So will actually go to vote??

[kamalet]

With the campaigns over, there seems to be uninamity that who ever will win is the group who can get as many of their supporters as possible to actually vote.

So who will be the most like voter that would brave the chilly morning on monday and queue to vote. From a psychological point of view, the passion to vote and make a statement will be the key driver to take one to the booth. So in my estimation, the people with the most passion are the NO voters as well as those voting primarily as a sign of solidarity with one's tribe. The number of people who will actually go to vote because they think the draft is good will be smaller than those who will do so due to thinking that the draft is bad.

Effectively, close to 80% of the voters will not be voting for or against the draft, but the politics of the day.

With this in mind, how much damage is done to geographical voting patterns? For instance how many people with rural voting cards living in Nairobi will actually travel out of Nairobi to go and vote? People with a passion but live in Nairobi will most unlikely travel upcountry simply for economic reasons - they are salaried and the timing of the vote day is all wrong. So justification to travel to Nyahera or Kakamega to vote from a financial point of view is totally ot of the question. This will mean that many Nairobi dwellers with upcountry voting cards will actually while away 4 days in Nairobi because they could not afford to travel to go and vote. But this also will advantage the passionate voters in Central province (Read YES for that) as they can easily afford to make the journey to Kiambu or Nyeri - maximum 2 hours away.

The government has declared also that Tuesday will be a holiday to allow people to travel back to their work places. But is this not utter nonesense if one cannot afford to travel?

Which brings to mind the strategies that were adopted by the YES group of concentrating their campaigns in the rural areas where they can continuously reach the voters on the ground as opposed to urban area mass campaign.

The referendum will come and go, but this will be good learning process in campaign strategy for the future. The rigging may not have occurred at the ballot box, but by simply designing a strategy that ensures people do not actually cast their ballots - absolutely nothing illegal about it!!

[job]

Nairobi voting pattern and apparent transport sabotage

Kamale,

Just to point out a few facts contradicting what you said. Note that;

* Nairobi votes (about 900,000) only account for less than 8% of the total vote.

* Lets make some statistical suppositions, assume the No lead is 60% (6.6 Million), YES 40% (4.4 Million)...Just assumptions.

Then only a paltry (low) 60% of NO people turn out to vote against a heavy turnout by YES. The NO will have 36 points or 3.96 Million votes.

If a huge 80% of YES voters turns out to vote, YES may bag 32 points or 3.52 Million votes.

Still, A NO win by close to 1/2 Million votes.

I think the NO lead is greater than so far portrayed, hence the margin of victory widens in reality.

The mere fact that the government is contemplating disenfranchising NO voters by sabotaging transportation should be a hint to you that they (govt) realize things are not good for them.

* What would be the role of Mungiki in the vote, since Njenga Karume already contacted their leader who has vowed to mobilize "3 million Nairobi youth to vote YES", a figure that is inflated in exergerrated proportions?

*Back to Nairobi, The NO camp commanded until yesterday, 5 out of the 8 parliamentary seats in Nairobi. They still have Westlands, (Gumo), Langata, (Agwambo), Kasarani, (Omondi), and Makadara, (Ndolo).

I can assure you that majority of Langata (Kibera) NO people, are not Registered upcountry as you may assume.

In Kasarani, home to Mathare, Kariobangi, & Korogocho most of those upcountry folks are indeed registered within the constituency.

In Makadara (Eastlands & Mukuru), I will not be surprising you by stating that,..... we have registered voters here who only step upcountry soil for funerals, of very close kin. All their life including voting, revolves in the city. A vivid example is Jericho ("Mtaa") born and bred Reuben Ndolo, the MP himself,... whose connections to his rural Nyanza seem to have been just recently struck.

In Gumo's Westlands, if Luhya's of Kangemi were registering upcountry, then Gumo would never be MP. Any GEMA opponent would wallop him any day. You mean you failed to hear Gumo's loud voter registration campaign slogan to Nairobi Luhya's (late 90's to date), "Register-in-Westlands-NOT-Western". This was when his seat was under imminent threat by Betty Tett.
He has been on a long campaign to have his kin & folks register in Westlands and not upcountry.

* So, unless the government has an elaborate rigging mechanism already in place, like Muite recently hinted "a surprise in waiting", then it seems to me,... all, including Muite are conceding that it's long been accepted that the NO is poised for victory. Kenyans must be vigilant since we've been warned of a "surprise".

The only thing I add to the NO supporters, they must COME OUT AND VOTE, especially the rural based ones in Rift Valley, Western, Nyanza, Central, Coast, NEP, and Eastern.

The old habit I witnessed in Nairobi, whereby folks stroll early to bars, newspapers in hand, to start political forecasts and intellectual predictions over beer, should only occur after casting votes.

Otherwise I predict a clean NO win.

Job.

[kichwambaya]

There is realy no voting in the past to compare with this one. Kenyans are used to voting for individuals and after many years of disapointment with one politician after another, they became cynical which explains the low voter turn-out in the past.

I predict a huge voter turn-out this time around because this is the first time Kenyans are actually voting for a national issue and not for an individual or individuals.

The turn-out will especially be huge for the Orange side. For one, they came across as underdogs and the David in this fight. That will earn them a few extra votes.

For Luos, this will be a pay back time for the MOU. Many Luos voted for Kibaki because they believed that this time around, after many years in the political wilderness, finally they would be apart of a Kenya government and not outsiders looking in. Kibaki and his boys poured cold water on those hopes they felt betrayed, demoralized, abused and used. They had settled down angry for the long wait until 2007, then came this referendum when the wounds are still fresh. My sources tell me that they are ready to come-out in big numbers than before just to express their moral outrage if not anything else.

Getting people to get up, get away from their regular routine, walk a certain distance, and line up to vote requires some emotional motivaters. The Kisumu killings and Mombassa killings are more powerful in this respect than mere speeches, promises and bribes.

Outside of the Luo community, Watch-out for the Kalenjins. After Moi, they thought their political influence was gone for a while and were ready to settle down for a long period in the political wilderness. This referendum came from nowhere and it has given them hope of once agains being major players in politics-so soon.

Talk Radio station like the democrats found out in the USA are way too influential than the print media. The shutting down of Kass was a big mistake. Watch-out for huge turn outs to express their outrage and to also find there way back to power.

Kambaland's hope of elevating Kalonzo to the top seat is also working in favor of a big vote for No over there.

Most importantly in fovor of NO is the fact that YES side has the burden of persuation that this draft is better than what we have now. To convince humanbeings to give up what they have for something new requires a high standard than the kinds of arguments YES is making to motivate them to vote in higher numbers. Even the expected high turn out in Central province will be motivated by keeping power than by the arguments in favor of this draft.

NO had a lower standard of persuation because all they had to do was to make people doubt, and I believe they have done that.

There is also the issue of Kikuyu hegemony, whether it is true or not, the line up of the key players in Kibaki government and their utterrances has lend credibility to this perception. Others will be motivated to stop this perceived design by one tribe to dominate Kenya's leadership.

Last but certainly not least, Kenya is still in a revolution mode because the country never settled after the last elections because of the MOU debacle. This works against the government because their is a sense out there that the work was not done properly and therefore the need to finish the job.

Because of the foregoing, I predict a huge turn out and a NO win.

[kamalet]

Job,

Perhaps you forgot who controls Nairobi when it comes to voting. The MPs you suggest control constituencies (with the exception of perhaps Raila) are a product of the MOU when Nairobi was split 50/50 between NAK and LDP, and these LDP people were not elected because they were the most popular, but the produce of some arrangement! I still beleive that the FORD-A/DP voters that flooded Nairobi with councillors and MPs have not moved out and they turn up to vote, you can bet which side they will vote. If your memory was not so selective, why was it important for Gumo to have a deal done for him that Tett would be nominated (well before even the election!) apart from the fact that he stood no chance unless the deal was made, and it was important that Nairobi reflected the MOU!

As I said, turnout will be key to who wins on Monday.

Kichwambaya:

I am not convinced even now that the turnout will be higher than 40% which would be considerably lower than 2002. The incentives are not there, and our head honchos are not known to attract that many voters. Since this is a referendum, the majority of the voters will be those Kikuyus who think 'uthamaki' is being taken away and those who think Raila will be PM. These cannot be that many!

[kichwambaya]

Kamalet:

Since we have not had a referendum before, we are all basing your predictions purely on our own analysis of the situation at hand. You tend to think that the only people who have a dog in this fight are Luos and Kiuks. I disagree. I strongly believe other tribes will weigh in and will be equally motivated to turn up and vote. If it was Luos v. Kiuks then Kiuks would win because of numbers. I strongly believe that Luyhias, Kale's, Kamba's, Kisii's, coast people, and others also have issues that will motivate them. There is also a general disapointment with Kibaki's leadership which is also a non-tribal motivater.

This referendum will realign politics in Kenya like never before and hopefully it will create a framework upon which two distinct national ideologies can be based-those who believe in the presidential system and those who believe in the parliamentary system.

Some people believe that politically, business will be as usual regardless of who wins. I do not buy that. I think a NO win will be very good for the country, because it will force the politicians to renogiciate a new constitution that will be acceptable by a super majority or at least by the magic number mentioned by most-which is 65% of the country.

A win for YES will be a disaster, just like the reneging on the MOU was. This is because of the heavy use of government resourses, the winner may not get more than 55%. In that case, if the YES is the winner, then we will have a constitution which is rejected by a very huge number of Kenyans.

The reneging on the MOU offended mostly Luos and LDP leaders but we saw what kind of effects it had on the smooth running of this government. Now imagine the enactment of a constitution with a simple majority caused by riging, intimidation and outright bribery. With Kanu, and LDP, the fight will only move to the parliament. If Raila and the others are fired and they return to the backbench, I only foresee firestorm. In that scenerio, I do not foresee anything significant happening other than politics until 2007. I also foresee an assassination and a huge riot.

On who controls Nairobi. Nairobi voters have changed over time as demographics has. I remember the days when it was unthinkable for any non kiuk to win an election in Nairobi. Economics have brought many to Nairobi and I think that the mathemetics have also changed. Kiuks will still have the majority of seats but political realignments will in the future assure almost an equal of non-kiuks.

[aeichener]

The worst blunder that Kibaki ever made, was to involve himself (and his NARC government) so strongly in the referendum and to become a part of the Banana Camp, instead of staying aloof.

This way, he risked that the constitutional referendum would turn into a plebiscite "The People v. The Government", and that he would face an enormous loss of political legitimacy, as is happening now.

Alexander

[job]

Kindly take some time to read this long summary of the proposed Wako Mongrel. I found it quite accurate and comprehensive, in unearthing some of the said 20% poison. Pass it on if you could.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION

Forget the politics. What is actually in the proposed constitution? Below is a hard look at some of the provisions in the proposed constitution.
Forget oranges and bananas, let the facts speak for themselves.
Overview

The general level of drafting is so badly crafted that only two conclusions can be reached. Firstly, that drafting was done by an inept group of draftsmen or that a highly professional group of draftsmen have been instructed to craft a document of Machiavellian ambiguity and subterfuge.
When one considers the professionals involved, one is left with the alarmingly conclusion that the latter is true.
This will lead to two very clear and disturbing ends.

Firstly, the courts will be swamped with litigation, as people seek interpretation of the vagaries of the constitution. Secondly, the government will become the beneficiary of a frightening amount of power, which will not be apparent to the lay person on casual reading of the constitution.
Even those foreign NGOs (who neither pay tax nor own land in Kenya) and who have pushed for this constitution from the beginning, are finally realising the monster that they have created.

Some fundamental concerns:

Whilst, politicians have being arguing about the clear problems with the proposed public service, district governments, religious courts and the election of the president and the prime minister.
Numerous fundamental problems within the proposed constitution appear to have been overlooked.

Here are a few of them:
The proposed constitution will bind future generations to the agenda of this government.
Why? Can’t we just change it if doesn’t work?
Changing the proposed constitution is virtually impossible. Three options exist to change the constitution.

1. Changing of the legislation that arises from the constitution (not the constitution itself)- by a politician
Under Article 281, any bill seeking to amend the constitution may only deal with legislation arising from the constitution, and not the constitution itself.

In order to change just the laws arising out of the constitution, the following procedure must be followed:
The Bill must be presented to parliament for first reading;
It then has to wait 90 days before a second reading;
If it passes (i and ii), 2/3 rds of parliament will have to vote in its favour at both the second and third reading.
(Bearing in mind that the constitution comes to force with only a 50% majority but now to change it you need over 66%)

2. Changing the constitution itself- by a politician
The procedure as set out under Article 282 (5):
The Bill presented to parliament for a first reading;
It then has to wait 90 days before the second reading;
If it passes (i and ii), 2/3 rds of parliament will have to vote in its favour at both the second and third reading;
Have a referendum (however there is no time limit for the President to instruct the Electoral and Boundaries Commission to initiate a referendum!!! He could take years or not do it all)!!
Pass a referendum by a majority;

3. Changing the constitution itself- by a non politician
We must collect a million signatures;
Their signatures must all be verified;
There is no time limit of this verification;
Apply to the Electoral and Boundaries Commission who shall pass it to the district assemblies;
The district assemblies must approve it (there is no deadline for them so in theory they could take an indefinite amount of time to do so);
A majority of the district assemblies need to approve the motion (again no obligation for them to reply within any time frame);
If it has been approved then go back to part (1 (i) above and all the subsequent steps).
Then after parliament has approved it, the President sends it back for a referendum (Article 282 (5))!!!! Again, there is no time limit for the President to instruct the Electoral and Boundaries Commission to initiate a referendum!!! He could take years or not do it all!!

This means the President can stop any change of the constitution.
As one can see, with the inbuilt administrative and legislative barriers and frustrations proposed it will be virtually impossible for the constitution to be ever changed.

Why not go to court for change?
Article 2 (2) states categorically that “the validity or legality of this constitution is not subject to challenge by or before any court”.
This means that what this government’s agenda (right or wrong), contained in the proposed constitution, cannot be challenged by any person or court….ever.

OTHER VERY WORRYING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION:
Land Issues

Summary

Fundamentally, the proposed constitution removes the sanctity of title and the principles which provided citizens with the security of private ownership that Kenyans have enjoyed since independence.
Its possible effects have colossal implications for all landowners no matter how small or large.
How ?
The proposed constitution proposes new definitions of land:Under the Article 79 (2) all land in Kenya will now become “public, community or private”.
Under Article 80 (1) (g) “Public Land” includes: “..water catchment areas,….animal sanctuaries”

What are the implications of this?

This means that if you own a shamba which is in a water catchment area or if you own land which has wildlife on it (bearing in mind that neither are defined in the constitution), the government is not only entitled to convert your private land into public land, but under Article 289, your land becomes public land with immediate effect the day the proposed constitution is adopted.

The possibility for abuse is enormous.
The government’s right to seize your land:
Under section 80 (1) (m) public land also includes “any other land declared to be public land by an Act of Parliament”. Similarly, under Article 81 (2)(f), “community land” is “any other land declared to be community land by an Act of Parliament”.
What could this mean?
This would allow the government, with a mere 51% of the vote in parliament, to pass legislation to appropriate anybody’s land- irrespective of how they acquired it or the title that they have.
Under the present constitution the government may do this for specific reasons eg: defence and under section 3 they are obliged to compensate you for the same.
Under the proposed constitution, they can seize your land for any reason claiming simply that it is either Public or Community land.
In addition to this there is no provision for any compensation.
Incidentally all this purloined land would then be “administered” by the National Land Commission (Article 80 (3))- see later.

What about “community land”

Under section 81 (1) all land held by county councils, group ranches or indeed by any community shall be classified as community land (whether previously registered or not). This land will then have to await fresh legislation (Article 81 (4)) to determine who the owners of this land should be.
Deviously, the drafters have ensured that this must come into effect “within 2 years” (Fifth Schedule- Legislation to be Enacted by Parliament), i.e. before the next General Election.

This means that the government will have the opportunity to seize Group Ranches, County Council Lands etc and re-allocate them to their cronies or in order to “buy votes”, prior to the next election.

More frighteningly, under Clause 17 of Article 288 (Savings, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) all community land “shall be held by the National Lands Commission”, until communities are “identified” and their title is registered.
There is NO TIME LIMIT on this. The government could hold your group ranch, communal land etc. indefinitely….
Other Increased government powers to seize your land
Under Article 84 (1) the government …..”has the power to regulate the use of any land, interest or right in land in the interest of………land use planning or the development or utilization of property”.

What does this mean?

As the constitution does not define land use planning or the development or utilization of property, it is open to the government to seize your property for any project that it sees fit.
If a Minister or the National Land Commission wants your land, they would just have to get a Ministry to make some spurious plans for a “project” and then seize your property. There is no obligation to proceed with this proposal within a time limit or indeed to justify the proposal at all.
Equally alarmingly, there is no clear provision for compensation (unlike the present constitution).
What about the claimed rights for citizens to acquire and own property, in any part of Kenya, under Article 58
Whilst Article 58 appears to protect private land ownership, in Article 58 (1) it initially specifically excludes from protection foreigners (Article 83) and land seized for government projects (Article 84) but then in Article 58 (3)(a) it goes further and excludes all of Chapter 7 (i.e. all the proposed provisions that deal with the proposed land policy) or land that is seized for a public purpose or interest!

The conclusion being that there would no longer be an absolute right to acquire and own property in any part of Kenya.

What about the entitlement to compensation that we have under the current constitution?
The only compensation that is clearly set out in the proposed constitution is under Article 58 3) (b), which allows for compensation where land is appropriated for a “public purpose” or “in the public interest”.
Alarmingly, there is no mention of compensation for the numerous other strategies set out in Chapter 7, which allow the State to seize land.Other frightening powers of the National Land Commission

Powers of a court

Under Article 85 (g) the Commission is charged with ensuring “appropriate redress” on all land injustices both present and historical. The National Land Commission becomes a court in its own right.There is no limit in time as to what constitutes historical, it could be defined as last year or 200 years ago.
Would the Sultan of Zanzibar’s survivors be able to claim back the land they lost to the British and which subsequently became Kenyan or the Ugandan’s those parts of Kenya they claim as theirs historically, or the Maasai all land in the Rift Valley settled by other tribes, or indeed those tribes who occupied the land prior to the Maasai’s arrival?
This is a recipe for chaos.

Tax raising powers

Furthermore, under Article 87 (2) (j) the Commission can assess tax on land and premiums on property. This will allow Commission to supersede the role of the Kenya Revenue Authority and the local council.
Who determines who sits on this powerful Commission?
Article 273 (b) and (c) state it is “ …..the president (and approved by parliament-i.e. approved by his party)”.
I.e.: the very people who “seize” your land then “administer” it. The Marxist dream has arrived.


Foreigners

Under Article 83 (1) all property owned by foreigners shall become a maximum 99 year lease.
There is no compensation for the interest lost e.g.: the 900 years of 999 year lease nor are there any allowances made for encumbrances (mortgages etc) that were made with the view that properties had longer than a 99 year lease.
Furthermore, they have made no provision in the constitution for ownership by corporate entities. Corporate entities do not have a nationality, consequently it remains ambiguous whether publicly or indeed privately owned companies will forfeit their freehold tenure.
There is also no provision stating whether this 99 year lease shall be renewable and on what terms.
The signal that this sends to overseas investors, and the confidence in which they should view investing in Kenya, is worrying.
This is also in stark contrast to the freedoms that Kenyans enjoy, in other countries around the world, when it comes to purchasing property.

Matrimonial property

Under Article 86 (1) (d) there are to be provisions to protect matrimonial homes during the termination of marriage.
This would in effect mean that banks would not be able to execute a charge against a property, if the other spouse could show it was a matrimonial property.
The ramifications for the banking industry and by extension, the general population’s ability to borrow money, are potentially disastrous as banks would have virtually no property they could secure loans against and would therefore stop issuing loans.

Maximum and Minimum acreages

Under Article 86 (1) (l) parliament is required to enact legislation “to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreage in arable areas”. As we have seen (prior to the government’s U turn) this means that the government can prevent the sub-division of land and consequently prevent children sharing equally in their parents lands.
At the other extreme, by setting a maximum acreage of land the government is clearly stating that it intends to follow in the footsteps of Mugabe and take land as and when it seeks fit, and from whoever it decides, irrespective of whether that land was lawfully acquired.
Logistically, setting acreage limits would be unrealistic as the population is constantly changing and unless they propose changing the acreage limits every time the population changes, the concept becomes redundant.


OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION:
Right to Life

Article 35 (1) “states that every person has a right to life” but then goes on to state “…..except as may be prescribed in an Act of Parliament”!!!!
This means that parliament can pass any legislation that removes the right of life for any body or group as it sees fit: old, young, unborn, wrong tribe, you name it!!!
So there is no absolute right of life.

Under the present constitution the right to life is guaranteed except where a person has been convicted of a capital offence, in a criminal court. Period. No room for parliament to meddle. Not so with the proposed constitution.

State of Emergency

Under Article 75 (6), during a state of emergency, legislation may be passed which breaches the proposed Bill of Rights
This could just be acceptable until you read that there is no time limit placed on how long that legislation remains effective.

This would allow the State to introduce draconian legislation would could stay alive indefinitely.

Is there a real concern the country will grind to a halt?
In the Sixth Schedule Clause 2, it states that all current laws will remain in force but shall be modified and adapted to bring them into line with the proposed constitution from the date of the proposed constitution coming into force.
This means that every existing Act will have to be scrutinised, interpreted and ultimately referred to the courts to determine how, if at all, it should be amended and what its affect will be.

Business will grind to halt as will our courts.

What of the concern that the proposed constitution encourages civil insurrection?

Article 1 (2) states very clearly that “The people may exercise their sovereign authority either directly or through their democratically elected representatives”.
The implication here is that people can either vote for change (i.e. democratically elect their representatives) or in the alternative take direct mass action, this can legitimately be interpreted as marching on State House or Parliament and using force to remove the government.

Again, this may not have been the intention of the drafters but the problem remains that it is still in the proposed constitution.

Is it true that the proposed the constitution favours one particular tribe for the presidency?

Sadly, yes. Under Article 149 (4), in addition to receiving more than 50% of votes cast, the aspiring president must receive a minimum of 25% of votes in more than half the districts. Statistically, this means that only the largest and most wide spread tribe could ever achieve this.

Numerically, it is extremely improbable that other smaller and less widely distributed tribes could ever achieve this 25% of votes in half the districts.

What is the most frightening aspect of the proposed constitution?

The undermining of parliament’s sovereignty.

But what about all the “consequential” legislation that is proposed to ensure that the correct and appropriate systems are in place to guarantee that the constitution is applied fairly and effectively?
On a reading of the constitution and specifically of the Fifth Schedule (Legislation To Be Enacted By Parliament), 57 pieces of legislation will have to be enacted within six months to three years and 47 of these will have to be enacted within 2 years!!

Bearing in mind the miniscule pieces legislation that Parliament passes every session, this statement is preposterous….until one reads perhaps the most frightening aspect of the constitution, hidden away in Article 287 (5), which reads:
“Where parliament has not enacted legislation within the specified time……the Bill (any bill as put forward by the Attorney-General, in Article 287 (4)) shall be deemed to have been enacted…”

What does this mean?

Simply this- all 57 pieces of legislation that have not yet been passed by parliament within the prescribed time (i.e. 6 months to three years), will automatically become law when the prescribed time has passed, without parliament having ever looked at them!!! I.e. the Attorney-General and the President can ensure that all contentious Acts become law automatically without parliament’s approval.

Summary

The issue is not whether this government or successive governments would abuse these loopholes, uncertainties and defects, but that they actually exist and somebody wants them to become part of our constitution.

Whilst acknowledging that 80 % of the proposed constitution is good and proper, the 20% is so iniquitous that no Kenyan should even contemplate voting for this constitution.
As they say, the devil is in the detail.

Any patriotic Kenyan who foresees the dangers in this Wako Mongrel and the troubles it's bound to create ahead must responsibly save the country by voting NO.

Anyone who truly shuns tribal hegemonies has only one option to vote, that is NO.

Anyone who realizes that the Presidency is bound to be presented with enormous powers on top of many loopholes prone for abuse, as inherent in this draft, must vote NO.

To avoid future turmoil, vote NO.

ANY RESPONSIBLE KENYAN, SHOULD JUST VOTE NO!!!!!!!!

[miguna]

Job:

Marvellous, as usual. And they still call us "wapumbavu?" Anyway, to answer the first question: It may also be that the drafting was competently done and the initial draft could have been generally acceptable to the majority of Kenyans, and faithful to the Bomas Draft, before it was surreptitiously "changed" by some inept, bungling mafiaman. I get this from a little "argument" Nyachae had with Saitoti and others before the Kilifi escapade wherein he [Nyachae] was reportedly "complaining" about some "new changes" on the Mongrel that he had not been privy to. If these trobalists could sneak in "amendments" to the Parliament's Mongrel, what could stop or prevent them from practicing their rickety drafting skills on the Wako Mongrel? Remember that our smiling Amos recently tried to excuse himself from "blame." He knows that "someone" is to "blame" but he is not saying who. I can only think of eight suspects: Kibaki, Kiraitu, Kibwana, Mirugi, Kamau Kuria, Njoki Ndung'u, Karua and Muite. You can add on the list....These are the "arhictects." The others are "spana boys"...if you get my drift.
[unedited]

[miguna]

Job:

I saw your little punches at an op-ed forum, which a good friend of mine forwarded to me. You should give them full jabs; don't spare them.

It reminded me of a topic Enos Oyaya, my former history teacher, cioned for us in High School: "Who is an Intellectual?"

This might be a good topic for discussion, post the No/ODM win, for we need serious introspective debate on the Kenyan "intellectual." Does s/he have all the traits ascribed? That op-ed forum looked to me like a market of confusion rather than distillation of ideas....

Peace.
[unedited]

[job]

Miguna,

Thanks. I sometimes "invite myself" into debates in other fora and I'll confess, some of them are just what you aptly described, ...a market of confusion. So I just throw intermittent jabs, sparing my energy for other things. Some, I don't even bother to pen a letter.

Job.

[job]

Check this out.

The land grabbing by Kibaki pointed again !!!!!!!!
Foreign Reporter, WELLINGTON'S perspective.


THE ARISTOCRAT
Peter Wellingham
11/18/2005

A carnival mood has gripped residents of East Africa's largest economy as they head towards historic polls on Monday that will decide whether Kenya will receive a new constitution or not. The Kenyan constitution has not been fundamentally changed since the Lancaster independence constitution of 1963.

A recent poll put the team campaigning against the constitution 10 points ahead of the pro-constitution group of which President Mwai Kibaki is a part. In the capital city of Nairobi a carnival mood seems to have gripped residents with most citizens seeming to support scrapping of the proposed constitution because it increases the power of the presidency.

Solomon Kimani, a vegetable hawker at City Market in dusty downtown Nairobi quipped, "Kibaki has done nothing for us except create problems and isolate the Kikuyu community from the rest of Kenyans." As he spoke, he brandished several oranges - the symbol of the anti-constitution group - in his hands with a beaming, toothy smile on pasted across his face. The Kikuyu community from which Kibaki hails, are Kenya's largest and most prosperous, but that prosperity has been linked to colonial favour, corruption and brigandry from members of the Kikuyu political elite. Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's frist president and a bloodthirsty land grabber who amassed one of Africa's single largest personal fortunes was the most notable of the bunch.

Kibaki is a fabulously wealthy man with many financial companies, manufacturing firms, and expansive farms in Nakuru and Nyeri, largely known to have been grabbed during his tenure as minister in both the Moi and Kenyatta regimes. As Finance minister he was accused of being a diffident man who would never attend a fund raiser outside of his Othaya parliamentary constituency.

Beatrice Musau, a city council worker said, "This constitution is not what we asked for, Kibaki promised us so many things but now he has changed and become a dictator." She lives in Mathare, a stench-infested slum of over 300,000 only a few miles away from president Kibaki's Beverly Hills-like ambassadorial digs in the affluent, leafy Muthaiga suburb where former corrupt strongman Charles Njonjo also resides.

The general consensus amongst majority of Kenyans is that a small Kikuyu clique in the Kibaki government hijacked a people-driven process, recrafted the constitution behind closed doors using their minions and are now trying to impose it on the Kenyan people. Entire swathes of provinces like the expansive Rift Valley, the populous enclaves of Nyanza and Western, Eastern, Coast, North Eastern and Nairobi are said to be fanatical in opposition to the consititution.

In a campaign that has been both chaotic and belligerent, Kibaki's government is already issuing sack threats to cabinet ministers that oppose the constitution, signalling a return to autocracy and intolerance to dissent that similarly characterized the regime of former president Moi.

A government minister in the pro-constitution group who would only speak under conditions of anonymity admitted that the real fear amongst the political elite is that cabinet minister Raila Odinga will ascend to power should Kibaki step down after his term ends in 2007. "If Raila Odinga ascends to the presidency a lot of the wealthy power barons who have acquired their massive wealth in not so flattering ways fear they may be corralled before corruption courts.

He is known not to tolerate any form of corruption whatsoever and this scares the Kikuyu elite." This line of thinking is also apparently the fuel behind the recent calls to have Mr. Odinga pushed out of government so the real looting can proceed unfettered.

In various live debates aired on television and radio, the pro-constitution group has been seen as economical with the truth, blustering, evasive and obscurantist, leading many to believe sinister motives of creating a Kikuyu permanent hegemony behind their rabid support for it.

The government has also been seen to be engaging in sophisticated corruption with even the president camping at various state houses and lodges around the nation dishing out everything from districts to wildlife, jobs, relief food, roads and universites to woo various communities to support the draft.

Kibaki has threatened to jail any person that protests against the constitution should his faction carry the day. "Nobody should assume they are too big to be arrested," he recently blustered, angry, quivering and suspiciously sounding like former president Moi in his heydays.

All pretences have been lost as he is now a pale shadow of the charming, genteel president Kenyans came to adore when he was overwhelmingly voted in by majority of the residents of this East African nation in 2002.

More News

[job]

Source - BBC: Q&A: Kenya referendum

The orange is the symbol of the No camp. Banana symbol of the YES camp.

Kenyans vote in a referendum on 21 November on a draft constitution that has stirred bitter and sometimes violent debate.


Critics of the document say it ignores agreements designed to check presidential powers. But President Mwai Kibaki is pushing for the charter's adoption.


Q: What are the main issues?


Executive authority: The latest draft constitution waters down clauses hammered out at the National Constitutional Conference of 2003-2004. The conference called for a strong prime ministerial role, but the revised draft delivers a more powerful presidency instead - making the president both head of state and government.


Religious courts: The initial draft sought the retention of Islamic courts. But protests from Christian leaders led to amendments to allow for other types, namely Christian, Hindu and traditional civil courts.


Land reform: The draft calls for radical land reform which has stirred anxiety among owners of large land tracts, especially in the fertile Rift Valley region.


Q: What is the background?


In December 2002, new President Mwai Kibaki promised to deliver a fresh constitution within 100 days of coming into power. But the drafting process kept being postponed.


In 2004, impatient delegates attended a stormy National Constitutional Conference and produced the Bomas Draft, which proposed a powerful premiership and a reduction to the president's authority. The Bomas Draft was passed in March 2004.


Mr Kibaki's supporters wanted to retain a strong presidency and stormed out of the meeting. They then called for a referendum on the contentious issues.


In July 2005, pro-Kibaki forces won a crucial vote in parliament giving them powers to alter the Bomas Draft.


The amended version, known as the Wako Draft, revised clauses on a powerful prime minister and advocated a powerful presidency. It is this version that will be voted on.


The re-engineered document sparked riots in Nairobi in July after complaints that it betrayed the earlier text.


Since then, tit-for-tat accusations have spilled over into stone-throwing and fighting at rallies, in which at least nine people have been killed, some by police gunfire.


Q: What else is at stake?


Ethnic unity: Throughout campaigning, rival groups have played on the ethnic sensitivities and loyalties of their followers. Seven of the 30 cabinet ministers in parliament have rejected the draft and have vowed to resign if the constitution is passed.


The ruling coalition, representing diverse ethnic groups, was forged to ensure victory over the former president Daniel arap Moi. It now risks breaking up.


Q: Who is for and who is against?


Banana group: President Mwai Kibaki's government is leading the Yes campaign under the symbol of a banana.


The group, also led by Vice-President Moody Awori, projects itself as reformist in outlook and says the drafting of a new constitution points to its reformist credentials. It also has a majority of support within the cabinet.


Orange group: The No camp claim the orange as their symbol. It brings together seven cabinet ministers and the official opposition party, Kanu.


Roads Minister Raila Odinga, Environment Minister Kalonzo Musyoka and opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta are its most prominent members. Christian churches, Islamic leaders and civil rights groups back Orange.


The former president, Daniel arap Moi, who still wields influence in his populous Kalenjin community, also opposes the draft. He is not officially in the Orange team.


Q: How will the referendum work?


Ballots will be counted on the day of the poll at polling stations and announced on the spot. The results will be forwarded to constituency headquarters.


The Electoral Commission of Kenya is required to announce the final referendum results within 48 hours of receiving results from all constituencies.


The final results are expected to be announced on 23 November. Anyone wishing to challenge the results must do so within 14 days.


The government hopes to enact the constitution by 12 December, Kenya's independence day.


Q: What do Western donors say?


The issue soured Kenya's relations with key Western donors, UN agencies and NGOs after government officials said public resources would be used for campaigns.


Supporters of President Kibaki have accused some donors of meddling and funding the No team - charges the donors deny.


Q: What about the media?


Journalists have been attacked during rallies and some media groups have been banned from covering some campaign events.


Various concerns have been raised about expressions of tribalism and ethnic propaganda in some radio stations.


Q: Who is observing?


Many local and international organisations are expected to monitor the vote. The government has invited teams from the Commonwealth, the UN, EU, Carter Centre and African Union.


BBC Monitoring

[job]

Dominic Odipo's perspective.
------------------------------------
My day to say 'No' to Wako Draft has now finally come
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Dominic Odipo

There is a sense in which today, 21st November 2005, is probably the most important day in Kenya’s post- independence history. The country is crossing its Rubicon, no matter how the referendum voting turns out.

Millions of ordinary Kenyans will be going to the polls today to tell the Government that they can no longer be taken for granted.

They are going to the polls to tell the highest officials of the current government that it is their votes which put them in power and that it is those same votes which can throw them out.

For far too long, Kenyan governments, and Kenyan Presidents in particular, have taken Kenyans for granted. They have behaved not only as if we elected them kings but as if we elected them kings for life.

They have used or rather misused State resources as if those resources were their personal property. They have grabbed thousands of acres of our most productive land while millions of our fellow citizens have continued to wallow in poverty.

They have appointed thieves, pretenders, ignoramuses and charlatans into high offices of State simply because these people happened to be their cousins, girlfriends, brothers, sisters, nephews or simply drinking buddies.

Kenyan governments controlled from Nairobi have raped our country with abandon and murdered our own people as if they were foreign occupying powers.

They have plundered the resources of the peripheries and concentrated them at the centre so that they could have total control over how these resources are allocated.

They have defrauded their own citizens and hidden the proceeds in numerous foreign bank accounts.

Today, the ordinary Kenyan citizen is going to the polls to pass judgment on this history of government arrogance, cynicism, debauchery, fraud and total disregard for the interests of the true sons of this soil. This, at the end of the day, is the real issue at stake in today’s historic referendum.

This referendum is way, way beyond oranges and bananas. It is about much, much more vital national questions. In one word, it is about whether the Kenyan people are sovereign and supreme or whether that sovereignty and supremacy is vested in the governments which they elect.

This morning I shall be going out to vote NO to this so-called Wako Draft of the Proposed Constitution. I shall vote NO because, after comprehensive and sustained analysis of its contents, I am absolutely convinced that adopting this constitution would be disastrous to our development as one single, prosperous and peaceful country.

I believe that this constitution does not capture the aspirations, fears and hopes of the majority of our people. I also believe that this constitution has been specifically designed to entrench the interests of particular sections and cliques of our population to the detriment of the rest of the country.

There are thousands of people who will be going out to vote today, but who do not understand or appreciate the real issues at stake. God bless them. One day they will and God knows we have done our best in write – ups like these to shed light on the pertinent issues. There are some people, including very senior politicians, who are shouting "Banana" from Nairobi, but cannot visit their rural homes for fear of the backslash from their constituents.

But let all that be as it may. In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli of Florence in what is today modern Italy, published a little book called The Prince in which he boldly enunciated those qualities that he thought made political leaders effective. The basic thesis of The Prince was that the political game had very little to do with morals or our general conceptions of wrong or right. Leaders, Machiavelli asserted, acted, at the end of the day, only in their own personal or sectional interests. They could honour treaties (or M.O.Us) or repudiate them. They could be belligerent or peaceful, all depending on what their perceived interests were.

They could tell the truth or they could tell lies without caring too much about the morality of their changing positions. And when, in order to protect their personal or sectional interests, they deemed it necessary, they would murder their opponents, take responsibility for such murders or plant them on others, and just continue with the more important business of governing.

Machiavelli’s The Prince has become one of the most important treatises ever to come out of the Italian Renaissance. Five hundred years later, it is still read avidly and faithfully by both students and practitioners of politics around the world. Its basic thesis remains as true today as it was in the Italy of the "Quattrocento" .

By the middle of 1969, it had become abundantly clear that Tom Mboya, the Minister for Economic Planning, had become a major political threat to the Kenyan ruling establishment. He was making a calculated, but very strong bid for the presidency and given, his intelligence, eloquence and riches, no one within that establishment could see how to stop him. So, one Saturday afternoon, in broad daylight, they shot him down in a Nairobi street.

Five years later, J M Kariuki, the then MP for Nyandarua North, also found himself on the wrong side of this establishment then led by the late President Kenyatta. In accordance with Machiavelli’s thesis, they cut him down and mutilated his body as a lesson to others of that ilk.

The Wako Draft will protect and entrench the power and riches of this particular clique at the expense of the real interests of the rest of the Kenyan people.

If you vote YES today, you will be handing supreme, almost perpetual power to this little group of wilful men around the President.

If you join us and vote NO, you will be saying that supreme power should be returned to the Kenyan people where it truly belongs. That is the bottom line.

* The writer is a freelance journalist and consultant based in Nairobi.

................... That's my bottom line too...........

Job

[politicalmaniac]

My worry is that I have come across youth who either dony have ID or the voter card