Blaming foreigners over law review is hypocrisy

This week the quest for a new constitution and attendant reforms entered a critical stage.

The period marks the official start of the campaigns to drum up support for or against the Proposed Constitution, which wananchi would either endorse or reject on August 4.

Admittedly, the campaigns began a long time ago, but the official campaign period provides new impetus to both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ quarters in their crusades. Just as expected, and as already witnessed, this critical moment is bound to elicit emotions and wild allegations as politicians hope to sway crowds before the decisive moment.

Constitution making, as we have already emphasised, is a monumental occasion that rarely comes up in a generation. The constitution is a contract that binds citizens on their obligations to each other and to their nation. It, therefore, requires us to rise up beyond the dim of raw emotions and theatrics and embrace sobriety to come up with a document that will proudly bequeath posterity a stable nation. August 4 is not the end for the quest to long yearned for reforms. It is simply the beginning and we should not battle each other as if the world would grind to a halt on the day. Between now and that monumental date, Kenyans of goodwill should do a thorough soul searching and determine whether they would like to be on the right side of history or in the dustbins of history.

It is a moment to face reality and disregard petty vested interests and blatant distortions of facts to woo the public to either the Red or Green corner.

One of the red herrings that politicians have resorted to as the date with destiny approaches is to brand the Proposed Constitution the handiwork of foreigners. On several occasions Higher Education Minister William Ruto — the de facto leader of ‘No’ campaigns — has cried foul that some foreigners are backing the ‘Yes’ campaigns. The minister has been especially critical of US Ambassador Michael Ranneberger (read President Barack Obama).

Hot on the heels of these claims, President Kibaki claimed that some foreign interests are sponsoring the ‘No’ campaign.

These claims and counterclaims generate more heat than light. While their authenticity is questionable, one thing is clear: It is Kenyans who will ultimately shoulder the burden of casting the vote come August 4. The suitability of the Proposed Constitution or lack of it should be determined by its intrinsic value, not what Western powers or organisations back it. The best Ranneberger and company can do on the D-day is to merely observe as Kenyans shape their destiny.

The debate whether the new constitution is supported by foreign agents or not is, therefore, distractive. The greatest enemies in the quest for reforms are section of Kenyans and many of them have undeniable record of derailing the reforms train and persecuting its agents. On the other hand, there are some benevolent foreigners who have stood by reformers and wananchi during one of the most difficult moments of this country’s history. When our country imploded soon after the disputed 2007 presidential election, it took the intervention of foreigners, especially the United States, for the nation to return to normalcy.

When the repressive Kanu regime haunted the proponents of the ‘second liberation’, it is the same foreigners who offered them safe haven. In essence, foreigners have been part and parcel of constitution making and turning against them at this critical moment is hypocrisy of a selfish kind. We should not live under the fallacy that our own poison is better than honey served by foreigners.

The days of reclusive regimes are long gone – except for two or three nations whose history is written in blood and tears. In this era of global village, sampling the marketplace of ideas and choosing the best is the way forward.

We should focus on the crucial task ahead and stop shadowboxing non-existent foreigners, for there is no provision for them in the Constitution of Kenya Review Act 2008 that guides the process.