Opinion: Truce offers chance for a review with political consensus

President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga

We live in interesting times. Two short months ago, no one would have imagined that Kenya’s politics would exhibit its current character. The bromance between President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga has shocked both friend and foe.

Raila, recently anathema in my native county, was cheered when he appeared with the President at Matiba’s send-off service. So much else has changed courtesy of the handshake. The People’s Assemblies are no more. Kisumu vendors can sell Safaricom credit and Brookside milk. Only the NRM general seems conveniently forgotten.

The social media hate- and insult-meter readings are at delightedly low levels. On the other side of the equation, embarrassing events such as the Deputy President failing to meet former President Moi are a film-maker's dream. What a difference a handshake maketh!

Clearly this is just the beginning. Kenyans must get ready for political mutations of an ever-surprising genre. As the political dance evolves, there is now talk of constitutional amendments to deal with outstanding issues. It is clear, except to the naïve, that these amendments will proceed “wapende wasipende.” But only if the current mood continues.

And that is a big if! The structures of government and that of devolution are headed for some revision. With the President and his handshake partner tight-lipped on the contours of their MoU, several positions are developing on these twin issues.

On the structure of government, two proposals have so far arisen. On the one hand, there are those that want the Bomas parliamentary system. There does not seem to be sufficient consensus in this regard.

There is little or no clarity of this proposal. Is the proposal to have an executive prime minister, and shall we still retain an elected president?

Are we proposing to adjust our electoral system to proportionate representation or shall we retain geographical constituencies as the locum of entering Parliament and choosing the chief executive?

If the latter, shall we rationalise constituency boundaries to make the structure equitable? Will the executive be domiciled in Parliament? Will this structure be replicated at the counties so that MCAs elect the governor?

The other restructuring proposal is minimalist. It only seeks to expand the executive by adding a further three or so seats, one of which is a chief minister who has supervisory roles over Cabinet.

 Understandably, since this proposal would not require a major refashioning of the entire government, its proponents seem clearer on their intentions and have even drafted a Bill which may eventually find itself in the House.

This proposal would no doubt resolve our immediate and medium term political crisis but would leave our fundamental problems on structure unresolved.

My view is that we can restructure government in two phases. Start with the proposed expansion of the executive. This will buy us some peace dividend that allows a subsequent sober dispassionate debate as to whether our current presidential system is good for Kenya.

The second major review proposal was introduced by Raila at the Kakamega conference. This proposal correctly identifies the size of counties as one of the challenges of sustainable devolution.

There is no doubt that for a population of 40 million people 47 counties is too many. What this proposal fails to recognise is that while the sustainability question is accepted by many, it is almost impossible to reach political consensus on the political configurations of 14 counties.

Those of us who were in the Katiba writing know the problems of Region 11; the contentious status of Nakuru. This will not go away. Even more critically the current counties have tasted power and resources and it will be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.

What we need is to create a legal framework for formalised regional cooperation between counties especially on the health referral system and other regionally delivered services.

The current gentleman agreements are not sustainable. Undoubtedly the Constitution will eventually be reviewed. What the handshake buys us is an opportunity to get a review on which there is broad political consensus. This is the only way to build constitutionalism.