Address does not serve the meaning intended under the law

What has come to be known as the State of the Nation address is a mechanism under article 132 of the Constitution, which obliges the President to report on progress made towards the realisation of national values enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitution is silent on where the President is to make this address. On all the occasions when President Kenyatta has made the address, he has done so in Parliament. However, there appears no requirement on him to do so.

A separate provision requires the President to “address a special sitting of Parliament once every year.” It seems that the President has chosen to kill two birds with one stone by making his State of the Nation address in Parliament. This enables him to fulfill both the requirement to make a report on the progress towards the realisation of article 10 and, at the same time, constitutes the mandatory annual address to Parliament.

The decision to combine the two roles represents parsimony in the management of public affairs, and is to be commended. Even in the short time that the Constitution has been in place, there is already a welcome tradition that subjects the President’s reporting requirement to legislative involvement and, therefore, oversight.

However, there are also concerns. One of these is the apparent confusion within Jubilee over the mandate under which the President speaks on the day. The President has three clear roles, first, as Head of State, second, as Head of Government and, third, an actor in his political party.

When the President speaks in Parliament during the State of the Nation address, it is as the Head of State, a role in which, among other things, he embodies the sovereignty of the Kenyan state. The Constitution is also clear about the burden that the President needs to discharge. The President is required to show the progress made towards meeting the national values enumerated under article 10.

The list of these values includes patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, and the rule of law. Others are human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalised, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability.

Although the list of values is long, aspects of the President’s speech would struggle to find relevance within the list.

At the same time, it is clear that the President has avoided speaking on certain aspects of the national values.

While the President reels off figures suggesting increasing economic prosperity in Kenya, an issue of mounting global concern, including here in Kenya, is the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. By focusing on these impressive numbers, the President’s speech obscured the fact that a very large number of citizens live in extreme poverty and have no chance to participate in the reported spectacular growth.

DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS

Is the President aware of the growing poor/rich divide in Kenya? Couldn’t he have used his speech to demonstrate his awareness? Does the government have a commitment to addressing inequality and what is the evidence of such a commitment? Could it be that since he comes from the riches family in Kenya, the President finds it awkward to discuss these things?

Also, a longstanding accusation against the Jubilee Government is socio-political exclusion, an example of which is a grievance that the co-ethnics of the top Jubilee leadership are systematically favoured in public appointments. Does the President have a view about all this? Should it, then, not have found a place in his address as an issue of inclusiveness?

Secondly, just as the country has made gains, Kenya has problems too. The President would be far more convincing in his address if, in addition to highlighting the remarkable successes, he also identified and candidly discussed the key problems that the country faces. Because his addresses are devoid of any discussions of the problems of the country, it is tempting to conclude that the President is out of touch with the true experiences of citizens.

A looming concern is how to approach the elections in 2017 in view of the demonstrable frailties in the institutions charged with running the elections. A measure of nervousness is building around the country on whether, under the circumstances, the conditions for peaceful elections still exist. Does the President share in this view? Would it not have been assuring if the President addressed these concerns, even if he had a different viewpoint? Would the frailties of the IEBC not have been mentioned in his speech much like those of the Judiciary and the county governments were?

Thirdly, state of the nation addresses elsewhere have been criticised because of the ostentation that often accompanies them. In the Philippines, a senator described the ostentation that goes with the country’s state of the nation address as “thoughtless extravagance”. Few doubt Jubilee’s capacity to create ostentatious form like happened with the supposed new anti-corruption drive last year.

Jubilee’s shows actually put off many people and are part of the reason for the kind of measures seen last week, when a section of the opposition tried to deflate the occasion by whistling down the President.

The sum total of these concerns is that the state of the nation address is not serving the meaning intended under the Constitution. The President has systematically avoided discussing difficult questions and has instead used the addresses as a campaign platform for his party.

At the moment the address is largely a self-cleansing ceremony, rather than an occasion for true accounting. A clear vacuum in leadership exists and is a reason for some of the desperate measures staged in Parliament last week.

[email protected]