Okiya Omtatah

6 August 2010

opinion

The people have spoken. The most important part of the change, however, will happen when those who opposed the passing of the proposed constitution in its current form are brought on board to work hand-in-hand with those who supported it.

We cannot enact the new constitution without addressing the reasons millions were mobilised against all odds to vote against it.

The 'Yes' side was very well resourced and had everything going for it; including the fatigue of Kenyans with the reform process. Most people wanted to put the "constitution" issue behind them. They just wanted the country to move on, irrespective of the merits of otherwise of the document.

The 'No' vote was not a rejection of the draft in toto; it was a demand that it first be amended to remove what was offensive to this group. Largely, there was agreement by both sides that the document needed amending, the difference being when to do so.

For Kenya to be the true winner, we all must accept the verdict of the majority, but not fail to listen to what the substantive minority said. Meaning we must fall behind the document and do whatever it takes to make it accommodate all.

Doing that should not be beyond us because none of the sides was of the view that we did not need change; the contest was about when the amendments should be carried out.

The side that said we should pass then amend has won the day, and the ball is in their court. A further incentive to do so is the 2.6 million votes the 'No' side garnered with its demand that amendments be done before the draft was passed.

Amendments, however, might not be easy given pressure from international advocates of some 'rights' many conservatives find offensive.

The outcome of the referendum must strictly be understood within the construct that not one reason can explain why people voted the way they did.

Without a doubt, looking at the largely ethnic nature of the Yes/No divide, it is clear that loyalty to personalities played a major role in deciding the way the people voted. That means that many votes on either side of the divide were hardly about the Constitution but realignments for politics, albeit of 2012.

During the campaigns, many facts were distorted, and limitless goodies offered to entice people to support the draft. It is time for us to get over the platitudes of the campaign floor and confront the point of agreement that was shared by both sides, that the draft document was largely a work in progress, hence, the universal call for amendments.

Several threats were also dramatised by those opposed to the draft in its current form. Key among them is the amount of legislation required to operationalise the draft.

These cannot be left to Parliament alone. Interest groups, civil society, professionals and others should help draft bills that will be presented to parliament for enactment into law. The general public, too, should play its place in continuous vigilance.

Those calling for the sacking of ministers who were opposing the passing of the draft before amendments should desist from doing so. This was a plebiscite and everybody had a right to support or oppose the document.

So there is no reason why anybody should be asked to resign. To do so will only cause the kind of bad blood that will not allow the new order to have a smooth sail.

A major threat to the new law is our general disregard for the rule of law. Impunity is not the absence of laws; it is the disregard of the law.

Hence, if the new law is to be of any value to us we must undergo a complete attitude transplant. We must do all it takes to make sure the new baby does not die in its infancy.