|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 22:04:29 GMT 3
Podp, nothing in this discussion stops you from focusing on IEBC.
By the way, after the rerun of elections new data will emerge to fit a similar regression plot. That plot will be: Winner's count = a + b*looser's count + model error, where a,b are each > 0. So we could preemptively invalidate the rerun and every election there after on the basis of the regression plot theory, except if we could show that the speculation that such a model is used to generate data is factually founded, and rather the model is not fitted on the data from polls. Wrong my good friend. If a and b are greater than zero but less than 1 the winner's count cannot be greater than the looser's count. For the graph to be maintained a,b > 1 IEBC as the red high light shows makes more interesting focus. SCOK ruling is for law practioners and scholars, not necessarily in that order. You are right about b being required to be greater than 1 (any a,b pair with a + b > 1 will do). My key point though, is the question that must be answered before this plot theory can count should be: is the model the engine for the reported data as alleged, or is it just a fitment to the reported data (or even non-existent in the particular parameters)?
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 20:58:32 GMT 3
Podp, nothing in this discussion stops you from focusing on IEBC.
By the way, after the rerun of elections new data will emerge to fit a similar regression plot. That plot will be:
Winner's count = a + b*looser's count + model error, where a,b are each > 0.
So we could preemptively invalidate the rerun and every election there after on the basis of the regression plot theory, except if we could show that the speculation that such a model is used to generate data is factually founded, and rather the model is not fitted on the data from polls.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 17:15:17 GMT 3
Advancement of this regression plot argument presumes that the plot was first developed, and then used to produce results which would then be announced. The ethical expectation is that, if such a plot was developed anywhere, it was developed upon reported results. There is only one way of testing which case rules: recount the votes, or use forms 34A or B.
The court did not even attempt a basic test of whether the plot actually fitted the announced results. If we have a chronological capture of the announcements, we could reproduce the plot at various times and see if it is real. We can at least check whether the plot fits with the final result, although that would not be confirmation. It is inexcusable of a court to accept such an argument into evidence and care not to inspect its validity. The one with the wilder imagination wins in such a court.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 21:57:50 GMT 3
Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama…… Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were. Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client... Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client. 30 minutes later:Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines...... FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT. Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes.... Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!! In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors. .. Interesting. Perhaps they deserve what they got, but Kenya for sure hasn't been shown to deserve the same.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 14:59:32 GMT 3
Hmm. . . . . !! Are you sure Kethi Kilonzo made arguments in 2017 presidential election petition? I am not sure if I misspoke or if you misunderstood me. I meant arguments at the ICC. That was the only forum where I had heard her arguments before this, and contrary to what I caught on one media claim, that is where her name rose to the limelight... Not this latest event. Yes she did. I regret the confusion. Later I will find you the clip I listened to. In an afterthought I realize I must have listened to a dated clip. That makes sense of the observation of the media about her shooting to fame, without reference to her spectacular arguments at the ICC. My error.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 12:00:21 GMT 3
I thought the argument about the regression plot was that all the votes fell on or too close to the line. The scenario of innocence that I alluded to in that case, is that scale can determine whether votes away from the line are visible on the plot. Listening to the lawyer now, I realize it is the ratio along the reporting time that is in question, as you also seem to be saying.... The use of the regression plot in that sense is utterly misleading. The linear plot is a dictate of the analyst, not the data. The "githeri" illustration is spot on to any hotly contested election. I have stayed up through several streaming of US election counts, and a near constant percentage margin, once established, tends to persist through most of the counting. It is not difficult to see why... After a substantial number of stations have reported randomly from across the nation, every incoming tally is small relative to to what has been reported already, and will therefore not have a huge impact on the established slope up to that time. If an incoming tally is representative of the population, it should not even affect the slope at that time. Such an argument, to go without professional diagnosis is a terrible display of incompetence, or non commitment to the course of justice. Reasonable people should have called for a simple examination of the argument by, for example, inspecting how the line moved when significant volumes of votes dropped in from chore Raila zones, and uhuru's zones on the other side. These two zones fight from either sides of the plot, while neutral zones fall on the line, and therefore a test of validity of the regression plot argument would be in whether incoming dots seemed to comply with expectation of where they belonged on the plot. Not whether there seemed to be a perfect fit of line on the pool at any point. The line is a dictate of the analyst, while the appearance of perfect fit is a result of both the intensity of the contest and "the law of large numbers".
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 11:02:58 GMT 3
I listened to some of the arguments. I was terribly unimpressed by lawyers on each side... Actually even by Kethi Kilonzo on the third side. But Mwite was the worst, and he knew it himself. I am particularly disappointed with Kethi because I think she should have been pursuing more for the mwananchi than just a repeat election... She should have (and should now) be after exposing the truth.. Not winning by hearsay where more objective tests exist, but on pursuance to expose the malpractice eve after a rerun is already given. Hmm. . . . . !! Are you sure Kethi Kilonzo made arguments in 2017 presidential election petition? I am not sure if I misspoke or if you misunderstood me. I meant arguments at the ICC. That was the only forum where I had heard her arguments before this, and contrary to what I caught on one media claim, that is where her name rose to the limelight... Not this latest event.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 5:27:53 GMT 3
I listened to some of the arguments. I was terribly unimpressed by lawyers on each side... Actually even by Kethi Kilonzo on the third side. But Mwite was the worst, and he knew it himself.
I am particularly disappointed with Kethi because I think she should have been pursuing more for the mwananchi than just a repeat election... She should have (and should now) be after exposing the truth.. Not winning by hearsay where more objective tests exist, but on pursuance to expose the malpractice eve after a rerun is already given.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 5:18:49 GMT 3
Mank, I don’t think you have been following in totality the electioneering mischief and how opaque the process was …. The activities of some government security agencies and government (jubilee) handlers before, during and after the elections makes it very difficult for me to buy to “recount the ballot” as being one of the options. There were reports of ballot being stuffed in returning officers private homes with policemen at hand to make sure that the process proceeds smoothly! – I think this was in Narok/Kisii/Nyamira. Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama…… Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were. Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client... Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client. 30 minutes later:Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines...... FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT. Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes.... Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!! In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors. No, I had not been following at all. I started only after the dispute. That lines up with the fact that I found Jules at the flair of violence in 2007. Now the angle you bring in, needs to be argued out so the ruling can make sense. Without arguing that counting itself was adulterated, the court seems to have an agenda in its standing ruling. But it was the court itself that argued that there had been no presentation of evidence of malpractice at counting..and it said it in a way that a casual ear would hear that such evidence was non existent. Those who are merely interested in a rerun don't realize the harm the court is doing, in calling for a rerun while not making a good case for it. I don't know if it is timidity, or bias, but the court needs to show that it acts out of neither but objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 23:22:44 GMT 3
By the way there is a scenario in which the plot could be innocent but I highly doubt that's what is at play here. But it sickens me to imagine that the actual results won't be revisited to validate the allegations.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 22:59:07 GMT 3
I am traveling and typing from an inconvenient gadget, so I will be very brief. Kasiaya, thanks for sharing the regression plot. If that plot is a real representation of the announcements, then that indeed seems too smooth for an actual election practice. But that would put the question on the announcement. At this point no one can reasonably ask another not to be concerned with the announcement. Still the question remains: why a repeat election just because the announcement is questionable, yet there are pre-announcement records to check the announcements? Kamale, thanks for the pointed responses. This ruling and it's implications for the future reminds me of our discussions on the gender empowerment clause of constitution that paused mathematical versus democratic conflicts. I am curious whether we ever got those conflicts resolved.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 0:58:54 GMT 3
... .. Up until this very moment nobody has explained to me in clear and simple terms how the linear regression plot of the poll results data was attained - was it a coincidence? In a nutshell, all the queries you have posited will only be valid if you can make me believe that the poll results that were announced by IBEC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B). Kasiaya, The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it. You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge. My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 20, 2017 20:01:36 GMT 3
I have painstakingly listened to the details of the verdict, given by a judge who was either exhausted at the time of reading the verdict, or who has reading difficulties. I take away a few points:
- IEBC had issues of technicality to explain, and from the little I listened to, IEBC seemed to explain, albeit incoherently. For example, why could an election be called before all results are collated at the national headquarters? That is trivial, and it happens all over the world. An explanation I am conversant with is, when votes have been counted to a certain threshold and the margin between candidates is known, it may become clear that the remaining uncounted votes would not tip the balance even if they were all allocated to the second tallying candidate. I don't know whether that is what happened here, but I believe it has its place in an election.
- In the US they always stream votes cast along with the voting process. They clarify that such votes are provisional. Muite seemed to explain a similar activity for Kenya, but he did not seem fully conversant with the process. The court seems to argue that IEBC declared the election on the basis of such provisional results. This would be problematic, but I think it is an issue with a redundant check that I mention in my "grand take away" below ... which I think should have been the direction of the ruling.
- The court wonders why manual transmissions could arrive before the electronic. It happens - large documents can jam the system. Again, I don't know if that is what happened in this case.
- Why presidential votes exceeded gubernatorial and parliamentary elections: I did not catch the actual difference because the reader was incoherent on this part, but it did not sound like a huge margin. Fact: voters everywhere care more about the head of state than the smaller positions. It is usual for presidential votes cast to exceed those of senators and others, even in US where the ballot presents catch-all vote casting down the party of preference with one push of a button.
The grand take away, the court seems to question its own judgement. It says, "...at this juncture we must restate that, no evidence has been placed before us to suggest that the process of voter registration, voter identification, manual voting and vote counting were not conducted in accordance with the law." This is strange! Would such evidence not be the only trigger for the ruling that the court made? Why require voters to go back to polling if the court is not questioning the process up through counting? Weren't the tallies counter-signed by representatives of the candidates after the counting? Why then not disregard everything that followed, and go back to those signed summaries?
Looking forward, I wonder how many days Kenyans will be willing to wait after election, to know who won. I know in US it takes weeks, even months, to count all votes. Yet by end of day, the president is usually known. Kenya's supreme court is seeing more technological might in Kenya than the US sees in itself.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 20, 2017 6:02:20 GMT 3
On my part, I confess I am perturbed by the Supreme Court's ruling. I am concerned with the challenges that the ruling imposes upon the country, including the creation of scenarios in which future elections cannot be resolved, owing to the precedent of this ruling rather than the facts of the election of then.
There may have been a case for recounting votes in the recent election, but I don't understand how the court leaped from a recount to a repeat, and how it can avoid the same ruling in future challenges, however flimsy the evidence. In my view the court did not display care about the precedent it was setting, and that is unconventional of any court. Perhaps I will be surprised tomorrow. That would be a pleasant outcome.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 13, 2017 19:34:38 GMT 3
Thanks, Kamale. It has been a long time indeed. I have been well overall, but with a full life, flavoured with the various elements of middle age. I would not want to complain.
It was a pleasure to read the Standard Newspaper article. It amazes me that many people think that the Supreme Court's decision was a sign of progress for Kenya. Clearly the Supreme Court abused its mandate of a final judge, in making and judging over a case that that was not before it. A decision by an institution with the power of a supreme court should be so well thought out and articulated that even those inclined by any factors to disagree with it would find it a challenge to disagree. In this case it is the supreme court that seems to have difficulties articulating what led it to the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 9, 2017 15:16:38 GMT 3
Greetings fellow wanajukwaa. I take my hat off to you, folks like the most wordy amigo Jakaswanga, Kamalet, OO, and all who jot here routinely and intermittently. I take leave from making excuses for my long hibernation. More importantly, all will note that a big thing has happened to shake me from hibernation.
I wont be making news, I believe, when I state that after Kenyans went to ballot boxes in millions in August, the decision they seemed to have made turned out not to be acceptable to four of them, the four who in the end matter most. It sounds outrageous, to anyone who considers it the electorates' voice the outcome that the court overturned. Was it, or was it not? How do we know if it was, or it wasn't?
I wish I was impressed that the elections were fraudulently executed. As soon as the elections were over though, independent observers told us that the elections were clean! Unadulterated!
Even some NASA high-fliers came out with inward looking narratives of why their top candidate lost, and why the Jubilee counter candidate won. It sounded like a fair battle just concluded. Even the NASA candidate seemed to be accepting the outcome ... but only for a short time. All changed.
Two judges of the supreme court would not join in the ruling that the presidential elections should be done a fresh. Just why did they not? By the way, would they have gone along if the other four were calling for a recount instead? Has anything been said about this? Did the Supreme Court deliberate on a recount at all, or did it go for a repeat election from start?
Why a new election? Were there credible charges that vote casting itself was improper? I am unaware of that? Why is there so much empty space between the nature of the grievance and the judgement?
I have heard before that everyone has a price. Supreme Court judges would not have a price, would they? And could there have been a willing buyer, if they were willing to sell out? I wonder!
Sorry my Jukwaa mates, but i have to say, the Supreme Court ruling seems to me arbitrary and capricious at best, and subversive at worst.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 11, 2017 10:08:52 GMT 3
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 mank on May 20, 2015 8:14:24 GMT 3
I don't have the energy to reopen the debate of then, but the difficulties of implementing the affirmative clause in an electoral process were adequately discussed and then ignored. Even if everyone were to decide to vote for at least one woman for every 3 electoral offices as that law seems to demand of a voter, still meeting the one third law could not be assured. So it is one thing to desire that women should have more decision positions, and quite another to say that the desire will be implemented by a process that is technically incapable of such implementation. 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.
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 18, 2015 13:46:04 GMT 3
I recall we debated this provision extensively. Its dumb, and should simply be scrapped rather than be replaced with anything. One-man one-vote! such thinking takes us to pre 2010 constitution days as this....Ainabkoi Member of Parliament and chairman of the parliamentary Justice and Legal Affairs committee Samwel Chepkonga last week introduced a constitutional amendment bill that seeks to suspend the clause on the one-third gender rule in elective representation. Read more at: www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000161354/one-third-gender-rule-calls-for-more-women-participation/but having had the privilege of seeing the pace at which countries who have a sizable number of women in decision making e.g. Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda in Africa and Denmark, Sweden, Finland in Europe I am persuaded we need to increase the number of women in position of authority i.e. Parliament, Senate, Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, Managing Directors etc. in Kenya Of course it does. That's where the intellectual assessment of wishful provisions belong, and where this was passed raw. I don't have the energy to reopen the debate of then, but the difficulties of implementing the affirmative clause in an electoral process were adequately discussed and then ignored. Even if everyone were to decide to vote for at least one woman for every 3 electoral offices as that law seems to demand of a voter, still meeting the one third law could not be assured. So it is one thing to desire that women should have more decision positions, and quite another to say that the desire will be implemented by a process that is technically incapable of such implementation.
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 17, 2015 23:40:45 GMT 3
I recall we debated this provision extensively. Its dumb, and should simply be scrapped rather than be replaced with anything. One-man one-vote!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 25, 2015 6:25:37 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 18, 2015 5:42:50 GMT 3
I find the building of a fence along the border rather interesting. Why didn't somebody think about that in 1978? Or is that how we got to contain Shifta? How high is the fence going to be, I wonder? I hope it will touch the sky, or it won't work!
And how firm, by the way? Not many months ago we witnessed the felling of a brick wall by a gang of primary school kids. I hope that fence will be stronger than anything I can imagine ... or its a waste of my mother's money.
And please tell me that the Karau won't be allowing 'illegals' through panya roots, and the main entrance alike, for "something small" even while the fence stands. I am wasting hopes - I know!
I have a better solution. Kenyans should get hell-angry, and hit back at the terrorists... don't misunderstand me. I am not asking Kenyans to face-off with Alshabaab ... not yet. The immediate terrorist is alshamus - that officer taking a bribe, and that politician in corruption. And you, who finds it quite okay to get what is not yours at the price of "kitu kidogo," paid in a dark corner.
I think instead of building a fence we should put you and your corrupt cop and politician in a container and make you disappear ... it would be surprisingly easy to keep alshabaab at a distance if we didn't have you facilitating their missions for kitu kidogo. You wretched trash.
... and please, wananchi.... when a utumishi kwa wote plane that is supposed to be on standby for use in case of an emergency is unavailable in an emmergency because it is flying a family of a government officer somewhere for a nice treat, it is irresponsible of us not to get angry! Most civic progress is founded on the anger of the common person.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 12, 2015 20:31:52 GMT 3
BIL, when I read of Ruto's ultimatum to the UN, I hoped it would soon be followed with the usual lament, a retraction... "I was misquoted by the media.". Unfortunately so far it seems Ruto's words are Kenya's words, and they stand as uttered. Even if the camp is moved, Somalia will remain a neighbor of Kenya ... with the Somali people stretching across the border. ... and corrupt Kenyan officials won't stop their corrupt business just because the camp is closed. Kenyan officials that are as motivated as Ruto, if his threat to the UN is an indicator of motivation, should invest in tearing down the underground immigration departments that "naturalize" foreigners on the bus-trip between Magkhadishow and Dadaab and Kakuma. That's where we should start, if indeed we mean to make the Garissa attack Kenya's 9/11.
|
|