| |
Debate
Ban on torture: Europe’s responsibility
EU consensus: overdue but incomplete
Kenya: the president’s defeat
Climate protection: Kyoto progress
01/2006 |
|
[ Comment ]
Kenya: the president’s defeat
Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki’s proposal for a new constitution was rejected in a referendum in late November. Crucial issues of governance, like shifting power from the president to a prime minister, remain unresolved. The vote is a personal defeat of the president.
[ By Kamau Kaniaru ]
Kenyans will continue to be governed according to the much maligned Lancaster House constitution after they rejected a proposed new constitution in a referendum in late November. The original constitution, drafted in London in the early 60s by the colonial power and a handful of Kenyan politicians, was amended many times since independence in December 1963. The position of the president has become very powerful, while other institutions of governance were weakened.
Ironically, the original constitution did not provide for a president but placed governmental authority in the hands of a prime minister under a governor-general, appointed by the Queen of England. That changed within a year of independence when the country’s first prime minister, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, pushed through an amendment, turning the country into a republic and himself into its president, whilst abolishing the position of prime minister. Many other amendments followed.
Demands for a new constitution have been raised since the early 80s. Even today, most Kenyans would probably prefer a constitution with fewer presidential powers, dispersing authority to parliament and other constitutional bodies. Similarly, they would favour devolving power from the central government to semi-autonomous regions and districts.
People’s wishes had been spelled out clearly to the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, which traversed the country before the 2002 general election. The same principles also inspired the draft presented by the Constitutional Delegates Conference in March 2004, which, however, was followed by several more drafts supposedly ironing out various blemishes. This process undermined the public’s faith in the deliberations.
In rejecting the proposed constitution, Kenyans have literally elected to write off the achievements of more than two decades of struggle for constitutional reform. Luckily, that does not put into question important reforms already implemented – such as the return to multi-party politics in 1991 or the abolition of detention without trial in 1997. But other goals have been missed. The rejected draft’s bill of rights was especially good. Significant improvements would have related to the rights of minorities, women, children and the disabled.
Interestingly, some of the enlightened provisions – like giving women the right to inherit property – proved to be more controversial than initially imagined. In large parts of the country, long-standing cultural practices prevent women from inheriting land. Such traditions moved people to vote against the proposal. Moreover, a provision to give parliament the freedom to legislate in favour of abortion provoked opposition from Christian churches.
In the end, however, the core issue was once again the presidency itself. Rather than restricting presidential powers, the final draft would have enabled the president to appoint an unlimited number of ministers, a fifth of whom even from outside parliament. Furthermore, the president would have been enabled to appoint ministers from any party in parliament, including the opposition. Opposition politicians instinctively considered these provisions an attempt to neutralise parliament and render parties irrelevant.
The referendum thus turned into one on the president himself. The voting patterns showed disturbing regional and ethnic inclinations. Central Kenya, where President Mwai Kibaki comes from, voted almost to a man in favour of the proposed constitution. In contrast, voters in the other seven provinces, voted against it – regardless of any good provisions in the document.
Observers cannot but conclude that the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru who inhabit central Kenya voted to protect the Kibaki presidency, irrespective of widespread disappointment with his performance, particularly his lacklustre handling of the fight against corruption, while other ethnic groups from the rest of the country largely voted against Kibaki and his government. In the end, Kibaki’s mandate to govern has been severely weakened, and discomfort with the Lancaster House will contniue.
Kamau Kaniaru
is a business consultant
and freelance journalist in Nairobi.
kkaniaru202202@yahoo.com
|
