Post by Ed on Nov 29, 2005 19:26:37 GMT 3
Kenya’s constitutional issue: Can Tanzania draw any lessons?
2005-11-25 07:07:01
By Hilal K. Sued
It was clear right from the start that the country could not be cited as a good example in which the opposition could have done wonders after taking over power from a sitting government.
For there was a massive exodus of political figures from the old establishment into the opposition, or rather, into the coalition of parties that took over the reins of government, and whose sheer numbers could not have ensured any change.
That was in December 2002, during the third multiparty election (since these were reintroduced over 10 years ago), and in which the incumbent did not run.
This fact alone made the election a virtual toss up, but his own gaffe in picking up an unpopular ’successor’ to contest wrapped up the election outcome.
Clearly, Kenyans in 2002 voted with their heads rather than their hearts.
Last week, Kenyans were put to another big test ? the test whose outcome showed that what they decided three years previously did not commensurate with their expectations.
They soundly defeated the government-sponsored referendum on a new constitution ? a move that they have been fighting for in the last 15 years or so.
They defeated it because it was not what they wanted ? some politicians, with whom they ousted the previous dictatorial regime had tried to play games ? to usher in their own version of dictatorial regime.
It did not matter much to most Kenyans whether the 15 years struggle, most of it under the uncertainties of the tyrannical Moi rule went down the drain.
No new constitution for Kenya, that is what Kenyans said on Monday.
Clearly, the politicians are to blame, as they are to blame for virtually everything bad that goes in a country.
The new constitution that was struck out at the Bomas meeting two years ago and which would have passed like lightning in any referendum was hijacked by a few, its main articles subjected to some parliamentary amendments, renamed Wako Draft, and then put up to a national plebiscite.
The original Bomas constitution had shifted power from the largely unaccountable executive to the people themselves, that would have necessitated the sharing of that power with parliament, among others.
Many Kenyans queried the legality of the parliament to alter these main articles of the document that had been decided upon at a legally instituted Constitutional Review Commission.
Many also say that the referendum was an opinion poll for Kibaki’s three-year-old administration, a countrywide protest against his rule, and as a punishment for letting himself get surrounded by a group of his own ministers and other cronies who were all out to offer him the wrong advice at every turn.
In more respectable democratic societies, the verdict ought to have given him a signal to step down immediately and call up a snap election.
If anything, he is to blame for the big gamble he took, which, instead of turning into a much yearned reward, it became a humiliation.
Many are wondering why he had not sensed this from the start ? that he had it coming to him in a big way.
One may also ask why a message from a common Kiswahili axiom that literally translates into: ’It’s better to endure blames than humiliation’ did not cross his mind before he took the disastrous referendum plunge.
When in early 2003 Bush and Blair made up their minds to invade Iraq, and saw that the UN Security Council would have blocked their move if they referred the matter to it for consent, they decided to bypass the UN body.
They envisaged that they would be ready to endure much of the world’s condemnation than the humiliation of an imminent veto in the Security Council.
Perhaps Kibaki had banked too much on the magic power of incumbency, the stratagem used by many African leaders.
However the plan devastatingly failed to protect him and as a result the majority of Kenyans defied power and wealth of the State machinery to give him some sleepless nights for days to come.
Others say that Kibaki’s own lacklustre style of leadership was to blame, particularly his refusal to honour his part of agreement with his NARC partners, as well as his softness in dealing with some of his cronies who were clearly driving him into uncharted waters.
There were also the Raila and Moi factors, which Kibaki appeared to have disregarded. In the same way Raila played a key role in making Kibaki’s presidency possible three years ago, the shrewd politician was also a decisive factor in Kibaki’s referendum debacle. Many are asking why Kibaki had not seen that.
As for the Moi factor, it was clear that Kibaki had thought the former president would be in his camp.
After all, many thought that the removal from the original draft constitution the clauses that would have given the prime minister big powers would have lured Moi into the ’YES’ (i.e. Banana camp).
For it was believed that the former president would have not accepted the clauses that removed much power from the presidency, which he himself used successfully to tame his opponents.
In addition, for Moi to be in the ’NO’ (i.e. Orange) camp, more than a million or so votes from his Rift Valley province had been expected to vote NO. And they did just that.
However, a state of uncertainty now hangs over the country following the referendum’s verdict, and that was compounded on Wednesday when Kibaki sacked his entire cabinet in a move which political analysts say was unconstitutional,for two weeks until he selects a new team, the country will be without a government.
This notwithstanding, Kenya’s constitutional issue and the referendum that followed are rare in other parts of Africa.
We, in Tanzania have had a similar constitutional issue ? but a call for a new constitution has not yet been settled.
In any case, Kenya’s referendum debacle seems to have placed that country and Tanzania on the same platform ? both are lacking a new constitution, despite nearly 15 years into the multiparty system.
The similarity ends there. Kenya’s referendum issue has shown that the two EAC partner states are a world apart, despite their sharing a common border.
This is because our Kenyan brothers have proved to the world that they not only know what they want, but also they cannot tolerate any claptrap from any quarter, let alone from the government.
The big question is: Does the Kenyan experience mean anything to Tanzania?
www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2005/11/25/54704.html
2005-11-25 07:07:01
By Hilal K. Sued
It was clear right from the start that the country could not be cited as a good example in which the opposition could have done wonders after taking over power from a sitting government.
For there was a massive exodus of political figures from the old establishment into the opposition, or rather, into the coalition of parties that took over the reins of government, and whose sheer numbers could not have ensured any change.
That was in December 2002, during the third multiparty election (since these were reintroduced over 10 years ago), and in which the incumbent did not run.
This fact alone made the election a virtual toss up, but his own gaffe in picking up an unpopular ’successor’ to contest wrapped up the election outcome.
Clearly, Kenyans in 2002 voted with their heads rather than their hearts.
Last week, Kenyans were put to another big test ? the test whose outcome showed that what they decided three years previously did not commensurate with their expectations.
They soundly defeated the government-sponsored referendum on a new constitution ? a move that they have been fighting for in the last 15 years or so.
They defeated it because it was not what they wanted ? some politicians, with whom they ousted the previous dictatorial regime had tried to play games ? to usher in their own version of dictatorial regime.
It did not matter much to most Kenyans whether the 15 years struggle, most of it under the uncertainties of the tyrannical Moi rule went down the drain.
No new constitution for Kenya, that is what Kenyans said on Monday.
Clearly, the politicians are to blame, as they are to blame for virtually everything bad that goes in a country.
The new constitution that was struck out at the Bomas meeting two years ago and which would have passed like lightning in any referendum was hijacked by a few, its main articles subjected to some parliamentary amendments, renamed Wako Draft, and then put up to a national plebiscite.
The original Bomas constitution had shifted power from the largely unaccountable executive to the people themselves, that would have necessitated the sharing of that power with parliament, among others.
Many Kenyans queried the legality of the parliament to alter these main articles of the document that had been decided upon at a legally instituted Constitutional Review Commission.
Many also say that the referendum was an opinion poll for Kibaki’s three-year-old administration, a countrywide protest against his rule, and as a punishment for letting himself get surrounded by a group of his own ministers and other cronies who were all out to offer him the wrong advice at every turn.
In more respectable democratic societies, the verdict ought to have given him a signal to step down immediately and call up a snap election.
If anything, he is to blame for the big gamble he took, which, instead of turning into a much yearned reward, it became a humiliation.
Many are wondering why he had not sensed this from the start ? that he had it coming to him in a big way.
One may also ask why a message from a common Kiswahili axiom that literally translates into: ’It’s better to endure blames than humiliation’ did not cross his mind before he took the disastrous referendum plunge.
When in early 2003 Bush and Blair made up their minds to invade Iraq, and saw that the UN Security Council would have blocked their move if they referred the matter to it for consent, they decided to bypass the UN body.
They envisaged that they would be ready to endure much of the world’s condemnation than the humiliation of an imminent veto in the Security Council.
Perhaps Kibaki had banked too much on the magic power of incumbency, the stratagem used by many African leaders.
However the plan devastatingly failed to protect him and as a result the majority of Kenyans defied power and wealth of the State machinery to give him some sleepless nights for days to come.
Others say that Kibaki’s own lacklustre style of leadership was to blame, particularly his refusal to honour his part of agreement with his NARC partners, as well as his softness in dealing with some of his cronies who were clearly driving him into uncharted waters.
There were also the Raila and Moi factors, which Kibaki appeared to have disregarded. In the same way Raila played a key role in making Kibaki’s presidency possible three years ago, the shrewd politician was also a decisive factor in Kibaki’s referendum debacle. Many are asking why Kibaki had not seen that.
As for the Moi factor, it was clear that Kibaki had thought the former president would be in his camp.
After all, many thought that the removal from the original draft constitution the clauses that would have given the prime minister big powers would have lured Moi into the ’YES’ (i.e. Banana camp).
For it was believed that the former president would have not accepted the clauses that removed much power from the presidency, which he himself used successfully to tame his opponents.
In addition, for Moi to be in the ’NO’ (i.e. Orange) camp, more than a million or so votes from his Rift Valley province had been expected to vote NO. And they did just that.
However, a state of uncertainty now hangs over the country following the referendum’s verdict, and that was compounded on Wednesday when Kibaki sacked his entire cabinet in a move which political analysts say was unconstitutional,for two weeks until he selects a new team, the country will be without a government.
This notwithstanding, Kenya’s constitutional issue and the referendum that followed are rare in other parts of Africa.
We, in Tanzania have had a similar constitutional issue ? but a call for a new constitution has not yet been settled.
In any case, Kenya’s referendum debacle seems to have placed that country and Tanzania on the same platform ? both are lacking a new constitution, despite nearly 15 years into the multiparty system.
The similarity ends there. Kenya’s referendum issue has shown that the two EAC partner states are a world apart, despite their sharing a common border.
This is because our Kenyan brothers have proved to the world that they not only know what they want, but also they cannot tolerate any claptrap from any quarter, let alone from the government.
The big question is: Does the Kenyan experience mean anything to Tanzania?
www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2005/11/25/54704.html