Post by adongo12345 on Oct 12, 2005 2:18:38 GMT 3
Too much control vested in the President
Story by STEPHEN MBURU
Publication Date: 10/12/2005
Cabinet ministers Raila Odinga and Kiraitu Murungi are at each other's jugular once again over the executive powers in the proposed new Constitution. In an interview with Nation's STEPHEN MBURU, Mr Odinga argues the draft seeks to take the country back to a ''strong-man syndrome.''
Excerpts:
Daily Nation: What exactly are the contentious issues about the Executive in the proposed new Constitution?
Mr Raila Odinga: The Wako draft says the executive authority of the republic is vested in the President. That is a contentious issue. The power of the President has not been devolved. Instead, power has been concentrated on the President. A President can appoint any number of ministers. This means that all those in Government are bound by collective responsibility and cannot vote against the Government. They cannot vote against presidential appointments.
The President has been given powers to appoint 20 per cent of his Cabinet outside Parliament. This means his friends who lost in elections can be appointed to the Cabinet and become MPs. Such a Parliament cannot be a check on the Executive because the President can always use ministerial appointments to entice MPs.
Q: The President will no longer have sweeping powers to make major appointments without the consultation of constitutional commissions and approval of Parliament. Are these not enough measures to clip the President's immense powers?
Mr Odinga: It makes a mockery of presidential checks and balances. It does not matter how many commissions you have because it is the same President who appoints commissioners, including their chairmen. It is putting the cart before the horse. The commissions cannot act independent of the executive. They cannot effectively vet presidential appointees. Parliament that vets such commissioners will already be compromised by the President.
Q: How can the President compromise MPs?
Mr Odinga: Under the Wako draft the President has the power to appoint any MP to his Cabinet without any reference to that member's party. In such way, the President can control Parliament. That is the big danger. We will have said bye-bye to political parties.
Parties would be ineffective in Parliament. They will be neutralised. We would only have a movement State. There will be no Opposition and Government in this mongrel arrangement.
Elections are fought along political ideas and ideologies. But there will be no need for parties contesting in elections. It will be a one-man rule. This will undermine political parties. We will go back to strong-man syndrome.
Q: Why argue the draft has reduced the role of a Prime Minister to a mere errand boy in Parliament?
Mr Odinga: The draft only says the PM shall be leader of government business in the House. But if you don't coordinate government activities outside Parliament, it means you will just be a prefect; ensuring other ministers come to Parliament to move their motions and answer questions.
Q: You've always rooted for a Parliamentary system of government. What are its major advantages as opposed to the presidential system as far as executive powers are concerned?
Mr Odinga: In a presidential system, the president is not available to answer questions. You cannot pass a vote of confidence against him. You can only introduce impeachment against the President. He appoints his Cabinet outside Parliament and submits their names to Parliament for vetting.
In a parliamentary system, the party with the majority members forms the government and its leader becomes the Prime Minister and appoints his Cabinet from among MPs. The PM is available to answer questions in Parliament regularly. MPs can bring a vote of confidence in a PM.
We have President Kibaki, who is good. But where is the guarantee that others in future will be like him. We need to have proper checks and balances. We can have a bad president tomorrow. How would we remove him?
The provision in this draft is that we need 75 per cent of MPs to vote against the President. We need 65 per cent of MPs to amend a Constitution. That means the President is even above the Constitution. I am not saying it we should make it easier to bring a vote of no confidence as that would be entice members to bring such a motion. But it should be something achievable.
A Parliamentary system in a modern democracy is practised in Britain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, the entire Scandinavia, Israel , India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. South Africa and here closer home Ethiopia, have parliamentary democracies. The majority of stable democracies the world over are parliamentary systems.
A Presidential system is bad for our country. Our experience has shown that Kenyans tends to vote in Presidential elections along tribal lines. The President tends to reward members of the community where he comes from.
A Parliamentary system would ensure that even candidates from minority ethnic groups, including El Molo, can become president.
Presidential systems have been the bane of African society since independence. They have led to authoritarian and dictatorship leadership.
Q: Why should a presidential candidate go through the rigours of an election only to donate executive powers to a PM, his appointee?
Mr Odinga: Kenyans said they wanted a parliamentary system but with a president whom they vote for. There will be no conflict. The PM would be leader of majority party in parliament.
Q: You aspire to be President. If you finally make it to the top job, would you be comfortable being merely a ceremonial Head of State ?
Mr Odinga: The responsibilities of a President and Prime Minister are clearly spelt out in the Bomas Draft. Those powers (Presidential) are not ceremonial. I am willing to serve in any capacity, either as President or Prime Minister.
Q: It has always been argued that African countries need a powerful president. Why should ours be different?
Mr Odinga: History of Africa is replete with founding fathers transforming themselves into dictators, destroying all checks and balances. That is what caused second liberation - to remove the strong-man syndrome. It is height of hypocrisy to listen to people who were part and parcel of this second liberation now advancing the reverse argument in support of a system that we fought to remove.
Q: The Yes or Banana campaigners say those who want executive power should face the electorate and not use the 'back-door' to get to power. The statement seems a veiled attack on you. What is your reaction?
Mr Odinga: These people are intellectually dishonest to Kenyans. They are camouflaging their ethnic feelings behind other Kenyans. People should not be deceived by ethnic chauvinists, that Raila wants this or that. This Constitution is not about Raila and President Kibaki, for whom I have a lot of respect and regard. It is about the entire country.
Q: You had predicted a 'political tsunami.' When is it coming?
Mr Odinga: It is already here with us. You can see people (in the Government) are already trying to move to higher ground.
Q: How do you rate the success of an Orange vote at the referendum?
Mr Odinga: I have no doubt Kenyans will turn a resounding No vote to this Kilifi mongrel.
Q: What's your message?
Mr Odinga: I urge Kenyans to remain united. Let us all go through this historic exercise peacefully. I appeal to my colleagues in Government not to abuse the process and blackmail and intimidate people or rig the referendum.
I appeal to my colleagues in the Orange Movement to be as tolerant as possible to those campaigning against us. Let us not close any part of the country. I urge our supporters to accept those campaigning for this document. Let there be no violence against them. If you attend their meetings do not heckle them. Do not throw stones at anybody. This, to me, will create a very important legacy for future generations.