Why the idea of a referendum is so revolting

Opposition in Kenya has been deluding itself with the false belief that it has monopoly to originate disruptive behaviour.

Buoyed by public pity for their lack of ideas, evident in the number of concerned spectators keen to confirm the opposition’s folly for themselves, its leaders have attempted to slow the country’s momentum by making inciting statements, issuing threats to be talked to and spewing hate speech.

It all culminated in the spectacular failure to fill Uhuru Park with people on July 7 (Saba Saba) rally.

Subsequently, the opposition leadership has now embarked on a mission to irritate the country with demands for a referendum at a time when the President and the Deputy President are systematically overpowering imperialist forces fabricating cases against Kenya at the International Criminal Court.

Although there is a provision in the Constitution for a referendum, it bears repeating that not everything that is mentioned in the Constitution must happen.

'CONSTITUTIONAL' JOKE

For example, although there are elaborate provisions on leadership and integrity, the opposition would be the first to agree that the entire chapter was a private joke between Kenyans and the drafters of their Constitution. The same applies to the referendum clauses.

The cost of holding a referendum, estimated at Sh8 billion, is the equivalent of the confidential expenses by the security people in the Office of the President. Unless the opposition wants to deny the police and the army confidential expenses, it is extremely irresponsible to demand a referendum.

Considering that the Jubilee team’s efficiency and parsimony avoided a re-run of the presidential election last year and freed Sh4 billion for the Uwezo Fund, the government should be allowed to design grander projects worth Sh8 billion instead of wasting it on what people think.

Voters cast their ballots so that leaders can think for them. Nobody wants to know what the people are thinking, seeing that they already expressed themselves with eloquence and clarity during the March 2013 General Election. Since there is little use in going back for clarification, leaders cannot abdicate their thinking role and hand it back to the people.

PROSECUTION NOT SUFFICIENT

Even if the failings of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission were to be believed for a moment, prosecuting a few people for fraud is not sufficient to clean up the poll register that opposition claims to be riddled with error. Once the opposition lose the referendum, they will start complaining about how the IEBC needs to be changed, or else they will not take part in the 2017 elections.

Pushed to the wall, people might start voting for things that are not even on the referendum, such as cutting back the number of counties to 10, limiting the age of presidential candidates to 70 years, abolishing the Senate and reducing the number of MPs — especially the MCAs, therefore putting thousands of leaders to pasture.

Kenyans have no desire to cause financial constipation in the counties by allocating them 45 per cent of national revenue. As it were the lifestyles of many leaders at the county level are cause for great popular concern.

Besides, the defeat of the opposition in a public contest of such magnitude could have debilitating effects for Kenya’s burgeoning democracy.

The opposition might become so unpopular that the 2017 elections become a nullity, just as happened in the case of the parliamentary poll for Gatundu South.

The unpopularity of the ideas being presented for the referendum could dull voter appetite for elections and produce apathy in the 2017 polls, with the risk of returning Kenya to the single party era.

[email protected]