Referendum is more about Big three than you

The 2005 and the 2010 referenda, featuring Mwai Kibaki and Raila Amolo Odinga as political rivals, produced two different and ultimately unsatisfactory results that explain the current agitation for another constitutional referendum.

The two had ganged up in 2002 through a power-sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whose intent was to make the presidency ceremonial and hand power to an unelected Executive Prime Minister. The base line was/is individualistic as to which political heavyweight gets what power and has little to do with the content of the document.

The key personality in the first two referenda and the current agitation was, and is, Raila and his virtual politico-emotional magnetic grip on sections of Kenyans. He set the tone in the 2005 divisive referendum, between oranges and bananas, which had little to do with the “constitutional” document.

For different political reasons, neither Kibaki nor Raila wanted the document to pass. It reduced the powers of the president and created a selected prime minister without enough powers to overshadow an elected president. Since Raila had read the document and he did not like it, so his die-hard followers argued, there was no need of reading before rejecting it.

Although the 2005 referendum was destructive to the national interest, it boosted the political fortunes of Raila and gave additional leverage to extra-continental powers on Kenyan matters. This leverage became clear in the series of events that culminated in the 2010 referendum. They included the chaotic 2007 elections, the nusu-mkate government that was virtually a replica of a 2002 Kibaki-Raila MOU on power sharing and a rehash of the rejected 2005 document, and the open intrusion of the Euro powers on Kenyan affairs.

The nusu-mkate experience in governance and the fact that Kibaki was no longer a candidate affected the drafting of the 2010 Constitution. Kibaki and Raila once again ganged up in the 2010 referendum on a document that was seemingly designed to make Raila president after Kibaki. The document restructured institutions to Raila’s liking, in particular the electoral body, and it passed despite reservations.

It would seem that since the 2010 Constitution failed to deliver the presidency to Raila twice, in 2013 and 2017, new agitations for constitutional changes keep cropping up. The Ahmed Issack Hassan-led electoral commission, having replaced the Samuel Kivuitu -led ECK, was bundled out of office through accusations of eating chicken and not delivering expected electoral outcomes. There followed the fractious Wafula Chebukati team.

Ongeza or punguza?

The third referendum appears certain because there is convergence of heavyweight agreement. Uhuru, Ruto, and Raila appear to agree that it should happen and showed unity at Joseph Kamaru’s funeral. They, however, are not in agreement on what should change. Debate on change has given rise to two competing camps, the Ongeza and the Punguza. The Ongeza team wants to have additional executive positions and to create super counties to cater for power groups. Its slogan is inclusivity. The Punguza team’s slogan is Punda Amechoka. It rides on public anger over the rising cost of living and the wastefulness/graft of the bloated national and county governing organs.

Whether in the Ongeza or Punguza teams there are obstacles to overcome, starting with the logistical challenge. For credibility and acceptance, as the ANC’s Musalia Mudavadi insists, the Chubakati team must go. One way would be to pay Chebukati handsomely, the Ahmed Issack Hassan-way. Second is the money in times of financial crunch. Chebukati wants Sh12 billion to run the referendum, but the actual cost is likely to be around Sh30 billion to cater for political runarounds.

Third would be the possible shelfing of other national activities such as the required census in 2019 and thus virtually amend the Constitution through failure to perform.

Uhuru, Ruto, and Raila are critical to the governance restructuring talk. Whether to expand the Executive with many deputies in a ceremonial presidency and powerful PM’s office will depend on the perceived interests of the Big Three. Raila will set the tone which- if he is not gratified- will set the stage for the next phase of “referendum” entertainment.

Prof Munene teaches History and International Relations at USIU; [email protected]