Task force proposals quite noble, but nobody will implement them
What you need to know:
- It also proposes getting rid of the provision allowing for the nomination of MPs and MCAs, and taking the first step in doing away with the Senate as an institution of Parliament by “outlawing” the direct election of senators.
- The idea of nominating certain individuals to National and County assemblies was always noble, but it has been consistently abused by political parties.
- Had the task force suggested that all the idlers booted out be replaced by the thousands of unemployed youths, it would make sense.
My immediate reaction to some of the proposals contained in a report released by a parliamentary task force this week was that it is either a brilliant piece of work or one replete with a fair amount of naivety.
In either case, my gut feeling is that it may turn out to be a very costly waste of time and energy, for most of the proposals will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
Nevertheless, the report, dubbed the “Socio-Economic Audit of the Constitution,” should not be ignored, for it contains possible solutions to many of the governance and economic quandaries facing this country. Among the salient recommendations in the report commissioned by the parliamentary Budget and Appropriations Committee, are that 60,000 civil servants be laid off, and that the number of MPs and MCAs be reduced by half.
It also proposes getting rid of the provision allowing for the nomination of MPs and MCAs, and taking the first step in doing away with the Senate as an institution of Parliament by “outlawing” the direct election of senators. Instead, these worthies will, in essence, be nominated by the county assemblies.
And what is the aim of all these measures? To lower the public wage bill, a very noble objective in my view.
The other recommendation is to allow unsuccessful presidential election contenders to run for other political offices, something that is not directly forbidden by the Constitution but which has so far been impossible to implement because by the time these candidates count their losses, they are already time-barred for those other offices.
Some commentators, including Yours Truly, have in the past raised this issue, arguing that leaving such people in political limbo gives them room for all kinds of mischief, and also robs the country of useful experience. There is no reason why anyone should be out in the political cold for five years just because he or she lost an election.
Just like in other contests, there can be only one winner in a presidential race. By all means, let the losers try their hand at becoming governors, Senators, MPs and even MCAs, if their sense of self-worth allows it.
The task force also sees a need to raise the bar on academic qualification for elective office-seekers. Judging from the performance of MCAs in particular, the suggestion is appropriate.
After all, many of them appear to be hungry and too easily manipulated by canny governors with deep pockets. A little more formal education would allow them to understand issues of budgeting and development, and with that knowledge, check the excesses of those governors prone to abusing their positions.
Having said all that, it is not yet clear from the report who is supposed to do all these things.
According to the Constitution, only the National Assembly can amend the Constitution through a two-thirds majority vote, except in situations that call for a referendum. Can anyone seriously expect MPs to ever vote to send themselves home? It won’t happen. But if, by a miracle it did, it would mean merging most of the constituencies and county wards.
Who is to do it? The IEBC?
On the other hand, I believe many Kenyans would applaud the suggestion to do away with both nominated MPs and MCAs.
The idea of nominating certain individuals to National and County assemblies was always noble, but it has been consistently abused by political parties. Party leaders have used it as a tool to reward their financiers, cronies, stooges and family members, instead of picking people to represent special interests and minorities.
It is also unclear how sacking 60,000 non-performing civil servants will help ease the high rate of unemployment. Had the task force suggested that all the idlers booted out be replaced by the thousands of unemployed youths, it would make sense. But to recommend that such a huge number of jobs be shed so that those left in employment can be paid more is no solution.
The recommendations by the task force cannot be faulted for their audacity.
However, there is a difference between bold assertions of desirable goals and what is practical.
In this world, we desire many outcomes; how to bring them about is always the problem.
