Post by Ed on Nov 7, 2005 9:01:32 GMT 3
Wako draft was distorted by politicians
Those familiar with constitutional affairs, will see that there is no problem with the Draft document.
However there could be some areas, which need to be reviewed or looked into later. But even then the document will not please everyone. The Draft is a document which should be regarded as the basic law of the country.
It is supposed to guide and limit the use of power in ruling the country. In this case, no single section of the document should supercede the other. It should be a balanced document.
Of course there has been hue and cry from various circles. But who are these people? But we all know that people of good brains right from those with basic education to professors, spent countless hours and mental resources at Bomas and finally Kilifi so as to come up with what we see today. Should this document win, how will it affect Kenyans? Should we move forward or backward in this process?
To answer this question one must look for evidence of any weakness, if any, in the document. But the people who have been advocating for the ‘No‘ vote have a lot to be desired. They are wealthy people who want to protect their wealth. The No leaning ministers together with a number of people around the country, are talking to people who have not even read or understood the document.
There are of course several angles to this issue. But the major issue is ‘Land and Property‘. This section has produced some of the loudest noise. Land as a factor of production is indisputable. Without proper ownership of land, one cannot start any development at all.
But the political situation in our country is basically supposed to protect private property and provide security for all. Each one of us is entitled to land for settlement and development. And the proposed constitution has proposed as much.
According to the Lands Minister, Amos Kimuya, it is evident that there are a number of people with disproportionately huge chunks of land. These people are panicking. But this state of affairs contributes to uneven wealth distribution. But this unevenness’ distribution may be attributed to the absence of proper land laws since independence.
There is the issue of ancestral or communal land. Whereas all the land could be government land, there is this touchy issue, especially, in Maasai land, which apparently accommodates game reserves and national parks. What do we do with this type of land? Many Kenyans could negatively affected if they do not read and understand the draft document.
And if they are just agitated to make the wrong decisions on the fateful day, they may later suffer. At the moment, Kenyans must be proud of what they have achieved over the years since independence in terms reasonably good economy and a good political culture.
Many communities are coming up with the same idea of ancestral land ownership. For example, the residents of Coastal strip of Kenya have had a land issue dating back from the 18th century. If you interview a cross section of residents in that area, they will tell you that they have been squatters ever since.
Then there is the simmering issue of ‘absentee landlords‘. But the proposed constitution has taken care of this problem in an equal manner to accommodate and please both parties.
The Maasai community is a bit sensitive as most or all the land in their three districts, belong to ancestors. The question is what will happen when this land gets to be owned and controlled by the government?
Many leaders find themselves in a tight corner as their positions in government could be jeopardized if they make wrong referendum decision.
What is the correct stand of leaders who were once in the opposition and now have been absorbed in government? They are required to support the government in the referendum but they face considerable pressure from their people.
Leaders, like William ole Ntimama, minister in the office of the President, has rejected the constitutional review due to such land matters. And he has told the community to reject the draft constitution saying, ‘given a plate of food which has a small bit of poison, will you eat that food?‘ To which the Maa community predictably replied,‘NO‘.
When NARK came to power, it promised a new constitution in 100 days. And Kenyans have been raising questions and this time round, they have been questioning the credibility of the government.
Was this meant to entice the suffrage to vote in the government and thereafter forget about everything promised all together? Or when they were campaigning, did they assess the achievability of their pledges?
How should the constitution affect the Kenyan society? The communities across the country have of course raised different opinions depending on how they feel directly affected. The economic and probable political impacts of the document are two crucial points prompting reactions. There are those who say the four tier devolved proposal which the Bomas endorsed can is unsustainable. That it’s needlessly too expensive.
Of course this perspective is countered by those who point out that the devolved system will allow for decentralised planning and depending on whether the centre is genuine in making devolution work or not, it will, like the CDF spur growth as panned by the people.
They point out to the current skewed wealth distribution and specifically last weeks graphic display of inequities which devolved system would address.
The worst thing about this exercise is that Kenyans have not really studied the draft document.
In part politicians are to blame and I have in mind situations where some people have been made to believe that since leaders they trust have said it is good or its is bad, the same has been their verdict.
What a shame for Kenyans to fight over what they don’t understand? There is very little time left and civic education has had almost nil impact in part because of the exercise being hijacked by political operatives whose interest in the document has been reduced to political contest.
Although, there have been complaints about the use of government resources during the referendum campaigns, it should be understood that the government naturally has an upper hand when it comes to such projects.
But there should be nothing intrinsically wrong with that except the way leading Banana crusaders who are accustomed to chest thumping made it sound.
Those familiar with constitutional affairs, will see that there is no problem with the Draft document.
However there could be some areas, which need to be reviewed or looked into later. But even then the document will not please everyone. The Draft is a document which should be regarded as the basic law of the country.
It is supposed to guide and limit the use of power in ruling the country. In this case, no single section of the document should supercede the other. It should be a balanced document.
Of course there has been hue and cry from various circles. But who are these people? But we all know that people of good brains right from those with basic education to professors, spent countless hours and mental resources at Bomas and finally Kilifi so as to come up with what we see today. Should this document win, how will it affect Kenyans? Should we move forward or backward in this process?
To answer this question one must look for evidence of any weakness, if any, in the document. But the people who have been advocating for the ‘No‘ vote have a lot to be desired. They are wealthy people who want to protect their wealth. The No leaning ministers together with a number of people around the country, are talking to people who have not even read or understood the document.
There are of course several angles to this issue. But the major issue is ‘Land and Property‘. This section has produced some of the loudest noise. Land as a factor of production is indisputable. Without proper ownership of land, one cannot start any development at all.
But the political situation in our country is basically supposed to protect private property and provide security for all. Each one of us is entitled to land for settlement and development. And the proposed constitution has proposed as much.
According to the Lands Minister, Amos Kimuya, it is evident that there are a number of people with disproportionately huge chunks of land. These people are panicking. But this state of affairs contributes to uneven wealth distribution. But this unevenness’ distribution may be attributed to the absence of proper land laws since independence.
There is the issue of ancestral or communal land. Whereas all the land could be government land, there is this touchy issue, especially, in Maasai land, which apparently accommodates game reserves and national parks. What do we do with this type of land? Many Kenyans could negatively affected if they do not read and understand the draft document.
And if they are just agitated to make the wrong decisions on the fateful day, they may later suffer. At the moment, Kenyans must be proud of what they have achieved over the years since independence in terms reasonably good economy and a good political culture.
Many communities are coming up with the same idea of ancestral land ownership. For example, the residents of Coastal strip of Kenya have had a land issue dating back from the 18th century. If you interview a cross section of residents in that area, they will tell you that they have been squatters ever since.
Then there is the simmering issue of ‘absentee landlords‘. But the proposed constitution has taken care of this problem in an equal manner to accommodate and please both parties.
The Maasai community is a bit sensitive as most or all the land in their three districts, belong to ancestors. The question is what will happen when this land gets to be owned and controlled by the government?
Many leaders find themselves in a tight corner as their positions in government could be jeopardized if they make wrong referendum decision.
What is the correct stand of leaders who were once in the opposition and now have been absorbed in government? They are required to support the government in the referendum but they face considerable pressure from their people.
Leaders, like William ole Ntimama, minister in the office of the President, has rejected the constitutional review due to such land matters. And he has told the community to reject the draft constitution saying, ‘given a plate of food which has a small bit of poison, will you eat that food?‘ To which the Maa community predictably replied,‘NO‘.
When NARK came to power, it promised a new constitution in 100 days. And Kenyans have been raising questions and this time round, they have been questioning the credibility of the government.
Was this meant to entice the suffrage to vote in the government and thereafter forget about everything promised all together? Or when they were campaigning, did they assess the achievability of their pledges?
How should the constitution affect the Kenyan society? The communities across the country have of course raised different opinions depending on how they feel directly affected. The economic and probable political impacts of the document are two crucial points prompting reactions. There are those who say the four tier devolved proposal which the Bomas endorsed can is unsustainable. That it’s needlessly too expensive.
Of course this perspective is countered by those who point out that the devolved system will allow for decentralised planning and depending on whether the centre is genuine in making devolution work or not, it will, like the CDF spur growth as panned by the people.
They point out to the current skewed wealth distribution and specifically last weeks graphic display of inequities which devolved system would address.
The worst thing about this exercise is that Kenyans have not really studied the draft document.
In part politicians are to blame and I have in mind situations where some people have been made to believe that since leaders they trust have said it is good or its is bad, the same has been their verdict.
What a shame for Kenyans to fight over what they don’t understand? There is very little time left and civic education has had almost nil impact in part because of the exercise being hijacked by political operatives whose interest in the document has been reduced to political contest.
Although, there have been complaints about the use of government resources during the referendum campaigns, it should be understood that the government naturally has an upper hand when it comes to such projects.
But there should be nothing intrinsically wrong with that except the way leading Banana crusaders who are accustomed to chest thumping made it sound.