By Edward Kisiang’ani

Although the Proposed Constitution has been presented to the Attorney General for publication, a section of the Church and politicians have enhanced their determination to subvert the review. To achieve their objective, anti-reform crusaders have embraced the treacherous strategy of disinformation.

In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the calculated spreading of false information to destabilise the ability of the enemy to make correct decisions. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts or photographs. Moreover, it could involve the circulation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. Throughout history, disinformation has variously been used as an instrument for causing war, fuelling racial and ethnic tensions, perpetuating unequal distribution of resources and power, exciting unnecessary fear and regenerating confidence in repressive systems.

During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler used the strategy of disinformation to justify the systematic massacre of Jews in Germany. One of the falsehoods the Nazi leader transmitted was that Jews were responsible for the decline of the German economy. He also argued the presence of the Jews in Germany had contaminated the ‘superior’ blood of the Aryan race.

His deceptive tactics stimulated racial hatred that culminated in an expensive global war.

Although the Cold War has officially ended, the stereotypical prejudices which resulted from the disinformation strategies of the US and Soviet Union have not been completely wiped out from the minds of many people.

Closer home, the British colonialists employed the policy of disinformation to justify government atrocities against the Mau Mau freedom fighters of the 1950s.

The reasons some clerics and politicians have given for rejecting the Proposed Constitution are frivolous. Take the case of abortion. In their latest attempts to block the new constitution, Church leaders have isolated Chapter 4 (section 26) of the draft to argue the document might have legalised abortion. Apart from stating every person has a right to life, the section asserts life starts at conception.

Survival tactic

Moreover, it clarifies a person should not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorised by the Constitution. Indeed, the section is categorical termination of pregnancy will not be allowed unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger. In their strange reading of this section, some Church leaders are now misleading the people the draft endorses abortion.

The clergy are adamant they will not support a document, which secures the interests of the Kadhis’ courts. What the Christian leadership does not acknowledge is that even if we reject the draft on the account it legalises the Islamic courts, we shall still revert to the present Constitution, which also sanctions their existence. This makes it impossible to believe Kadhis’ courts are the actual reason some churches are inciting the nation against the draft.

Rather than threaten to mobilise citizens to reject the draft, Church leaders should try to establish why, for over three decades, Kenyans have been fighting for the enactment of a new constitution. Was it because of the presence of the Kadhis’ courts and the abortion clause in the present Constitution that the Second Liberation was launched in the early 1980s?

In pressing for a new political dispensation, Kenyans wanted to institute governance structures that would neutralise ethno-centrism, dictatorship, electoral fraud, corruption and impunity. They wanted to dispense with a political system, which authorises the Executive and Legislature to reside in Parliament.

Advocates of change desired a devolved government that would be regulated by appropriate checks and balances. They sought judicial and land reforms. Kenyans asked for a constitution that allows them to hold dual citizenship. They craved for a document that secures their fundamental rights and freedoms. They yearned for more political representation at the grassroots and national levels.

Given that the current draft has addressed these and many other concerns, which have all along inspired the struggle for reforms, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot endorse the document. As we shield ourselves from retrogressive Church leaders, we must at the same time reject politicians who have opted to undermine the reform agenda through disinformation. The future of Kenya depends on this draft. In the forthcoming referendum, I will vote ‘Yes’. Will you not?

—The writer teaches at Kenyatta University.

kisiangani2007@gmail.com