It will be remembered that the agitation for a new constitution kicked off way back in the early 1990s. Well heeled proponents of the status quo, however, ensured that attempts to enact a new and progressive constitution consistently came a cropper. Those who advocated for the new supreme law became marked men and women. Untold torture and state sanctioned violence was unleashed on such. Some were even banished into exile and branded renegades.
This explains the jubilation that greeted the passage of the new law. Touted as one of the most liberal and progressive constitutions in Africa and even beyond, the Kenyan constitution is, nonetheless, not beyond reproach. Few will refute the fact that the Committee of Experts, the body that was charged with the onerous responsibility of drafting the constitution, did a splendid job.
There are, nonetheless, areas in which the document came short of the expectations of Kenyans. There's unanimity among Kenyans that one of the ills afflicting Kenya is negative ethnicity. Most of the economic, political and social challenges gripping Kenya have their genesis in negative ethnicity. In fact this is the main reason why many Kenyans still buy into the fallacious and erroneous belief that if an individual from their community ascends to the presidency, he or she will, in no time, wave a magic wand and all the problems beleaguering the president's community will dissipate.
Consequently Kenyans are saddled with a situation where the presidency is the most sought after office in the country. Every ethnic group, especially the major ones, would do anything to put one of their own in State House. This has seen communities rise up against those seen to be standing in their way to the presidency. As a matter of fact, the infamous 2007/08 post-election violence which drove Kenya to the brink of the precipice sprang out of a ferocious contest for the presidency.
Hitherto there are Kenyans still seething with resentment that community A or B either scuttled or is out to derail the ascendancy of one of their own to the presidency. Other communities live in constant fear that if someone from a certain tribe, say tribe C, were to clinch the presidency, their investments, properties and other resources will be destroyed or will be taken away from them. Some communities even believe that some of the contenders for the presidency are brimming with bitterness and want to revenge some ills perpetrated on them in the past.
Consequently they do everything within their ability to ensure that someone from the feared tribe doesn't come anywhere near the presidency. It is this issue of the presidency that the Kenyan constitution doesn't adequately address. It is true that unlike the previous constitution which foisted on Kenyans an imperial presidency, the new constitution has significantly cut down the president's powers.
It is also true that the constitution affords all qualified Kenyans the right to vie for the presidency. This right, however, falls far short of addressing the challenges associated with the presidency. A mechanism whereby the presidency rotates among different communities would clearly play a significant role in lessening the pressure surrounding this coveted office. As things stand now it is possible for one community to produce successive presidents. All that it takes is astutely mooted alliances and one community will perpetuate its hold on the presidency.
But if reality is anything to go by, the situation where presidents consistently come from one community is quite unpopular with the vast majority of Kenyans. While it gives the community producing the presidents a false sense of entitlement to the country's top leadership, it leaves other communities feeling alienated from the country's leadership and fuming with resentment. The outcome of this state of affairs has been flare ups of ethnic skirmishes especially during electioneering periods. This is also the reason why many Kenyans put their votes where they think their son or daughter will either be the president or as near the presidency as possible. That has happened in the just concluded general election and unless measures to rectify it are put in place, it is bound to happen again in days to come.
An arrangement where the presidency rotates among the different communities will, in all likelihood, appreciably ease this tension and bring about a more rational pattern of electing leaders. Admittedly implementing such arrangement will not be devoid of challenges granted that Kenya is home to 42 ethnic groups. But it will be foolhardy for Kenyans to resign themselves to fate and accept the awful fights surrounding the presidency as their lot. That will be a defeatist mentality which inimical to the well being of the country and should be rejected.
In Nigeria, though not codified, such an arrangement is in place. The presidency rotates between the Christian dominated south and the Islamic northern part of the country. Nigerians know that if the current president hails from the south then the next one should be from the North. True, there have been exceptions to this unwritten rule but to a large extent it has been observed.
Borrowing from the Nigerian example, Kenya can be partitioned in, say four major regions inhabited by different ethnic communities. A clause to the effect that the presidency should rotate among these four regions can be inserted in the constitution. To ensure that it doesn't take eons before a region produces a president, the presidential terms can be reduced to a one five-year or seven-year term. This will see to it that within a few years each region produces a president.
Alternatively since the deputy presidency is also an immensely powerful office it can be agreed that if the president comes from region A, the deputy president should be either from region B, C or D. The next set of leaders, that's the president and deputy president should be from the other two regions that didn't produce any of the two top government officials in the previous dispensation. This is not to suggest that competence should be compromised at the altar of regional balance. In this time and age nearly all, if not all, the Kenyan communities boast of properly schooled and highly competent people. It is from these qualified people that the president and deputy president should be chosen.
The same strategy can be employed in sharing out key public offices such as the office of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the Speakers of the Senate and Parliament among others. The recent move by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission to reduce the president's remuneration is also a step in the right direction. Part of the reasons why the presidency is ferociously fought for is the handsome perks traditionally associated with the office. But with a reduced monthly pay, many would think twice before going for the seat.
In the meantime Kenyans should be disabused of the notion that having someone from a specific community serving as president automatically translates to economic, social and political prosperity for the president's ethnic group. Kenya has so far had three presidents. A cursory look at their backyards does not in anyway paint a picture of massive success. Kenyans will even recall watching on TV an elder sister of one of the three presidents we've had so far living in abject poverty.
The best that a president can do is to help put in place policies that will afford all and sundry an environment to create wealth. The onus then rests on Kenyans to exploit such an environment by working their way out of poverty. Those who fail to work hard even if they hail from the president's backyard will most certainly remain steeped in poverty.
This article was published in the Star Newspaper on March 9,2013
No comments:
Post a Comment