ODM Dithers and Dawdles on Reforms
By Tegi Obanda
According to newspaper reports (E.A Standard May 9, 2006), the Orange Democratic Party (ODM) has compiled its report on the changes that they believe “Kenyans want in the new Constitution.”
A committee chaired by Emuhaya MP Kenneth Marende, sat for two months discussing issues raised during the referendum last year. Members included Otieno Kajwang, Lucas Maitha, Daudi Mwanzia, and Franklin Bett from LDP, and Billow Kerrow, Joseph Nkaiserry, Justin Muturi, Jim Choge, and Marsden Madoka from Kanu. Also in the team were Wycliffe Oparanya (Ford Kenya), James Omingo Magara (Ford People), Peter Kubebea (Labour Party of Kenya), and Martin Shikuku of Katiba Watch.
From Marende and his team, the first question that comes to mind is do they mean the changes that they (the ODM) want or the changes that Kenyans want? For if it is the latter, then the next question is, how do they know what Kenyans want?
Further, Marende is reported as saying that they “expect to meet the appointing authority so that we can restart the review process in earnest. The team will then come up with a proposed constitution to be sold at public rallies.” Which is this appointing authority, and who is the “we” to start the review process? What authority do they have to restart the process, and who gave them that authority in the first place, the referendum?
In their own words, the ODM team do not have an action plan. Yet, they are planning to “come up with a proposed constitution to be sold at public rallies.” They want to develop a draft. Is this not just another Wako draft in the making?
As if this is not enough, the committee says they “received advice from five experts and reduced potential contentious issues to two in its final report.”
Who are these experts, and what are they experts in? Do they have expertise in reading the minds of 30 million Kenyans? Regarding the contentious issues, the first question is who determined the contentiousness? Secondly, how were they reduced to two, and why two? How did they eliminate the rest of contentious issues?
Let’s face it, the ODM team has not broken new ground, other than that it has reduced an undisclosed number of contentious issues to two. In other words, it is now clear why members of the ODM have been bashful in presenting their views to the Kiplagat team- they had nothing to present. For if they went to the Kiplagat team and said that they had reduced the contentious issues to two, they would have looked utterly ludicrous in front of Kenyans. What Kenyans wanted to hear were suggestions on process not content. Furthermore, reducing the contentious issues to two or even to zero is not the function of any one group, but the right of all Kenyans.
No group, in or out of parliament, has the mandate to usurp the people’s right to contend over contentious issues. We must remember that the sources of these issues are Kenyans themselves, and therefore no one has the right to begin striking them off at their own discretion. Merely doing so does not make the issues miraculously disappear.
There are only two legitimate theatres of operation, in as far as dealing with contentious issues. The first concerns the raising of contentious issues, which should be done in civic education workshops, involving all citizens and capturing their views. The second concerns the striking down (resolving) of contentious issues, and this is done in a national referendum, based on contentious issues only.
Since the 2005 referendum, the ODM has been insisting that the people, in voting against the unpalatable Wako draft, were actually voting for them. Immediately after the referendum, instead of spearheading, or even simply supporting civil society in the struggle for reforms, they started calling for snap elections - under the current constitution!
It is now clear that in their short-term quest for power, the ODM has become an obstacle to constitutional reforms. They want to inherit power under the current undemocratic constitution. Their strategy was to use the reforms merely as an election tool.
It is prudent to remind the ODM that more and more Kenyans are crossing over to the position that the constitution must be reformed before another election, so that the next government can be accountable and transparent.
Those who want to be elected should therefore be at the forefront of championing reforms now. But that in itself is not enough. After the reforms, each political grouping is going to be expected to lay down their vision for a new Kenya.
It is that vision, and not the 2005 referendum results, that is going to determine which group Kenyans are going to give the mandate to govern them. It would also be beneficial to the ODM MPs and all MPs in the ninth parliament to note that if they think that the people are going to vote uncritically en block like in 2002, then they have shock after shock waiting for them.
Each MP will have to explain to the electorate what, besides increasing their salaries and monopolizing decisions on CDF, he/she has done regarding constitutional reform, poverty reduction, fighting corruption, combating tribalism, defending the people’s rights regarding titanium-mining and Yala swamp draining etc.
We urge Hon. Marende and his group to read the CCR roadmap presented to the Committee of Eminent Persons at KICC on April 19, 2006. They can download it in .PDF format at
www.madaraka-kenya.org/Roadmap%20for%20constitutional%20reform%20before%202007%20elections.pdf.
Once they read it, they will educate themselves on the five important factors that have to be put into account on the way forward. First is the process through which the constitution is going to be enacted. The second factor is the content - mainly how the contentious issues are gong to be resolved.
The third factor is the time-frame. Kenyans want a new constitution now, not tomorrow; they want the reforms before another government can be installed again in Kenya. The fourth factor is that the process has to be people-driven. Thus, any notion of making a draft like Wako’s draft is a recipe for chaos which must be nipped in the bud at the earliest opportunity. Lastly, the process has to be cost-effective.
In conclusion, the ODM roadmap, if it can be called a roadmap, fails to address the process leading to enactment. They are silent on how the content is going to be agreed upon by Kenyans. In fact they are a potential source of proliferated intransigence when they unilaterally reduce contentious issues, and more so, when they unbelievably suggest that they will make a draft of their own, and then run around the country selling it to the people.
Not only does the ODM report fail the test of timeliness, it does not address the issue of the possible continuing waste of taxpayers’ money on an already near-complete process. But more so, this report exposes the essence of what the ODM group is really all about. Their claim to be interested in constitutional reform is nothing but a stratagem to gain power under the current constitution. The ODM’s professed dedication to the liberation of Kenya is a sham.
Since the referendum, the ODM has been close-fisted, claiming that within their closed fist resides a plan for reforms. The Marende report has demonstrated to Kenyans that the hand remained closed because there was nothing in it. That is because theirs is roadmap to nowhere.
Tegi Obanda
Ottawa Canada