Why it's time to re-look the 2010 Constitution

The new constitution was promulgated on August 27, 2010, by the former president, Mwai Kibaki. [File, Standard]

The Constitution is the result of negotiation and compromise. Kenyans, primarily professionals and politicians, negotiated the 2010 Constitution, which was adopted by 68 per cent of Kenyans.

Various entities and individuals have termed it a progressive, most notably because of its bold steps on human rights and mechanisms to achieve them through a bold judicial system.

It also introduced a local governing system that brought resources closer to the people, and was generally explicit on most issues, but some issues, such as presidential elections, remained with the system of individuals regrouping and asking for votes.

The recent elections were the third General Election under the 2010 Constitution. The voting pattern and incentive for voting remained unchanged from before its adoption, namely tribal affiliation and money. The presidential election has remained a popular vote affair with enormous power.

From the presidency to the local level (counties), the political system has remained a club of few, with inclusion limited to parts of the Constitution such as article 10.

I believe it is time for Kenyans to reconsider the mode in which they elect their president, to one that allows for dialogue and professionalism, rather than who is popular and has campaign money. Politicians change position and political parties the way they like.

The drafters excluded the official opposition spaces and possibly replaced them with independent offices and commissions, which cannot provide complete checks and balances because the heads are presidential appointees. This has shifted the burden of opposition to those willing to play the country's checks and balances.

Key national institutions have largely remained extractive and accumulation of wealth are the story of few connected political business persons. Though the Constitution made political parties public institutions and budget provided for, it has remained the same just a tool for election, each general election Kenya has a different ruling party with almost same faces leading, promising the same.

It is difficult to follow political party laws because it would be like going to your own funeral. Political party legislations are therefore among the many laws passed by Parliament that they are unable to implement. The devolved system experiences deficiencies, just like political parties. The county assemblies are becoming little more than waiting rooms for the executive to assign them tasks.

Most assemblies have probably only approved the executive's proposed departmental and regulatory laws. Furthermore, the counties simply cannot satisfy the budgetary timelines and policy documents like CIDP that are required under the Public Finance Management regulations, which makes it another flawed law. Although the PFM Act claims that the county assembly is the body responsible for approving the budget with or without amendment, on the other hand the PFM regulations takes it away by limiting the assemblies to amend the budget. In addition, the county assembly is subject to time constraints on many policy proposals such as County Fiscal Strategy Paper and others. These limitations have created legal barriers that tend to give a role at the same limit and to that extent the executives have used as an opportunity to present document just on the deadline.

Other shortcomings for counties include the fact that disbursements are never made on time and are likely utilised to punish the governors. The Treasury is like the owner of the ball on the playground; they can decide who gets the disbursement or not. Working for the county government is a nightmare for professionals, except for a few prepared for salary delays and inadequacy of other benefits such as medical cover due to late or non-remittance.

-Twitter: @ItsMaalim