Law review: May sobriety now rule

The Committee of Experts has done a fairly commendable job in putting together a draft constitution for public discussion.

The draft constitution, whose contents we published yesterday and today, marks a remarkable improvement over previous ones. But, obviously, it has gaps and contestable proposals.

No one expect a foolproof constitution. What is important is a broad and fairly workable document which can be refined through discussion.

We fear, though, that extremists within the political, religious and social cycles could miss this point and begin negative debates that dissipate energy and add little value.

Experience from the previous constitution-making process that culminated in the national referendum of 2005 demonstrated that political division is the single most deadly weapon against any new law.

Right from the sittings at Bomas, through to Naivasha and Kilifi, which were milestones in the constitution-making path, politics defined the perspective of defining and conceptualising issues.

Instead of dealing with principles, personalities took centre-stage and decisions were made with individuals in mind, not the nation or posterity.

The end result was a polarised referendum which, ultimately gave rise to election violence in 2007.

That is why we should now spend our energies on identifying those proposals that are spurious, divisive or unworkable and subject them to serious discussion with the aim of improving them or narrowing the divide.

The clamour for a new constitution has gone on for two decades. Many people paid dearly for agitating for a new legal dispensation.

But now we are nearly there. This, therefore, requires that we approach the remain distance with sobriety, tolerance and patriotism. Negative political, religious and ethnic divisions should not be allowed to get into the way of a new constitution.