All former British colonies had a parliamentary system just before they secured independence. Some chose to continue being dependent on Mother Britain and so they ran a parliamentary system of government. These countries include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. There are others.
Other former colonies and protectorates ran away from the parliamentary system and chose a pure presidential system, thereby breaking the umbilical cord with Britain. They include Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya. Zimbabwe won independence in 1980 and ran a parliamentary system with Reverend Canan Banana as President and Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister. In 1987, Mugabe eased Canan Banana out and became President, adopting a presidential system of government.
After independence in 1963, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta was a Prime Minister in a short-lived parliamentary system. In 1964, Kenyatta, Oginga Odinga, Ronald Ngala, Daniel Moi, Thomas Joseph Mboya, Joseph Murumbi, Masinde Muliro and a host of senior politicians agreed to turn Kenya into a republic.
That entailed dropping the parliamentary system and adopting the presidential system with a popularly elected government and President. No longer would Kenyans have to pay homage to the Queen of England, but to our own elected President.
The founding fathers of this nation bequeathed us the presidential system. If what the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) is proposing is a departure from this bequest, then let it be known that the original Kenyatta and the original Odinga bequeathed us the presidential system.
What was the reason for dropping the parliamentary system? It was because Kenya had no king, queen or emperor that they could turn to and pledge allegiance to. If we had such a figure, revered throughout Kenya, it would have been easy.
If the Kabaka had been exercising his powers throughout Uganda, the system would have been adopted in Uganda. The same in Ghana, the Asantahenes was not acceptable to all. Britain was fine. They had their Queen, who is still in power and who is the head of state and a symbol of unity.
No monarchy
I have before given names of countries that have kings and queens and whose governments are therefore run by prime ministers. But let me mention two. Japan has an emperor whose enthronement our President, Uhuru Kenyatta, witnessed recently. He is the Head of State of the Great Japanese Empire.
You all know Divock Origi, the Belgian football star. Belgium has a King. The current Monarch of Belgium is King Philippe 1.
Their First Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was the one that had colonised Belgium Congo, today’s Democratique Republic du Congo! There are a couple of countries I would like to mention.
India, whose population is comparable to that of Africa, practises a parliamentary system. So does Israel. And they have no monarchy. It is okay for them. Just remember that in India, the winning party appoints the President whose role is ceremonial. In Israel, they have 52 political parties. Since independence on May 14, 1948 only three coalitions have ruled the country of just over 8.5 million inhabitants.
A country needs a central figure, who is respected and accepted or can be accepted by the whole country, for that country to make her or him the Head of State. If we had that kind of figure, we could toy around with a parliamentary system.
If we had a dynasty that we all owed allegiance to, it would behove us to run a parliamentary system. Until that can be arranged, we better not tinker with our system, bequeathed to us by those who fought for independence.
Secondly, in a democracy there is no system without winners and losers. There is no system called an inclusive system. But today, the world is talking of political inclusion, which is different from inclusivity.
Political inclusion embraces all races, big and small, all creeds or non-creeds, all gender including transgender, gays, lesbians, etc. That is what is being debated as political inclusion.
Thirdly, our Constitution decrees that all citizens are equal before the law. It goes further to require the President to swear to truly and diligently serve the people and the Republic of Kenya in the Office of the President; “that I will diligently discharge my duties and perform my functions in the Office of President; and I will do justice to all in accordance with this Constitution, as by law established, and the laws of Kenya, without fear, favour, affection or ill-will.”
Exclusion
That is our guarantee that there will be no exclusion. It is my answer to those who claim they will be marginalised or that they have been excluded when it comes to service. There is no other way, in my view, to reward anyone without the President breaching his Oath of Office.
If Kenyans want to introduce favoured individuals or communities or groups, they have to remember that the President is for all of us equally. That is the defence of sovereignty that we expect from the President.
Were they all wrong, those founding fathers? Are their progeny, President Uhuru and Raila, right to change the direction?
Will they be able to galvanise Kenyans the way it was done in 1964 so that we can expect the new system to serve us another 55 years? Up to you Kenyans!
The writer is a lawyer
