Sections
Archive
| Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Newsletter
Did you enjoy this article?
Q 1: What do you think were the major weaknesses or obstacles of the constitutional making process?
CCR-K: These two issues, we believe, were the reasons why Kenyans do not have a new constitution today. They both relate to the process of enactment (not content of the draft).
ISSUE 1. GIVING PARLIAMENT THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE BOMAS DRAFT -- TO EITHER ACCEPT IN TOTO OR REJECT IT IN TOTO.
It is our opinion that this decision - to hand over the fate of the draft to parliament was – is the root cause of the Naivasha accord, the Kilifi accord, the Wako draft, the YES/NO referendum, and now the Kiplagat Committee (all consciously devised by the Kenyan elite to deny the ordinary Kenyan the only instrument of empowerment - a new people driven constitution that can institutionalize good governance, transparency, and accountability).
Anyone who has even a tiny inkling of the kind of people we have in parliament, should have known that the parliament of Kenya would never in a million years pass a motion to empower wananchi.
This is a fundamental historical mistake which the CKRC made.
Section 47
Further, related to this is the failure by ALL the actors - to place the amendment of section 47 (of the present constitution), as the triggering legislation leading to the overhaul of the current constitution. The CKRC Act should have been the child of the amended section 47. The failure to amend section 47 by either the 8th or 9th parliament is a very clear testimony of the lack of seriousness of the Kenyan political elite. It also demonstrates that there has been no well-thought out step-by-step plan of action / flow-chart, which shows how the process of enactment would start and finish, and when that will be.
ISSUE 2: MAKING THE REFERENDUM TO BE ON EITHER YES OR NO, ON THE ENTIRE DRAFT INSTEAD OF JUST ON CONTENTIOUS ISSUES
The first mistake led to the second mistake. Once parliament got the draft in their hands and they had been told by the CKRC they could do whatever they liked with it, the Wako Draft was inevitable. But what is even more disconcerting is the connivance and legitimization of the Wako draft by the elite (both on the NO and the YES side) when they accepted to participate in the referendum. We are talking about a referendum based on a daft which was not even discussed by parliament (it makes one’s stomach turn to recall that Wako emerged from his hiding place where he was drafting his draft, and whatever he drafted went straight to the people without the benefit of debate in parliament). This fraudulent and illegal document is what Kenyans voted for or against on November 21st 2005.
Q 2: What do you think were the major successes in the constitutional making process?
CCR-K: The most important success was the collecting of views and drafting of the initial draft (also known as Draft zero). It is this draft that formed the basis of the Bomas draft. That is why all discussions need to be restricted to the Bomas draft as the only legitimate document that represents the views of the people of Kenya.
Q 3: What do you think are the key challenges/obstacles likely to impede the constitution making process?
CCR-K: Key challenges are the obvious lack of commitment by the government of President Kibaki to enact a new constitution. We believe all half-hearted efforts by the government since 2003 are merely stage-managed, time-buying stratagems. The main aim of president Kibaki is to ensure that Kenyans will never have a new constitution.
The second obstacle is parliament. Like Kibaki, parliamentarians are totally opposed to the enactment of a new constitution. They will never support the review effort. Instead, they use the people’s quest for democratization to further their political agendas, and that is about it.
The third obstacle is the political elite in general and civil society in particular. These "lords" of tyranny and corruption have designed their careers around the constitutional reform process. They depend on the process itself as the source of funding and their livelihood. They will delay the enactment even up to 2050 if they are able to. The main aim of the political elite is to ensure that Kenyans will never have a new constitution.
Q 4: The constitution making process and the Referendum resulted in major divisions in the country. How best and by whom can these divisions be addressed through reconciliation and healing?
CCR-K: Divisions and ethnic animosity were created by politicians during the referendum. It was easy to do this because of the NO/YES question framework. The designing of referendum questions only on contentious issues will be non-acrimonious as compared to the NO/YES one, which created so much tension and even hatred. The civic education process will help raise people’s awareness and consciousness. Organizing civic education along sectoral as opposed to tribal groups will help groups see that they have common problems - and the need for more harmony within sectors, as well as across ethnic lines. For example women would deal with women issues etc.
Q 5: Which is the best mechanism for completing the review process?
CCR-K:
1. The Bomas draft is the only legitimate draft that can be placed before Kenyans for fine-tuning
2. A referendum should be conducted on contentious issues only
3. After the referendum, parliament and the president have no role other than to sanctify, legitimize and assent the new constitution into legality. Further, that new constitution should come into force with immediate effect
4. This process need not take more than one (1) year. The new constitution should be enacted not later than December 31, 2006.
Comments (0 posted)
