Dismeising common myths surrounding Kenya's renowned Constitution
The Constitution of Kenya 2010, which was promulgated last week, marks a significant shift in governance, rights, and civic freedoms. Drafted by a diverse group including experts, political leaders, civil society, and ordinary citizens, the Constitution was not freely bestowed but a hard-won achievement wrested from authoritarianism by determined reformers.
The new Constitution enshrines clear separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, a key feature of its design. This separation is not viewed by the Constitution as a symptom of institutional failure, but rather as an indicator of a functioning democracy. The presence of friction between the branches of government is, in fact, evidence of a democracy that is functioning as intended.
Peaceful protest is protected under the Constitution, but obstructing public roads or destroying property under the guise of protest is unconstitutional. The principle that "freedom is not licence" must be observed, and rights must be exercised with due regard for the rights of others.
Mr. Khafafa, a public policy analyst, emphasizes that the Constitution should not be used for political expediency, as some view it, and attempts to amend it to serve political alliances or extend tenure in power are misguided. Calls to extend presidential term limits undermine the spirit of the Constitution, which was designed to curtail, not entrench, political dominance.
The 2010 constitutional referendum was not an act of unanimous support, as segments of the population voiced legitimate concerns about specific provisions. The Building Bridges Initiative, an example of a political pact masquerading as constitutional reform, with the underlying intent to institutionalize a power-sharing arrangement rather than address structural governance issues, is a prime example of such misguided attempts.
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 was not created without challenges. The drafting process faced intense political negotiations and violence related to the 2007-2008 post-election crisis, which motivated the need for constitutional reform. Many advocates and activists endured political tension and risks, with the broader population suffering from the consequences of post-election violence, including loss of lives and displacement, as part of the process leading to the constitution's adoption in 2010.
Interpreting friction between the branches of government as a sign of institutional failure could be incorrect. Attempts to interpret institutional tensions as signs of dysfunction could be misguided. The Constitution's clear separation of powers is a testament to the robustness of the Kenyan democratic system, not a weakness.
In conclusion, the Constitution of Kenya 2010, with its clear separation of powers and protection of civic freedoms, marks a significant step forward for Kenyan democracy. The presence of friction between its branches is not a symptom of institutional failure, but rather a sign of a functioning democracy.
Read also:
- Tobacco industry's suggested changes on a legislative modification are disregarded by health journalists
- Uncovering Political Ad Transparency: A Guide to Investigating opponent's Political Advertisements in the Digital Realm
- Elon Musk praises JD Vance's debate performance against Tim Walz
- Right-wing Israeli minister supports controversial plan for West Bank settlement expansion
