Opinion: Push to amend law against spirit of Uhuru-Raila truce

No one doubts that the most critical moment in Kenya’s political developments in the recent past occurred on March 9 when President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga shook hands on the steps of Harambee House.

The event was a shocker not just in its occurrence but in the secrecy surrounding it. It’s also obvious that at its core, this was Uhuru-Raila deal not a Jubilee-NASA pact. If two months later no one can confidently define parameters of the agreement, it can only mean that only the two gentlemen know its content.

The challenge with the secretive nature of the deal, is that it is then left to pundits on both sides of the political platform to add flesh to it.

It is no wonder that from the ODM wing, there is a presumption that the deal includes a proposal to adjust the Constitution to deal with outstanding issues, particularly the form of government and the structure of devolution.

Interestingly, Jubilee seems woefully unconcerned about details of the deal. I hate to be the prophet of doom. But I must say to ODM that they had better come to terms with the reality that in terms of constitutional reforms, the most that can come out of the handshake is a tinkering with the Constitution to expand the executive.

The other two ODM’s “irreducible minimums” would require a referendum. Restructuring the governance system to introduce a parliamentary system and adding a third tier to the devolved system of government is so fundamental the changes would require a substantial overhaul of the Constitution.

My focus today is not the merits or otherwise of these proposals. It is to emphasize that these are such contested issues that to include them in the national discourse at this time would run counter to the very reason the President, at significant political cost, went into handshake mode.

If today the proposal for adjusting our system into a parliamentary system was put to the people, it would raise all manner of contentious issues that would divide the country right down the middle.

Even before we get into the substance of the issues, once it became clear that we would have a referendum, our first disagreement would be on re-making IEBC and its secretariat. Our political dissonance would then be most obvious as each team tries to ensure that the IEBC reflected its political alignment. Once we resolve that issue, we would be back to “bananas” and “oranges” or such other variant. What would result is a divided nation, distracted from all other agendas in nation building.

The same is true of the three tier proposal. In a country where people identify with their leaders’ positions, a NO by one leader, the merit of the issue or otherwise notwithstanding, would automatically politicize the issue leading to entrenched political divisions, barely six months after elections.

If one assumes that the principle reason Uhuru Kenyatta entered into this political “come we stay” is to reduce political temperatures, why would he invest in a process that takes the country to the very destination he is moving us away from? There is no incentive for the President to support a divisive process at this time.

The other big issue is cost. Kenya’s economy is struggling under massive pressure including the debt burden. We have just had two elections which cost us well over Sh40 billion. A referendum is a costly exercise. We would have to invest another Sh10 billion or so.

Why would the President and his team subject us to this cost in a process that gives him no particular advantage? I am therefore not surprised that President Kenyatta, much like his father in 1976, has indicated his disinterest with the “change the Constitution” mantra.

While this should not send the “no referendum coalition” into a champagne popping mood, it is clear is that elections 2022 will be held more or less in the format we have today. That can only be good news particularly for the Deputy President, in an otherwise worrying season for his wing of the Jubilee coalition.