POLITICAL ELITES MUST NOT BUTTRESS BOVINE OBEDIENCE IN THEIR ETHNIC BASES.

Hobbes in the Leviathan argues that because people are motivated primarily by selfish reasons, the society must come up with a political order that can curb such selfish desires and guarantee all the citizenry equal rights. Such a political order is referred to as the constitution.

However, it must be understood that there will always be an aristocratic minority who will fear that a fair constitution will curtail their insatiable desires. This explains why today, few political elites are trying to buttress bovine obedience in their ethnic bases by spewing empty rhetoric.

Take for instance the allegation that the president in the proposed constitutional arrangement will wield extensive powers beyond the reach of the people. This argument is untrue. First and foremost, parliament will vet all presidential appointees. Moreover, with a two thirds majority, parliament can impeach an inept president without shooting itself in the foot as is the case in the current constitution. The senate is also empowered to check presidential excesses. From the foregoing, it is very clear that the president will not have a carte Blanche to act as he or she pleases. The fear that the president will be a quasi king is therefore unfounded.


As for the inclusion of the clause on abortion; I think that a section of the clergy have deliberately chosen to misinterpret it. If, indeed, they have fears that abortion proponents are likely to exploit the ambiguity in this clause, then parliament through legislation can define the term professional. Besides, Christians have God's ten commandments in place. I do not therefore think that it is in the province of the Government to legislate for people's morals.


And as for the inclusion of the Kadhi courts in the constitution. Let it be said loud and clear that the clergy are insincere on this issue given the fact that the Kadhi courts do not in any way infringe upon the rights of the Christians. It is worth noting that the church was adequately represented in the Bomas conference that came up with the then Bomas draft which has been one of the many references in the making of the current draft constitution. The Kadhi courts were not a contentious issue then. I do not understand why they have suddenly become contentious. In any case, true Christians know that equality is in the eyes of God, not the earthly constitution.


On land, it is instrumental to note that last year; the cabinet and parliament passed a comprehensive legislative National Land Policy. The draft constitution borrowed a lot of from this policy. The National Land Commission will among other things, initiate investigations, on its own or on a complaint, into present or historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress. Closely related to this is the clause that empowers parliament to legislate on the minimum and maximum acreage that one is supposed to own. Implicitly, the government is targeting huge tracks of idle land. It is only proper that idle land is taxed to generate income for the country. One wonders why this issue has become so emotive. It must be made abundantly clear that the clause has nothing to do with the compulsory acquisition of land by the government.


Lastly, I do not agree with those suggesting that we postpone the referendum in order build consensus necessary for the amendment of certain clauses. I know for sure that if we had more time for the discussion of the draft constitution, we would probably make a great many more mistakes and make this exercise even more emotive than it currently is.


It is incumbent upon us to note that there is still a window of opportunity available to those dissatisfied. This is because, after the draft constitution has been passed at the referendum, any proposed law can be put to a popular vote before it can go into effect. Indeed, the practice worldwide is that signatures of about 5 to 10 percent of the registered voters are required to validate such a petition. In Kenya, only a million signatures are required.

Faced with these facts, I urge the “no” crusaders to kindly modify their stance, changing it so slightly so that "dissatisfied" becomes "satisfied," which is just a difference of three letters.

TOME FRANCIS,

BUMULA.

http://twitter.com/tomefrancis