Clerics have a right to campaign either way but here are some truths

Kamotho Waiganjo　

Anyone listening to popular talk shows and following cyber debates would be disconcerted by some of the unkind sentiments being expressed against the Church for its opposition to the Proposed Constitution.

What is easily forgotten is that long before the politicians rose up against autocracy, it was the Church and civil society that kept the reform dream alive. Who can forget reform heroes like Maurice Cardinal Otunga, Bishops Okulu, Kipsang Muge, David Gitari and the ever-energetic Timothy Njoya?

The Church is a legitimate stakeholder in the reform process and is entitled to campaign vigorously for or against the draft. The same applies to any other Kenyan who feels the draft does not represent their aspirations.

This is a still a democracy where the best ideals are born out of vigorous debate. In opposing the draft, the Church and the ‘No’ coalition must, however, come to terms with a few home truths.

In practical terms, the referendum is a contest between the Proposed constitution and the current Constitution. A ‘No’ vote for the draft is a ‘Yes’ vote for the Constitution. Indeed even an abstention is a ‘Yes’ vote for the current document.

I have heard it argued that the Constitution has served us well for the last 45 years and so we can continue with it as we search for the perfect one.

I am at a loss as to whom the Constitution has served well. This is the Constitution under which the Presidency retains the potential to determine the destiny of all other institutions, including Parliament and the Judiciary.

All public servants are hired and fired at the pleasure of the President by virtue of Section 25 of the Constitution. It is the Constitution where the Executive still retains the right to determine when a citizen can enjoy the Bill of Rights and when under the guise of ‘State security’ they can be denied.

What has dulled us to the extreme anti-people nature of the current constitution is the relative expansion of civic and political freedoms under the Kibaki. These expansions are not protected by law and remain prey to roll back depending on who sits at the helm.

This is the Constitution where devolution and allocation of resources to the regions remain the discretion of the Treasury. It is where gerrymandering is allowed by law.

Compare that with a draft, which, though containing some defects, has a Bill of Rights, which is pro-people, enshrining, as a policy economic and social rights. It provides for dual citizenship. It has a representation system, which is fair, affirming the equality of the vote but recognising the need to protect the interests of those who live in sparsely populated areas. It provides for the right to recall MPs for non-performance.

The draft retains Executive powers in the person directly elected by Kenyans but severely checks those powers through institutions to avoid abuse. It constitutionalises resource distribution by requiring that a minimum 15 per cent of the national budget be allocated to the counties.

That, incidentally, would translate to about Sh1.2 billion per county in a financial year. The draft creates an independent Judiciary and strong people centered commissions.

A ‘No’ vote denies Kenyans these positive developments, leaves them at the mercy of the Constitution, which, by the way, still retains the Kadhis’ courts and the abortion clauses in the Penal Code.

Indeed the Constitution does not even define life as starting from conception hence it is a step backwards. I am by no means suggesting that this draft is ideal and is the key to Canaan.

I am suggesting that it provides a good beginning from which we can create a friendlier Kenya. Register tomorrow and vote with your conscience.