Post by uk on Nov 7, 2005 4:22:07 GMT 3
Constitution: It's for the nation, not tribe
by UHURU KENYATTA
Publication Date: 11/6/2005
This will be the first time a referendum is to be held in Kenya and as such we are entering uncharted waters. But a dangerous trend is emerging where Kenyans are being divided on tribal lines, a trend that will adversely affect our inter-ethnic relations going into the future.
In this vein, there much has been much about the politics of Central Province vis-a-vis my stand on the proposed Constitution and how the outcome will affect my political future. The proponents of the Yes vote are trying to create the impression that the referendum is a fight between Hon Raila Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki – or, by extension, between the Kikuyu and Luo peoples – and Central Province should, therefore, rally to the defence of one of their own, President Kibaki. That being the premise, they are pushing the absurd notion that any one from Central Kenya opposing the proposed Constitution is a traitor to the common cause; the name Uhuru Kenyatta tops their list in that category.
After assuming the role of the Official leader of the Opposition, we stated that we would not oppose the Government for the sake of opposing and will be an opposition loyal to the people of Kenya. We have lived up to that promise. We have supported the Government on issues we considered to be of national interest and opposed where we felt that they have gone against the national interest. We were instrumental in passing various pieces of legislation on anti-corruption; And we have opposed and challenged the Government on several issues including emerging corruption, especially in regard to the Anglo Leasing scandal.
We constructively participated in the National Constitutional Conference at Bomas of Kenya with this mindset. When the two factions of Narc engaged one another over the Constitution, we, as the Official Opposition, took up the role of peacemakers. We could have easily poured fuel on the fire, but we upheld our commitment to be a constructive opposition. Even after the Government walked out of Bomas, we took the initiative to broker a meeting that resulted in a settlement dubbed the Naivasha Accord. Unfortunately, the Government reneged on this agreement and this is where the problems began.
It is now clear that the Government was not interested in finding consensus or in acceding to the people’s demands, but in pushing a Constitution favourable to themselves. They reconstituted the Parliamentary Select Committee on constitutional review to include government-friendly MPs, grabbed the chairmanship illegally and ran off to Kilifi where they, unilaterally, doctored and altered the Bomas Draft into the document presently peddled as the proposed Constitution.
In so doing they violated the principal reason for constitutional reform in two ways. In the first place, due process is a fundamental tenet in constitution making. One cannot make a constitution to the exclusion of the rest of the people, more so in an illegal way. Secondly, the main concern of Kenyans was to reduce presidential power and devolve power and resources to the grassroots. They did the complete opposite when they doctored the Bomas Draft.
If one took a look at the views from collected around the country by the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, one would find that every single constituency in Kenya complained about the excessive powers vested in the presidency and the lack of access by the common people to resources and power. This should and must be principally addressed in any new Constitution. Any other matter, no matter how good, is secondary and subsidiary to this. An example can be seen in the way removal of Section 2A, which was barely one per cent of the Constitution, achieved that giant leap from a de jure one-party State to the present multi-party democracy.
The biggest lie being peddled is that the powers of the presidency have been reduced. There is no need to go into all the articles of the Constitution to see that. Just like a single Section 2A barred multi-party democracy, Article 142 of the proposed Constitution states: "The executive authority of the Republic is vested in the President." The enormity of this can be understood by looking at the current Constitution. It says, at Section 23: "The executive authority of the Government of Kenya shall vest in the President and, subject to this Constitution, may be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him."
Clearly, the current Constitution qualifies the power vested in the President by subjecting it to the Constitution. Why would those who are doctoring the Bomas Draft not subject the President’s power to the Constitution? Are they creating extra-constitutional powers for the President?
This section alone is enough to enhance presidential powers over and above what they are today.
On principle alone I will oppose the proposed Constitution regardless of who else opposes or supports it. Is it not my duty as a leader to stand on principle, not to be myopic and look for what is best to enhance my political career? Ultimately, what is best for the nation, is best for us all no matter how it looks like in the short run.
Let us be very clear on one point, the referendum is about principles, not about tribes. My position is clear; anything that is not in the national interest, no matter which tribe believes it is good for them, must be opposed and defeated, more so if it could lead to further divisions in our multi-ethnic country.
If I am called a traitor for this stance, so be it. Let those with a myopic vision peddle their ideas and those who stand on principle stand for what is right and then let history judge us all.
Mr Kenyatta is the Leader of the Official Opposition and supports the No vote.
by UHURU KENYATTA
Publication Date: 11/6/2005
This will be the first time a referendum is to be held in Kenya and as such we are entering uncharted waters. But a dangerous trend is emerging where Kenyans are being divided on tribal lines, a trend that will adversely affect our inter-ethnic relations going into the future.
In this vein, there much has been much about the politics of Central Province vis-a-vis my stand on the proposed Constitution and how the outcome will affect my political future. The proponents of the Yes vote are trying to create the impression that the referendum is a fight between Hon Raila Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki – or, by extension, between the Kikuyu and Luo peoples – and Central Province should, therefore, rally to the defence of one of their own, President Kibaki. That being the premise, they are pushing the absurd notion that any one from Central Kenya opposing the proposed Constitution is a traitor to the common cause; the name Uhuru Kenyatta tops their list in that category.
After assuming the role of the Official leader of the Opposition, we stated that we would not oppose the Government for the sake of opposing and will be an opposition loyal to the people of Kenya. We have lived up to that promise. We have supported the Government on issues we considered to be of national interest and opposed where we felt that they have gone against the national interest. We were instrumental in passing various pieces of legislation on anti-corruption; And we have opposed and challenged the Government on several issues including emerging corruption, especially in regard to the Anglo Leasing scandal.
We constructively participated in the National Constitutional Conference at Bomas of Kenya with this mindset. When the two factions of Narc engaged one another over the Constitution, we, as the Official Opposition, took up the role of peacemakers. We could have easily poured fuel on the fire, but we upheld our commitment to be a constructive opposition. Even after the Government walked out of Bomas, we took the initiative to broker a meeting that resulted in a settlement dubbed the Naivasha Accord. Unfortunately, the Government reneged on this agreement and this is where the problems began.
It is now clear that the Government was not interested in finding consensus or in acceding to the people’s demands, but in pushing a Constitution favourable to themselves. They reconstituted the Parliamentary Select Committee on constitutional review to include government-friendly MPs, grabbed the chairmanship illegally and ran off to Kilifi where they, unilaterally, doctored and altered the Bomas Draft into the document presently peddled as the proposed Constitution.
In so doing they violated the principal reason for constitutional reform in two ways. In the first place, due process is a fundamental tenet in constitution making. One cannot make a constitution to the exclusion of the rest of the people, more so in an illegal way. Secondly, the main concern of Kenyans was to reduce presidential power and devolve power and resources to the grassroots. They did the complete opposite when they doctored the Bomas Draft.
If one took a look at the views from collected around the country by the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, one would find that every single constituency in Kenya complained about the excessive powers vested in the presidency and the lack of access by the common people to resources and power. This should and must be principally addressed in any new Constitution. Any other matter, no matter how good, is secondary and subsidiary to this. An example can be seen in the way removal of Section 2A, which was barely one per cent of the Constitution, achieved that giant leap from a de jure one-party State to the present multi-party democracy.
The biggest lie being peddled is that the powers of the presidency have been reduced. There is no need to go into all the articles of the Constitution to see that. Just like a single Section 2A barred multi-party democracy, Article 142 of the proposed Constitution states: "The executive authority of the Republic is vested in the President." The enormity of this can be understood by looking at the current Constitution. It says, at Section 23: "The executive authority of the Government of Kenya shall vest in the President and, subject to this Constitution, may be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him."
Clearly, the current Constitution qualifies the power vested in the President by subjecting it to the Constitution. Why would those who are doctoring the Bomas Draft not subject the President’s power to the Constitution? Are they creating extra-constitutional powers for the President?
This section alone is enough to enhance presidential powers over and above what they are today.
On principle alone I will oppose the proposed Constitution regardless of who else opposes or supports it. Is it not my duty as a leader to stand on principle, not to be myopic and look for what is best to enhance my political career? Ultimately, what is best for the nation, is best for us all no matter how it looks like in the short run.
Let us be very clear on one point, the referendum is about principles, not about tribes. My position is clear; anything that is not in the national interest, no matter which tribe believes it is good for them, must be opposed and defeated, more so if it could lead to further divisions in our multi-ethnic country.
If I am called a traitor for this stance, so be it. Let those with a myopic vision peddle their ideas and those who stand on principle stand for what is right and then let history judge us all.
Mr Kenyatta is the Leader of the Official Opposition and supports the No vote.