Kenya parliament approves 'historic' draft constitution Bo

[Sir X]

Kenya parliament approves 'historic' draft constitution


Both the president and prime minister backed the vote on the constitution
The Kenyan parliament has approved a draft constitution, after nearly 20 years of acrimonious debate.
The new constitution goes to the Kenyan people in a national referendum later this year.
The document provides for greater checks on presidential powers and more regional devolution.
As part of a power-sharing deal to end deadly riots following elections in December 2007, it was agreed that a new constitution would be written.
The previous constitution was criticised for concentrating too much power in the hands of the president.

We have gone through a very difficult time and I'm quite sure myself this is the greatest step we have taken so far
President Mwai Kibaki
The draft constitution also recommends:
• power be devolved to a senate and a network of local counties
• the president should no longer be able to appoint judges
• MPs appointed to a cabinet position should be obliged to give up their parliamentary seat
President Mwai Kibaki told Bloomberg news agency: "We have gone through a very difficult time and I'm quite sure myself this is the greatest step we have taken so far."
His power-sharing partner, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, said it was a "historic moment".
An earlier attempt to amend the constitution failed five years ago.
Calls for a new constitution began during the time of President Daniel arap Moi, who stepped down in 2002 after 24 years in power.
Many felt the presidency was too powerful as during the 1980s opposition political parties were outlawed and his regime was accused of human rights abuses.
It was only pressure from foreign donors that forced a return to multi-party politics in 1992.

[Sir X]

Pakistan debates key amendment bill


The bill would strip the Pakistani president of his sweeping powers
Pakistan's parliament has begun debating a bill of constitutional amendments that would strip the president of his sweeping powers.
Among other measures, the draft amendment would transfer powers from the office of the president to the prime minister.
This would include taking away the president's power to dismiss an elected government and appoint military chiefs.
An all-party parliamentary committee has already agreed on the amendments.
The amendments would also rename the North West Frontier Province, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa - meaning "Khyber side of the land of the Pakhtuns".
The renaming of the province has been a long-standing demand of the ethnic Pashtuns who dominate the region.
Constitutional amendments in Pakistan require a two-thirds majority both in the Senate and National Assembly.
But since all the major political parties have signed the draft, it is expected to sail smoothly through the two houses, says the BBC's Ilyas Khan in Islamabad.
Correspondents say the consensus on the agreement is being viewed as a major success of the country's political leadership and the amendment will strengthen democracy in the country.
The present constitution confers vast powers on the president, including the power to appoint services chiefs, the head of the election commission and the head of the public service commission.
The president also has the the power to dismiss all or any of the central or provincial governments and parliaments.
President Asif Ali Zardari indicated that he would do away with these powers in March last year.
In his first annual address to the parliament, he had said he wanted a package of constitutional reforms designed to restore the 1973 constitution to its original form.

[Sir X]

All these nations that are making dramatic changes to thier constitution have one thing in common , the threat of a failed state, from kenya, pakistan,zimbabwe , they all come out of the british system and they see the relevance of having the constituion play a part in fixing thier problems.

Where are our constitutional academics, instead we have lip service and band aid solutions for obvious narco,political terrorist,tribal problems, in some quarters denial.

[ReggaeMike]

All these nations that are making dramatic changes to thier constitution have one thing in common , the threat of a failed state, from kenya, pakistan,zimbabwe , they all come out of the british system and they see the relevance of having the constituion play a part in fixing thier problems.

Where are our constitutional academics, instead we have lip service and band aid solutions for obvious narco,political terrorist,tribal problems, in some quarters denial.

But "X" here is something else they have in common: they still are failed states or failing states.

Zimbabwe's constitution has nothing to do with good governance and all about sharing power between two highly entrenched and possibly corrupt parties. Sure this provides stability but it will not provide prosperity.

Pakistan went to hell in a hand-basket a looooong time ago. It has had 3 constitutions since independence has only gotten more instable with each new constitution (and each amendment). Pakistan's latest constitution also had it's origins in political horse-trading and military rule.

Kenya's new constitution is set to be a lot like Zimbabwe's in origin: all about sharing between the two highly entrenched and corrupt parties. The bit about MPs giving up their seats is simply a reflection of how failed their politicians are. They are so unused to actual work that they can no longer accomodate the not unusual practice of being an MP and Cabinet member. I'm pretty sure not one of them would be able to fill the role of even US Vice President since that person is both a member of the executive and also a member of the legislature (President of the Senate). I won't be surprised if Kenya changes their constitution again at some point to reflect the inadequacies of the latest draft (or if like Israel they find that trying to weld two different systems together doesn't really work).

The basic fact is that our politicians are lazy. They meet ONCE a week and meet on average 40-50 days a year for parliamentary business. In much larger countries where each MP has many, many more constituents to deal with in addition to far more topics on their plates as cabinet members the system works fine. India has 550 members of its lower house which are directly elected in a country of 1 billion people. Even the most generous math (assuming only 40% of that 1 billion is the electorate) gives 700,000 constituents per MP. That's basically a third of Jamaica's population in one constituency. India's parliament also meets twice as frequently as Jamaica's. The UK's parliament meets 120 days a year (basically 3 times a week). Yet India and the UK's governments somehow find the time to balance between providing for the needs of tens or hundreds of thousands of constituents (far more than any MP out here would have to deal with) and at the same time dealing with such things as the Litvinenko affair, nuclear weapons, wars, major financial problems, etc in addition to the normal stuff like electricity and water. When Karl Samuda says that the role of MP and legislator and cabinet member needs to be separated what he is really saying is that "despite the fact that I only meet for legislative business ONE day for the week and presumably have 4 FULL days for all other business, I still can't do it because...well, I'm just a lot lazier than a lot of you guys who work 10-12 hours a day or who happen to work 6 days a week or even just 5 days a week with 9-5 job hours. So please bear with me."

If anything I would look more at Rwanda. They never fundamentally changed their overall system (presidential) but simply strengthened it by cutting out loopholes and abolishing discriminatory provisions from the old 1991 constitution.

[Sir X]

So keep the constitution we have in place and hope for good leaders? What are you trying to say about our constituion and proposed changes is it feasible ?would it be a good thing ? Is it a part of the solution ?

Please be as direct as possible

[ReggaeMike]

So keep the constitution we have in place and hope for good leaders? What are you trying to say about our constituion and proposed changes is it feasible ?would it be a good thing ? Is it a part of the solution ?

Please be as direct as possible

Keep the constitution we have (with minor adjustments such as requiring candidates to live in their constituency and have constituency borders changed randomly every 10 years) but don't just hope for good leaders, vote for good leaders and encourage others to do the same (and explain to them why). Nothing will change as long as the same leaders are around and as long as people have the culture of voting for leaders who show no accountability and from whom they expect no accountability. Even if we had the most progressive, innovative constitution in the world, our current leaders are wily and will always find a way around any new restrictions (for instance, if barred from running except in the area of residence then instead of openly running for a certain seat they would find some underling who does live in that area and use said underling as a puppet, then we would have a puppet parliament rather like how Cuba had puppet presidents under Batista before Batista decided to become president himself). The best way (and probably only way) to prevent that is to first break the control the current lot has by total disavowing them and not voting for them or their cohorts.

EDIT: So basically instead of getting caught in some kind of arms-race with corrupt politicians where we try to find ways to thwart them and they find ways around these obstacles, the "only winning move is not to play" their game by not entertaining corrupt politicians with votes at all.