Groups need to be more tolerant if we are to get a constitution

It has been quite a while since we agreed that a Constitution-writing is not for the rabble. So we established a Committee of Experts chaired by former Law Society of Kenya chairman Nzamba Kitonga.

It has been quietly going about its work, insulating itself from all the political noise. But as it becomes apparent that a draft constitution is about to be unveiled, the decibel count is rising.

All sorts of interest groups that fear the document might nor advance their narrow political, religious or other partisan or sectional interests have started making noise and threatening to scuttle the entire exercise.

We witnessed just the other day, the impolitic exchanges between President Kibaki’s and Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s respective constitutional advisors, Prof Kivutha Kibwana and Mr Miguna Miguna.

That seemed to have been a case of the passers-by mourning louder than the bereaved, for we do see the President and the PM getting on rather chummily these days and avoiding divisive public exchanges.

Now we are seeing all those Christian fundamentalist groups rising up in advance of publication. They claim that the Committee of Experts wants to impose Islamic courts on secular Kenyans.

That of course was one of the issues that deeply divided the country last time around. I do wish that the self-appointed defenders of the faith really had evidence to back heir claims.

Perhaps they should hold their counsel and wait to see how the committee handles that particular issue before starting to campaign against a document that has not yet been published.

They could also be responsible in their actions and utterances by taking advantage of all available windows to offer their suggestions on how the issue should be handled, rather than resorting to grandstanding, rabble-rousing histrionics designed more to inflame and incite.

What I found odd is that the groupings making so much noise has spurned all the opportunity to make its contribution to constitution review, preferring to shout “fire” in crowded halls. Some of those complaining are represented in the reference group that we are told has been regularly consulting with the committee of experts.

Perhaps they have another agenda other than fear of any alleged plan to entrench Kadhi’s courts in the constitution. This is a sensitive issue that must be tackled soberly in a manner that does not excite religious tensions.

TRUE, THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS itself made a grave mistake by refusing or neglecting to list the proposal on Kadhi’s courts as a contentious issue, therefore opening itself up to accusations of barring debate on an emotive subject.

The danger is that fundamentalist Christians will come up against fundamentalist Muslims on the issue. When any two such groups go head-to-head the din is enough to shut up all voices of reason and logic.

Religious fundamentalism — whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish or Hindu — spreads hate, fear, anger and intolerance rather than love, amity and understanding. That, in fact is what the new Constitution should seek to banish by avoiding simplistic fixes.

The Bomas draft came up with enhanced Kadhi’s courts to placate the Muslim community; and managed only to raise the ire of the Christian right.

The Bomas draft tried to fix up the mess by providing courts for every other religious grouping, but that did not work.

The committee should have learnt a big lesson from those two episodes; Don’t mix religion and the Constitution.

To avoid raising tempers on either side, they must resist the temptation to placate any particular grouping, because that will only anger the other side.

The best they can do is leave untouched the present provision for Kadhi’s courts, which have existed in Kenya for ages without misplaced fears that they amount to imposition of Islamic law.

Religion aside, there is another matter that intrigues me. All applaud when the issue of direct election for mayors is raised. There is general agreement that mayors in our cities and towns will be far more effective and accountable if elected directly by the citizens, so that they are not hostages to the machinations of a small clique of corrupt councillors.

Ironic, then, that we are enthralled by the idea of removing executive power from a directly-elected President and giving the same to a PM elected only by 222 MPs.

We have already seen in the brief life of the grand coalition what monsters we would be creating. Both the President and the Prime Minister have been reduced to lame ducks as a handful of MPs block reform under the guise of asserting the role of the legislature.

mgaitho@ke.nationmedia.com