|
|
Post by mank on May 20, 2015 14:28:22 GMT 3
But Amigo, mwananchi has taken the position that political offices will be filled by the ballot (one vote for each qualified voter) - we can find that put very strongly in the constitution. So if this affirmative action is also a value, then mwananchi has to decide which of the two values is to be sacrificed so the other can be attained. It is that simple, because the two cannot go hand in hand. We should discuss the merits of the affirmative action separately, to avoid noise over the current issue - it is not necessarily unanimous that there are grounds for affirmative action ...but  for now. both red high lights To achieve affirmative action in the new wards, electoral regulations would be in place to ensure voters elect a man and a woman to take of care of the constitutional requirement on gender equality.
.... Podp, I think you are missing something fundamental about the electoral process Kenya has chosen herself. If you go by the definition of "democracy", you may still have the sense that there is space for the regulatory adjustments that you advocate for. It would be an unrealistic sense though. But beyond that, Kenya's constitution has very tightly packed the definition of its democracy, ruling out any wiggly definitions of 'democracy' that you have in mind. I recall spelling out the key clauses for this definition at the time of this debate, leading to a conclusion that this gender law is impossible to implement under the constitution. We cannot have the regulatory adjustments you propose, and still have the 'democracy' spelled out in the constitution. Its like saying that daddy can change rules so his child can still have the same candy she just ate, just because the child wants to both eat the candy and still have it. What kind rules, by the way, would.." ensure voters elect a man and a woman"? |
|
|
|
Post by podp on May 20, 2015 16:12:49 GMT 3
both red high lights To achieve affirmative action in the new wards, electoral regulations would be in place to ensure voters elect a man and a woman to take of care of the constitutional requirement on gender equality.
.... Podp, I think you are missing something fundamental about the electoral process Kenya has chosen herself. If you go by the definition of "democracy", you may still have the sense that there is space for the regulatory adjustments that you advocate for. It would be an unrealistic sense though. But beyond that, Kenya's constitution has very tightly packed the definition of its democracy, ruling out any wiggly definitions of 'democracy' that you have in mind. I recall spelling out the key clauses for this definition at the time of this debate, leading to a conclusion that this gender law is impossible to implement under the constitution. We cannot have the regulatory adjustments you propose, and still have the 'democracy' spelled out in the constitution. Its like saying that daddy can change rules so his child can still have the same candy she just ate, just because the child wants to both eat the candy and still have it. What kind rules, by the way, would.." ensure voters elect a man and a woman"? it appears I am truly missing something fundamental and I will continue searching the missing links. just a disclaimer. the bit quoted is from the interim (audit on the impact of the 2010 Constitution on the economy and public finance) report presented to the Audit and Appropriations Committee yesterday. the team has proposed that the law be changed to compel parties to nominate representative numbers of either gender or consider reducing the number of wards by half and then have each of them represented by a man and a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 20, 2015 18:37:16 GMT 3
That is a very well-put point, and it is deep too. But the problem of the historical and institutionalised marginalisation of women in public space, remains, just like, I suppose, it does for the blacks in the USA too. If we agree this is a problem to be addressed, and there is a constitutional consensus, then the problem remains, ( the electoral process is the wrong mechanism,) so a right mechanism must be identified and implemented. In your unmatchable words amigo '' a process technically competent'' must be facilitated. Good. I do not believe in discovering the wheel twice. It is called affirmative action, or positive discrimination. And, outside the ''impossible electoral mechanism'', there remains a whale of opportunities to practice affirmative action. Now, to improve on Scandinavia: All heads of parastals, female. All high state positions outside elected ones, 50/50. And if the head is a man, the deputy must be a woman. So half the cabinet -being non elected, will be female. Now, any objections!? (NB: I have followed the arguments against affirmative action in the USA, so, like Mank, I may not be  bothered to re-read rehashments or variations thereof!) But Amigo, mwananchi has taken the position that political offices will be filled by the ballot (one vote for each qualified voter) - we can find that put very strongly in the constitution. So if this affirmative action is also a value, then mwananchi has to decide which of the two values is to be sacrificed so the other can be attained ... either a little more concentrated decision-making than the constitution stipulates, or sisters will just have to outrun their brothers to get there. It is that simple, because the two cannot go hand in hand. We should discuss the merits of the affirmative action separately, to avoid noise over the current issue - it is not necessarily unanimous that there are grounds for affirmative action ...but for now. Amigo, I had already quit, on your advise, the desire to use the electoral process to redress the problematic in question. --you declared it technically incapable, and I thought, lets think outside this box then. So I went to Scandinavia. I agree at the street level it is 'not necessarily unanimous that there are grounds for affirmative action', that is why I talked of a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS. That is in the 2010 promulgated constitution, the issue of '' gender balance'' was pontificated, albeit in a stupid, ''technically incompetent'' segment: electoral. NB: There are of course some things mwananchi may unanimously want, but which they will be dictated to forget. For instance, making a bonfire of homosexuals! -when Sir William says it is un-African and anti-Christian, what codes is he switching one? Exorcism! And when puritan tradition meets evangelism, exorcism is by fire. But that is another thread! |
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 21, 2015 1:40:53 GMT 3
But Amigo, mwananchi has taken the position that political offices will be filled by the ballot (one vote for each qualified voter) - we can find that put very strongly in the constitution. So if this affirmative action is also a value, then mwananchi has to decide which of the two values is to be sacrificed so the other can be attained ... either a little more concentrated decision-making than the constitution stipulates, or sisters will just have to outrun their brothers to get there. It is that simple, because the two cannot go hand in hand. We should discuss the merits of the affirmative action separately, to avoid noise over the current issue - it is not necessarily unanimous that there are grounds for affirmative action ...but for now. Amigo, I had already quit, on your advise, the desire to use the electoral process to redress the problematic in question. --you declared it technically incapable, and I thought, lets think outside this box then. So I went to Scandinavia. I agree at the street level it is 'not necessarily unanimous that there are grounds for affirmative action', that is why I talked of a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS. That is in the 2010 promulgated constitution, the issue of '' gender balance'' was pontificated, albeit in a stupid, ''technically incompetent'' segment: electoral. NB: There are of course some things mwananchi may unanimously want, but which they will be dictated to forget. For instance, making a bonfire of homosexuals! -when Sir William says it is un-African and anti-Christian, what codes is he switching one? Exorcism! And when puritan tradition meets evangelism, exorcism is by fire. But that is another thread! Amigo, It seems your Scandinavian prescription is for giving women leadership power outside the electoral process, i.e. in offices that do not depend on the popular vote. That can be done. What I declare an impossibility is the 1/3 gender rule for electoral offices, under Kenya's constitution. The constitution clearly stipulates the minimum qualifications of persons to vie for popular offices, and except for the positions that are, by creation of the constitution, for select segments of the population e.g. women and physically challenged (or whatever the socially correct term), the constitution is clear that an individual cannot be denied candidature to a popular post except on the basis of the qualifications there in. So we cannot dictate how many women may be elected without dismantling this part of the constitution, which if you look carefully you will agree is what makes the whole thing a democratic constitution. Play about with this, and we shall be in dark times constitutionally. But lets entertain the idea that the constitution can be changed to accommodate this Kenyan affinity. Now lets ask ourselves this: what is the minimum extent of tinkering with the election clauses must we have, to ensure this 1/3 threshold? Amigo, my answer is that it is so large an extent, that no one should dare propose this. Let's take what PODP brought up as a suggestion: Perhaps the team does not realize that it is making a case for "a bit" of constitutional dictatorship. The team does not see any problem with a little dictatorship, targeted at the party level, but would that be all it takes? Ok, lets say we change the law, and now parties are not allowed to nominate more men than women, or whatever the ratio. Is that enough? Of course not! Nomination is one thing, election is another. Now, if the team was thinking right, it would have suggested that the gender clause should be corrected to say "every party must nominate X:Y gender ratio for political offices". In fact that's what should be done.... but lets stick with the mission of determining how much we must trash the paper democracy to make this 1/3 standard a working standard: So, if the bit of dictatorship at the party level is not sufficient, where next do we bring a little dictatorship? Well, to the voter of course. But how? Are we going to say that voters must first meet and decide who to elect among competing candidate so the 1/3 rule is not violated? I can't believe that 5 years after the constitution was inaugurate we are still hearing recommendations from committees that do not understand the constitution they are making recommendations about. Its a disgrace. |
|
for now.
bothered to re-read rehashments or variations thereof!)