Ruto is presenting the sponsors of plebiscite with tough choices

It is possible that a referendum to amend the Constitution will be attempted in 2019. The question of a referendum first came into public discussion after the surprise handshake, in March last year, between President Uhuru Kenyatta and opposition leader Raila Odinga and was immediately interpreted as forming the fine print in the mysterious agreement between the two.

At the start of his second term, there was already increasing evidence that Kenyatta had started cold-shouldering his deputy, William Ruto, a close companion of the president during Jubilee’s first term in office. When Ruto went missing from the handshake ceremony, this immediately gave rise to speculation that his position in Jubilee, once so secure, was now under threat. 

Since any referendum to amend the Constitution was seen as a way of furthering the new understanding between Kenyatta and Raila, it was assumed that such an amendment would invariably undermine Ruto’s interests and that, for this reason, Ruto would oppose the very idea of a referendum. However, the Deputy President has since stated that, in principle, he would not oppose a referendum if one was held.

At this point, the subject of whatever referendum may take place remains unclear and the process of framing the referendum question is also unclear. Whatever the content of the referendum, and whatever process is used to foist it on the country, it seems that the ground is being prepared for an all-encompassing political alliance, large enough to ensure the referendum is a runaway success.

It is unlikely that political elites would support such an alliance unless they will derive a personal benefit from it. What is being marketed as a need to amend the Constitution to increase “political inclusion” may, in fact, be political deal-making that would expand the executive with a view to accommodating as many elite interests as possible so that these in turn support the referendum.

Under the circumstances, one problem from which a referendum would suffer is how to differentiate between amendments whose purpose is to advance only the interests of the current elites from those that advance the public interest. For this reason, if the country ends up holding a referendum, its very legitimacy will remain in question as it may be impossible to assess its real motivations.

One issue that does not need the instigation of politicians to become a genuine question in any referendum is the future of devolution. While the country overwhelmingly supports devolution, there is also a growing view that the devolved units are too small to be viable and that on the current basis, the cost of government is not economical. According to this view, while devolution should be retained, it should also be restructured. Because this is the one issue which, in an eventual referendum, is likely to be debated in a considered manner, it is also the one issue that would give such a referendum some respectability, as all other issues are likely to be viewed as carrying hidden cards.

Oddly, while Ruto would otherwise support a referendum on any question, he has made it clear that the one issue that it should not include is amending the current arrangement regarding devolution. The Deputy President has specifically clarified that he would oppose a reduction of the number of counties into which Kenya is divided, or the number of wards that currently constitute counties.

Of all issues that he could oppose, why has the Deputy President selected the devolution question? By taking a position against altering the devolution arrangements, Ruto has implicitly recruited the support of the thousands of political actors who, because they participate at the lowest level of elective politics in the counties, have a vested interest in retaining the existing devolution arrangements. In the event that a reduction in the number of counties is proposed, it is likely that this category of politicians will oppose the referendum out of self-interest.

Ruto similarly opposed the referendum on what became of the 2010 Constitution. Throughout his campaign against the referendum, the reasons for his opposition remained unclear and in the end, constituted a propagandist misrepresentation of the actual contents of the draft constitution. Could it be that the Deputy President is preparing for a similar run as he did in 2010 and that he has selected what he knows would be a popular issue to take up with the public in opposition to the referendum?

Because of the position he has taken, Ruto is presenting the sponsors of any referendum with two choices, both difficult. The first choice would be to run a referendum that contains the devolution question and which would risk the backlash of the vested interests that Ruto is already inciting. The second choice is to run a referendum which, having excluded the devolution question because of its political risks, would be seen as vacuous and as serving only the interests of the current politicians.

- The writer is the Executive Director at KHRC. [email protected]