It is perverse to say US is only keen on abortion and gay rights

By Kamotho Waiganjo

The ‘No’ team offensive against the Obama administration for supporting the ‘Yes’ campaign because it contains "abortion clauses" are ingenious but dishonest. Ingenious because they play to Kenyans’ traditional aversion to foreigners’ interference in our issues. I hold no brief for Ambassador Michael Ranneberger and I am regularly annoyed by his harangues on the most mundane of Kenyan affairs. But on this meddling its important that we be honest with ourselves; we created this monster.

We nourished it when we feted Rogue Ambassador Smith Hempstone as he publicly bashed a regime we despised. We fattened it when we celebrated UK High Commissioner Sir Edward Clay as he alleged that our leaders were vomiting on his Saville Row shoes.

It’s rather late to disown it. It’s also a truism in international relations that until you are reasonably self-sustaining and don’t require foreign aid to remain afloat, you must live with the indignity of receiving humiliating sermons from time to time.

However, on the subject of the proposed law, the averment that the American government is supportive of the draft because of the abortion provisions is not just dishonest but is also parochial and narrow minded. I can probably forgive Americans for trumpeting this statement. For the average American issues relating to Africa are uncomplicated, to them this constitution is about abortion and gay rights.

But for this provincial argument to be repeated by Kenyans is an insult to basic intelligence. The draft contains 298 provisions. Out of these, 95 per cent of the provisions have to do with good governance, justice and human rights. The US support for the document is largely driven by these principles. Not because they care for democracy and justice in Kenya, but because American interests dictate that Kenya remain stable in light of the increasing militancy of Al Shabaab and similar terror groups.

Furthermore, American business interests in the region are best enhanced by a stable Kenya. The US government recognises that the status quo under the current Constitution is unsustainable and that going ahead into 2012 without fundamental reforms is a recipe for chaos.

The reality is that in this regard Kenya’s broader interests and that of Western governments are similar. Kenya needs to make significant reforms in its governance infrastructure and its human rights regime if it will remain a going concern. We came very close to going under receivership in 2008 and the fundamental reasons that informed 2008 remain unattended, and will remain so if ‘No’ wins. Anyone who believes the Ruto-generated lie that we will have another referendum in November or any time before 2012 is criminally naÔve. But then self-determination grants us the ultimate privilege; choice. If we are comfortable with a fraudulent electoral system, if we wish to continue being led by an unaccountable Executive, which doles out human rights at will, if we don’t mind an Executive driven opaque resource distribution system, if we want MPs to continue their unabashed robbery of the public purse, so be it. We are, after all, a sovereign people.

—The writer is an advocate of the High Court