There were two articles in the Star last week about changing the Constitution that prompted me to change my previously planned topic.
One (by Lawi Sultan Njeremani on February 26 ) proposed that the solution to our problems was to detach many offices/roles from politics.
The other (by Ochieng’ Kanyadudi on Feb 28 ) wanted the Nadco report to be fully adopted.
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
Our current system – a structure based on that of the USA and forced upon Kenyans by a parliamentary select committee (not by the Committee of Experts, Kanyadudi) – is perceived to be a “winner takes all” system and a common feature in change proposals is to give roles to people who lost elections.
Both authors would like a Prime Minister.
Njeremani wants a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister (I assume - he does not use the phrase) from the majority party, and a head of state directly elected by the people but not on party basis.
This is basically the system proposed by the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission and retained until the PSC changed it in 2010. It is the system still favoured by Anyang’ Nyong’o (now Kisumu governor) – and indeed I would personally probably prefer it.
But there are many issues that would have to be resolved including the risk of frequent votes of no confidence.
Nadco (currently before Parliament) would have a PM to assist the president and deputy in coordination, supervision and implementation of government programmes and “coordinate government’s legislative agenda across departments”.
In an earlier article I said “This would be probably the weakest ‘prime ministerial’ position in the world.
It is fundamentally like the position held by Mudavadi: an opportunity for a President to give special recognition to a politician who has brought substantial benefits in terms of votes.”
Nadco would also have a “Leader of the Opposition”. But while the BBI’s constitutional amendment Bill would have made both of these people MPs, the Nadco Bill does not.
But Kanyadudi goes on to praise the Russian and French systems. In the French system the PM is a member of Parliament.
The Russian PM is not, though he or she must be approved by the parliament.
Generally, the Russian PM is subordinate to the president (a bit like the Tanzanian and Ugandan and our Prime Cabinet Secretary) while the French PM will work happily with the president if they are both from the same party, but there can be tension if they are not.
Some have said that this system of “cohabitation” only works because membership of the European Union means that they must work together.
Remember the “nusu mkate” government – Raila and Kibaki in the same government because of the post-election violence of 2007-8? It was generally felt not to work well. Two halves never made a nutritious loaf.
APOLITICAL ROLES
Apart from the apolitical president, Njeremani wants other posts to be freed from government and political input and pressure, including the IEBC (and a separate boundaries commission – a good idea) the treasury and the military – not headed by the president.
Yes – but! We already have a system that is intended to create an IEBC that is not closely tied to politicians.
We have seen what happens. The reality is that our independent commissions, especially those with politically important roles - struggle to remain independent.
Even if they begin by being independent, the temptations to be placed before them by politicians determined to get into office by whatever means are not easy to resist.
Corruption rots almost all Kenyan institutions. Someone has to appoint them.
Who would do it? Whatever system you have for appointments, there must be some accountability to the people of Kenya.
I fear there is not one sort of person who becomes a politician and another sort of person who would be available for these delinked agencies.
OUR PROBLEMS
Though there are things in the constitution that could, I believe, be changed for the better I strongly believe that changing it will not produce radical change in our political life.
Politicians are used to working in particular ways and they will continue to do so.
And they will simply operate new rules as though they are the old rules – as they do now.
It is common to suggest that our fundamental problem is that people get excluded from government.
It is though they want a one-party state. Kenya has been there, done that and moved away from it constitutionally in 1991. I (and this is my own perception) see several interlinked issues.
MEDIOCRITY
Governing is hard work. But far too much effort is devoted to trying to stay in office, not by doing a good job of governing but by continued electioneering.
Governing means more than rallies and theatrical events.
Even if good ideas are developed, a lot of effort must go into study of what the problems are they are supposed to deal with, how best to carry out the new ideas, enough time to make sure they are properly crafted, consideration of possible negative effects, what are the costs of doing it and not doing it and so on.
Has competence – in governing, not in politicking – ever been really important in the choice of Kenyan heads of government? Government does not value expertise – turning important posts like diplomats and principal secretaries into political prizes.
Incompetence has blighted Kenyan government – look at the appalling mess over the competency-based curriculum, Social Health Authority, university funding and too many others.
Public participation should improve things –including by slowing down decision making and giving more chance for proper consideration, as well as by useful public input.
Instead, it is not used, especially, I suspect, when it would reveal things our “leaders” would rather conceal. One hope is that Kenyans will see from some county governors that competent government can be of benefit to the people.
WE HAVE NO PARTIES
You might think we have too many. But they are not political parties; they are support groups for individuals to get into office. Our parties rarely have any serious philosophy.
Sometimes their manifestoes are developed by consultants. And who reads them? Proper political parties can operate as training grounds for competent politicians.
But not here. And politicians will ally with people whose morality and competence are doubtful just to get their vote banks’ support.
It’s all about them – not the people. According to Kanyadudi, you have to be ambitious to want to be a politician anywhere.
But our politicians or prospective politicians are desperate for office. We pay them too much.
They use part of it to buy electoral support. Candidates are reluctant to believe they have lost. To back up their personal ambitions they stir up ethnic tensions.
DISAGREEMENT IS HEALTHY
One of the problems about a one-party state is that it prevents a variety of ideas developing.
Democracy means making space for ideas and disagreement. Institutionalising some sort of nusu mkate system diminishes the scope for new ideas and reasoned criticism.
But people in Kenya are not elected on the basis of their ideas. They do not have an intellectual or even practical basis for examining complex government proposals.
Many would rather get kudos from influencing decisions to build things or give scholarships that don’t require much effort on their part, through schemes like the CDF.
Of course not everyone fits my jaundiced portrait.
But I believe that attitudes and practices are so ingrained that changing the constitution is unlikely to have much impact.
In the end, the best hope is that the people will say, “We have had enough, we don’t want your petty bribes and exciting rallies - we want you to govern properly. And in accordance with the constitution.”
