BBI and lessons from the German post-war revolution

President Uhuru Kenyatta and Former Prime Minister Raila Odinga reacts during the launch of the collection of signatures for the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) at KICC in Nairobi on November 25, 2020. [Stafford Ondego, Standard]

The Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) is an idea whose time has come. The road to prosperous Kenya is possible only if citizens embrace social cohesion, peace, and equity above division based on tribalism and political disunity.

However, that cannot be achieved if even a small fraction of the population feels disenfranchised and excluded from the perceived benefits of the end product of the process towards building the bridges. BBI proposals as they are now will disadvantage the most marginalised people of Kenya by denying them a fair share of the equitable revenue.

The High Court recently ruled that the process towards a constitutional change cannot be driven from above. In Germany, a revolution from above led to a disaster by ushering in Adolf Hitler, the man who led the world into World War Two. To understand this analogy, let me give a comparison between contemporary Kenya and post-war Germany in 1918. 

By the decision of a few at the top, the German leadership decided to change the system of governance without the grassroots process. Other than the change of structure of governance in Germany in the aftermath of WW1, everything else remained the same.

Constitutional change

In essence, the army generals were doing the bidding for the ruling class to avert a revolution from below. If a revolution from the ‘Wanjiku’ would have succeeded, historians believe, Germany would have averted the rise of Adolf Hilter. 

What is the semblance between Germany after WW1 and Kenya? Where is the link with the revolution from the above factor? The process towards changing Kenya’s constitution mirrors the German context of the early 20th Century.

The top echelons of the Executive have deemed it fit to spearhead the constitutional change process with minimum involvement from the youth and majority of the population.

Even if we succeed in holding the referendum soon, the danger remains that the means of production will still be owned by a few. The majority of the downtrodden Kenyans will still be deprived and therein lies the danger for Kenya’s long-term stability. Changing the constitution from above is not the panacea for our problems.

It is better to undertake this initiative through the constituent assembly process, which normally takes a long time to digest all the issues at hand.

BBI, as formulated in the amendment Bill, will not bring long term solutions to the underlying challenges of poverty, deprivation, and economic challenges. The constitutional change process in Kenya, similar to that of Germany, appears to favour the ruling class and reflects on nothing much of significance for the peasants of Kenya.

Mr Guleid is CEO, Frontier Counties Development Council. [email protected]