special Envoy for Infrastructure Development is to arrange a series of handshakes with African leaders, one by one, and voila, the thing is done,” he said.

Mr Ngwiri is a consultant editor ([email protected])