MPs must rise above narrow interests, bias

On Tuesday, we marked Saba Saba day. This was the day at the dawn of the 90s when Kenyans, led by gallant leaders of the second liberation, went to Kamukunji grounds and staged rallies across the land. At the historic grounds, fiery speeches were made in the full glare of mean-looking security forces, armed to the teeth. The anti-establishment chanting and ranting was also in brave defiance of the then no-nonsense, one-party State.

Those were the days of untold valour, and the agitation we watched as young men with awe culminated in the repealing of section 2A of the Constitution, which paved way for multi-party democracy. Now, I do not know why the day was not marked with the aplomb it so much merited, given that it set of the ball rolling towards attainment of the bold new Constitution we promulgated in 2010.

Perhaps Kenyans have forgotten, like the proverbial boys who asked their mother to burn the granary after they had eaten to their fill, how it was like not to be free. Or perhaps, as someone whispered to me on Tuesday evening, most of the heroes have crossed from Eastlands to the leafy surburbs, from where they serve in the Senate and in the National Assembly. I do not know which is which, but I know, looking at both houses of Parliament, we have a big problem.

So much that after Saba Saba, which was meant to check the excesses of the presidency and the Executive, we might soon go back to the streets to tame Parliament. Forget the day activists brought pigs to the city, unpalatable as that may have been to animal rights activists. All indications are that, just like a young politician told some police officers at a weighbridge station, MPs nowadays behave as if they are not subject to the laws they make. They have been lately accusing one another of taking bribes to vote in a certain way. One expects honourable members to have a sober, objective and facts-laden intellectual debate on the floor of the House, but what do we see?

When we are not hearing of scuffles in the House where water bottles and panties feature prominently, we hear of incitement to violence from people who should know better and act as role models for our children.

Fine, I know and have met quite honourable members of the August House, whose wise words and general demeanour bespeak states (wo)manship, but generally, we are clearly not safe.

I respect the honourable members’ right to summon State officers to answer questions of public interest, but the frivolous grounds that are sometimes cited to summon Cabinet Secretaries or during vetting sessions are simply ridiculous. When they are not measuring “passion” or “arrogance”, they are grimacing and glowering like I saw one MP do at Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru. It helps little that the political class is so divided along what we in the media politely call “party lines”. But beneath is veneer of “party lines”, you espy the kind of ethnic bile that dominates social media and threatens to explode on the blogosphere.

Move over frivolous issues like MPs’ magical ability to measure “passion for work” and “arrogance”, as grounds for censuring State officers. The National Assembly has recently been accused of (ab)using its constitutional mandate of approving budgetary allocations to sabotage other arms of government.

They have, we have been told, been intransigent enough not to see that under the new Constitution, members of the legislative arm should not preside over any funds. Whether it is CDF for MPs or the Sh2.5 billion the Senate deigned to give the MCAs, managing funds is the preserve of county governors and the national government.

The argument that MCAs, MPs and Senators do not intend to implement projects “directly” is cheeky and spurious, to say the least. Let MPs put aside all biases, political or otherwise, and discharge their legislative and oversight duties without drooling for the executive’s budgets.