Intolerant name calling show can’t be referendum debate

The tail does not wag the dog. It is the other way round, the dog wags the tail. It is convoluted logic - basically subterfuge - when you want to walk on the head rather than use your legs. This is where the diatribe that disguises itself as a “referendum debate” in Kenya belongs.

It is diatribe because nobody is listening to anybody else. One morning, someone wakes up and shouts that there is going to be a national referendum on the Constitution. Like frogs, the rest of the country is expected to croak along that “Yes, there will be a referendum.” If you say no, they scream your name all over the place, saying that they have seen you with the devil.

An intolerant name calling exercise cannot be a debate. The one thing that informs debate are rules. The other one is that there is a clear motion. Third, is that the debaters on both sides are clearly known. Then there is an umpire who ensures that we are playing according to the rules. We are time framed and we play strictly according to the rules. Anything outside this is either child’s play, or outright dictatorship.

In the case of the tail attempting to wag the dog, ODM leader, Raila Odinga, emerged from his fabled handshake with President Uhuru Kenyatta to declare -without method, rhyme or rhythm - that Kenya would soon be going to a referendum to change the Constitution. He spoke in general and vague terms. There would be created a new layer of government. Existing counties would be merged into clusters to form regional governments. There would be 14 of them, he told the Devolution Conference in Kakamega, in April.

Heavy questions

Where would this leave the counties as we know them today? Would we still continue to have governors, exercising the mandate that they do? Would we still have county assemblies, the Senate and other institutions that support devolved government? To what extent would roles change? Would the new regional governments have cabinets? Would there be regional legislatures at the new level? Where would such assemblies leave county assemblies as we know them today?

How would the proposed arrangement affect the Public Finance Act? How would it affect the other existing Acts on devolution, and allied institutions? What of the relationship between Devolved Government and the National Government as defined in the Constitution?

These are heavy questions. They require sober reflection and a structured national dialogue. So, too, are questions on the structure of the Executive. The thought has been floated in the National Super Alliance (NASA) Coalition Agreement that we should reintroduce the office of Prime Minister with two Deputies. There is also the thinking that there should be two Deputy Presidents. What would be the merits and demerits in these proposals?

There is a dangerous class of people who have abdicated their responsibility. This is the class that we have educated to think for us. When stuff like this comes up, we expect that this class could make inroads into issues, break them down and help us to digest them. Instead we see it shouting loudly in support or opposition, depending solely on who has floated the idea. The soundness of propositions cannot be determined solely by their authorship. Surely, there must be such a thing as immanent merit - something that cannot be dismembered from the idea?

For now, it appears that Kenya is going to have a referendum on whether there should be a referendum or not. This seems to be the question. We appear to be set to have a referendum on referendum. After that, maybe, we could begin looking around for what the referendum should be about. This is the messy kind of situation a nation drives itself into when people surrender their right to think to some dreaded individuals.

Going nowhere

Going forward, President Kenyatta must set a sober agenda and tempo for Kenya. He alone has the mandate and the instruments to give the country a sober national conversation. For a start, he should swallow his phlegm and accept that after the fabled handshake he got it wrong. His bridge building initiative with Raila is dead meat. It is going nowhere, for it is at best a private forum for two traditional rival families that have now entered into a ceasefire agreement.

Having recognised the false start, the President may want to restart the process. A constitutional conference and subsequent path along the Bomas of Kenya model is the way to go. In the end, we must isolate the issues, to know which ones are referenda issues and which are not. For now, we are just making noise. We did so before, until December 2007 when we woke up.

 

- The writer is a strategic public communications adviser.  www.barrackmuluka.co.ke