GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE ONE VOICE ON THE CONSTITUTION

GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE ONE VOICE ON THE CONSTITUTION

Nicolo Machiavelli advised the Prince that to succeed in leadership, the prince should be in total control of the principality. The prince should rein with an iron fist keeping all his troops tightly. It is a common practice that for effective leadership, the leader needs to have a stated position that his subordinates in leadership should follow. This does not, however, deny people their right to express their opinions, whether contrary or supportive.

It is the practice in the advanced democracies of the world that whenever a member of government has a conflict of opinion with his/her boss, rather than de campaigning the ideals of the boss on this particular issue, s/he resigns the position to allow him/her advocate for his position to avoid conflicts within government.

In the run-up to the Second Gulf War in 2003, those opposed to the war were guided by their principles to resign rather than getting it head-on with the Prime Minister in Government in the United Kingdom. We witnessed the resignation of Clare Short, among many other politicians on the grounds that they opposed the war in Iraq.

In the controversial 2005 constitutional referendum, the cabinet was divided in the middle with Raila Odinga leading the NO vote while President Kibaki stated the "Government" position, that of the YES vote. Raila Odinga was a minister in the Government and led a huge following that finally led to the rejection of the "Wako Draft" with a landslide majority. At the time, the then Minister for Roads saw no need of resigning until the President dissolved the cabinet in an historic move, running the country with the smallest cabinet in history, that comprising of the President himself, the Vice President (Moody Awori) and the Attorney General (Amos Wako). In the reconstituted cabinet, the opponents of the draft were not included in the draft; those who were approached rejected the offer so as not to be branded traitors. At the time, a majority of Kenyans did not support the resignation of the members of the NO campo because it was the side with the majority. Now that William Ruto, the declared leader of the NO camp in the cabinet is under public pressure to resign if he is principled enough.

President Kibaki, in his address in a public rally a day before he demoted William Ruto from a prestigiously vibrant Ministry of Agriculture, had warned that he would not tolerate dissent in his government. In his Swahili speech, he warned that to succeed, leaders (read ministers) should work with him. This is reminiscent of Presidents call that "you are either with us or against us" in the war on terror. The President made it clear that he would not tolerate alternative views. Thus the sacking of Belgut MP Eric Keter and the promotion of Lagat Magerer from Kipkelion was a sign that opposing the draft is opposing the Government. William Ruto on the other side was humbled by being moved to the less influential Ministry of Higher Education, swapping positions with Dr Sally Kosgei, a scholar, diplomat and civil servant. This seem an over dose for William Samoei Ruto, a politician who has so far gained sympathy from his Kalenjin community, being considered as a hero who has the courage of getting head-on against Raila Odinga, the "general of street combat."

To several analysts, Ruto's replacement at Kilimo House, the Head Quarters of the Ministry of Agriculture is not appropriate. Ruto is a young, energetic politician who used his radical views for the benefit of the farmers at the grassroots. His radical policies are effectively transforming the Ministry and he had gained favour with the majority of farmers especially bon subsidising the fertiliser prices and steering the Cereals Board in the direction favourable to farmers. Despite the scandals that faced his Ministry, Ruto has been rated as among the best performing Minister in Government. This being the issue, the replacement, despite being political, could be given more thought. Dr Sally Kosgey is definitely not a perfect, not even a near-perfect match for William Ruto. This will then put the Government's credibility on service delivery into question. The farmers may develop reduced confidence to the government for sacrificing service delivery to political loyalty. The reshuffle had to be done, but the replacement was not the most appropriate.

It is unfortunate that a minister can hurl insults against his boss in public. For political survival, such character is unbecoming for any political player. Opposition to the draft law is opposition to government policy. Ruto could not expect to oppose a major government policy and get on with it. He would better be sacked than transferred to the Ministry of Education. He is effectively contaminating the minds of Kenyans by misinterpreting the draft law his own way, especially on the three areas that have raised public uproar. These are the abortion, Kadhi and the land clauses. For effective leadership, the President had to weigh the options, between political stability within government and freedom of expression even if it weakens the essence of effective governance. For a Minister to stand on the way of the Prime Minister is a show of lack of effective leadership. The sacking of Ruto is thus long overdue, the constitution politics notwithstanding.

After the mini reshuffle, fence sitters like the Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka and the Minister for Finance Uhuru Kenyatta came out clearly pledging their support for the draft. They read the signs from the Presidents warning of being with government or against it on the draft law. Initially the two offered their conditional support for the draft that certain amendments need to be done before the referendum, an approach they know too well is not possible, if the law is to be observed.

Contention in the constitution

Mr Ruto has been leading the no camp on the basis of the three areas of concern. An analogy to explain the Kadhi courts may be drawn from a situation where a parent has two children, one is having a walking disability, the other is normal. To be fair, this parent will have to consider the two children equally in terms of spending on them. It is his/her responsibility to make life for both children comfortable. Before considering luxuries for the children, he has to consider a wheel chair for the disabled child. This should not raise a conflict from the other child; because the wheel chair is a special need fro the disabled child. This analogy relates to the argument on the Kadhi courts. Muslims are the disabled child in need of special attention fro the parent, in this case the state. Christians did not raise a proposal to have Christian courts, because they are served well by the secular courts. The jealous here comes in when they demand fro the exclusion of Kadhi courts on flimsy grounds rather than advocating for the inclusion of the Christian courts. The danger here is that the clergy are fanning religious animosity either consciously or otherwise, and Kenyans are watching. These Kadhi courts are SURBODINATE courts to deal with cases civilian nature between and among members subscribing to the Muslim faith. Even among these members, they may not have their cases heard in these courts, they still have a choice.

On abortion, the pro-life group are already supporting the provision. It is better to loose one life, than two lives, in any case, if both lives cannot be saved. Sub-section four of Section 26 of the draft law is clear on the circumstances under which termination of a pregnancy may be permitted. The opponents of the draft argue that it is better to loose a mother and a foetus because"that is the plan of God, for both to die".

The other contentious area is the provision on land. The Ruto camp is misleading when it spreads malice that minimum acreage on land ownership will be set by law, and those falling under the threshold will loose their entitlement. On the upper side, they argue that land will be dispossessed from the land-owners to the state. The interests here are well understood. The opponents of the draft are laying a strong defence on the people who acquired land irregularly under the former regime of President Moi, the architect behind the no camp. The people of Kenya are advised to read the document, however complicated it is, to come up with a knowledge-based decision come the referendum vote.