YVONNE'S TAKE: The Constitution in handshake letters

The political moment last week where an MoU was signed and handshakes exchanged has been framed as one that is to bring unity in the country and ensure development for all.

“Nobody can fault unity,” they have said. “The nation is bigger than party interests.” “No part of Kenya will be left behind.” “We want to remain in government.”

All very important statements and pledges to the country. Yet, this is a question we have grappled with since independence—how do we make everyone feel a part of the whole? Unity that ensures that everyone has equal access to opportunities.

Well, Kenya faced its greatest test of unity—the post-election crisis of 2007-2008—that brought this country face to face with what unity, or disunity, could really mean. And from that very real crisis, the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 was born. Not just any law, but the supreme law of the land.

Unity was clearly spelled out in Article 10 of the national values and principles of governance. It then goes on to clearly spell how this would be implemented—the concept of devolution in Article 174 and Chapter 11. Aimed at stopping the endless delegations from all corners of the country to State House to essentially kiss the ring, pay homage to the center in order to get a road, a dispensary built in their far-flung part of the country, or get a new food-making machine (lol).

It gets very specific on how to achieve this—division and allocation of resources based on a formula designed to ensure equity so as to foster unity. An Equalisation Fund to progressively bring the most marginalised parts of the country up to par with the rest so as to enhance unity.

Additionally, there is the NG-CDF, to ensure that all constituencies in Kenya are developed, irrespective of the political affiliation of their Member of Parliament—to cure the ‘maisha mbaya, siasa mbaya’ mantra. So that areas in the proverbial opposition are just as developed as those with representatives in Kikuyu.

There is the National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF), a tool to empower vulnerable communities through county-based programs championed by Woman Representatives. Then the Constitution also considers unity in its totality—to ensure equity beyond geographical boundaries. Women, youth, persons with disabilities. This resulted in funds like the Women’s Fund, Youth Fund, and AGPO (Access to Government Procurement Opportunities) to enable the youth and women to thrive in their businesses. This, to bring the marginalised into the fold and hence foster unity and inclusivity.

And so, I find it problematic when we have a political moment framed as fostering unity. Some of the main items of the 10-point MoU signed last week are: fostering unity, ensuring inclusivity in all spheres of public life, protecting and strengthening devolution, and promoting and protecting the livelihoods of young people. All issues that have been clearly espoused by our Constitution and enacted by legislation.

So, what will this MoU do that the Constitution has been unable to do? That Constitution grants powers and resources to the head of government to do all that is in that MoU. That same Constitution also outlines the role of the minority in that duty.

Unless they are saying that the Constitution has failed in this role. In which case, that is a very different conversation.

I, for one, am not persuaded that an amorphous political pact between two individuals can solve the country’s problems better than the Constitution can. If Parliamentarians—the majority and the minority—the leader of government, and the highest decision-making organ—the Cabinet, have all failed to implement the Constitution, then maybe the problem is not with the Constitution.