|
|
Post by malkia on Jul 30, 2014 16:30:42 GMT 3
Despite being unable to articulate a coherent opposition strategy or even hold credible internal elections, CORD has decided to try and change the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Seems a rather audacious and odd goal for a party that has been struggling and we have to wonder why?
In my view the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is a good Constitution, some might even argue a great one. Undoubtedly we have not been able to realize many of its benefits, implementation has been a major challenge as has political will. So one would think this is an obvious place for an opposition party seeking to energize and expand its base and position for next term elections. But not CORD. Instead of organizing around full implementation of the Constitution, CORD instead decides to try and change one of the best things that has happened to us in recent history, our new progressive Constitution. CORD (some elements of it anyway) were proponents of the Constitution and yet less than five years after its promulgation CORD is seeking to amend it. The entity that would manage the referendum is the same one that CORD has discredited but is willing to suspend their mistrust for the the referendum. Something doesn't add up.
In the meantime Jubilee is hampered by this cumbersome document, whenever they can they have resisted full implementation and been selective in adherence. They would love nothing more than to begin tampering with it. CORD has unresolved leadership issues and sub optimal party structures, not a recipe for a nationwide election exercise? So why a referendum call and why now? Cui bono?
|
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jul 30, 2014 17:04:37 GMT 3
Despite being unable to articulate a coherent opposition strategy or even hold credible internal elections, CORD has decided to try and change the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Seems a rather audacious and odd goal for a party that has been struggling and we have to wonder why? In my view the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is a good Constitution, some might even argue a great one. Undoubtedly we have not been able to realize many of its benefits, implementation has been a major challenge as has political will. So one would think this is an obvious place for an opposition party seeking to energize and expand its base and position for next term elections. But not CORD. Instead of organizing around full implementation of the Constitution, CORD instead decides to try and change one of the best things that has happened to us in recent history, our new progressive Constitution. CORD (some elements of it anyway) were proponents of the Constitution and yet less than five years after its promulgation CORD is seeking to amend it. The entity that would manage the referendum is the same one that CORD has discredited but is willing to suspend their mistrust for the the referendum. Something doesn't add up. In the meantime Jubilee is hampered by this cumbersome document, whenever they can they have resisted full implementation and been selective in adherence. They would love nothing more than to begin tampering with it. CORD has unresolved leadership issues and sub optimal party structures, not a recipe for a nationwide election exercise? So why a referendum call and why now? Cui bono? Which part of the constitution is CORD trying to Change? And....REFERENDUM? I thought it is provided for in the very same Constitution of Kenya 2010? Every Tom, D!ck and Harry can call for a referendum, not just CORD or....? |
|
|
|
Post by stranger1in3 on Jul 31, 2014 11:01:36 GMT 3
referundums are by nature designed to effect changes in the constitution.to say that cord wants to amend the constitution is right.having seen no possibility of amendments passing through parliament,they have decided to go this way.what is amazing that at this point in time they have not yet identified sticking agendas.security,high cost of living and other nice sound words cannot be sorted out via referenda.in short,this business is not going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jul 31, 2014 12:50:19 GMT 3
referundums are by nature designed to effect changes in the constitution.to say that cord wants to amend the constitution is right.having seen no possibility of amendments passing through parliament,they have decided to go this way.what is amazing that at this point in time they have not yet identified sticking agendas.security,high cost of living and other nice sound words cannot be sorted out via referenda.in short,this business is not going anywhere. what do you think of: 1. increasing county governments allocations from 15% to say 40% (yes or no question) 2. devolving security to counties i.e. governor leads/heads/chairs county security council (yes or no question) on 1 other than Nairobi and Mombasa which county inhabitants would not wish to have a say in matters money burning in their own backyard? on 2 or one needs to emphasize is Army/Air force/Navy will remain national but when it comes to police why not have every county do its own recruitment, MCA style. do you see again inhabitants of counties other than Nairobi and Mombasa not willing to have their own locally recruited fellows be police and start in their own counties after training and with time nyumba 10 will work instead of the current scenario where you get a policeman or policewoman from county A going to serve in county B yet s/he cannot even comprehend the terrain leave alone the people there. worst in intelligence and saddest case was Suguta Valley case where fresh police graduates perished chasing cattle rustlers in a place they have never been nor did not grow up there! we have more questions incase you point out plausible holes in the above 2 to start with as concerns high cost of living and security, using your examples |
|
|
|
Post by stranger1in3 on Jul 31, 2014 14:04:36 GMT 3
referundums are by nature designed to effect changes in the constitution.to say that cord wants to amend the constitution is right.having seen no possibility of amendments passing through parliament,they have decided to go this way.what is amazing that at this point in time they have not yet identified sticking agendas.security,high cost of living and other nice sound words cannot be sorted out via referenda.in short,this business is not going anywhere. what do you think of: 1. increasing county governments allocations from 15% to say 40% (yes or no question) 2. devolving security to counties i.e. governor leads/heads/chairs county security council (yes or no question) on 1 other than Nairobi and Mombasa which county inhabitants would not wish to have a say in matters money burning in their own backyard? on 2 or one needs to emphasize is Army/Air force/Navy will remain national but when it comes to police why not have every county do its own recruitment, MCA style. do you see again inhabitants of counties other than Nairobi and Mombasa not willing to have their own locally recruited fellows be police and start in their own counties after training and with time nyumba 10 will work instead of the current scenario where you get a policeman or policewoman from county A going to serve in county B yet s/he cannot even comprehend the terrain leave alone the people there. worst in intelligence and saddest case was Suguta Valley case where fresh police graduates perished chasing cattle rustlers in a place they have never been nor did not grow up there! we have more questions incase you point out plausible holes in the above 2 to start with as concerns high cost of living and security, using your examples Now those are some of the issues we need to address.as you may note from the division of revenue bill is higher than stipulated in the katiba.recruitment of police maybe delegated to the counties but with a central training unit.that with its attendant challenges is far much preferrable.but those can be sorted out at policy level.in future,amendments via referanda should be restricted to when the general election is held. |
|
|
|
Post by Horth on Jul 31, 2014 14:07:00 GMT 3
I honestly don’t think CORD’s referendum move has anything to do with the concerns of the ordinary wanainchi. After RAO failed in getting Uhuru to the negotiating table, I believe the success of the CORD sponsored referendum is threefold:
(1) To create a lame duck presidency, which shouldn’t be too difficult what with Uhuru’s whiskey priest qualities.
(2) Legally show Uhuruto, just in case they've forgotten, that CORD’s supporters (along with RAO) haven’t really accepted the 2013 election outcome and that Uhuru is not the president of at least 5m of the electorate.
(3) A chance for RAO to get a big toe in the executive, even without an official position.
In a way, Raila is angling to stage the runoff he claims was stolen in 2013 i.e. he’s using the referendum to replace the aborted runoff by initiating an 8b Shilling popularity contest. The question(s) for the forthcoming presidential election referendum is a moot point. CORD supporters will vote “yes” to anything asked, as long as they can show their displeasure to Uhuru.
|
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jul 31, 2014 21:37:22 GMT 3
I honestly don’t think CORD’s referendum move has anything to do with the concerns of the ordinary wanainchi. After RAO failed in getting Uhuru to the negotiating table, I believe the success of the CORD sponsored referendum is threefold: (1) To create a lame duck presidency, which shouldn’t be too difficult what with Uhuru’s whiskey priest qualities. (2) Legally show Uhuruto, just in case they've forgotten, that CORD’s supporters (along with RAO) haven’t really accepted the 2013 election outcome and that Uhuru is not the president of at least 5m of the electorate. (3) A chance for RAO to get a big toe in the executive, even without an official position. In a way, Raila is angling to stage the runoff he claims was stolen in 2013 i.e. he’s using the referendum to replace the aborted runoff by initiating an 8b Shilling popularity contest. The question(s) for the forthcoming presidential election referendum is a moot point. CORD supporters will vote “yes” to anything asked, as long as they can show their displeasure to Uhuru. no opposition party exists to please wananchi first and foremost or even to be honest. that is the prerogative of ruling parties as they are the ones who won and have to play honest. Parties provide linkages among branches and levels of government. They allow the often disparate parts of our political system to work together. Parties also link voters and elected officials and can hold office holders accountable at periodic party meetings. Because parties must win national elections, they can also function as unifiers of the country. They dampen sectionalism and give people in remote parts of the country something in common www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/Chap11Notes.pdf'GRAVELY PREJUDICIAL' “The money released is below what we had agreed,” Mr Ruto said. He quoted Section 30 (3) of the County Government Act, which states that the governor provides leadership in the county’s governance and development. “It is therefore gravely prejudicial to create a body dealing with development and such body fails to recognise the development role of the governor at the county level,” said the council chairman, who was flanked by a group of his colleagues. The governors had initially held a meeting to discuss the Act before they convened the press conference. www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Governors-to-contest-changes-in-devolution-law/-/1064/2404264/-/oy3pliz/-/index.htmlAccording to Uhuru, the audit report shows 22 private entities shared 500, 000 acres of land in Lamu between April 2012 and November 2012 despite a Moratorium on Public Land, which represents 70% of available arable land in Lamu County. www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000130118/uhuru-directs-ngilu-to-repossess-500-000-acres-grabbed-in-lamu |
|
