A rational observer would’ve marvelled at an ecstatic Kenyan Parliament in the last three weeks.
Tanzanian Present Samia Suluhu Hassan was amused, and saw the joke that MPs didn’t.
She cryptically said she “enjoys” watching and listening to Kenya’s Parliament. She was applauded by the target of her jest.
Other than the hilarious or poor Kiswahili language use, she didn’t reveal what drew her to them.
But whatever entertained her about Parliament must be what’s become the shriek comedy of loyalty pledges we call parliamentary debates in Kenya.
For the three weeks, MPs hollered yet they knew disputes on the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill 2020 was an exercise in futility.
Article 257 of the Constitution is adamant that whether Parliament votes for or against a popular initiative Bill, it proceeds to the referendum if what it seeks to change affects ring-fenced articles in Article 255.
The speakers called them from recess to a special sitting to discuss what was obvious – MPs make laws, but on this one, it only allows them to express outrage or joy.
But even knowing that, they trooped to the chamber for the fun of chiding each other and, of course, the money.
Aside from a salary, an MP is paid an allowance for merely being in the debating chamber. It’s like being paid an allowance for reporting on duty, besides your salary.
After the charade, the majority leadership of the National Assembly were celebrants in victory from a debate whose outcome didn’t matter because it’s predetermined by the law.
They weren’t alone in valediction as their counterparts, Tangatanga 'losers', had their own excuses for jumping ship against the dictates of their icon.
The voting patterns on the Bill in the National Assembly on Thursday last week and in Senate on Tuesday this week, saw Deputy President William Ruto's supporters initially opposed to changes, vote for change.
Out of the House, they had excuses about the proposal for 70 additional constituencies in their counties, meaning more budgetary allocation. It would appear this revelation occurred to them only when the bell tolled for the vote.
Otherwise, out of Parliament, they’re vipers against the Bill. This kind of summersault might have amused President Suluhu to no end!
To MPs, however, it didn’t matter there were glaring 'errors' in documentation; those county assemblies that would’ve flagged out different versions of the Bill didn’t, and that the Senate and the National Assembly debated two divergent versions.
It doesn’t matter that the Bill had irredeemable 'errors' that were flagged as unconstitutional by a joint committee of Parliament.
But that wasn’t important anyway. The law was on the MPs' side. After all, only in Kenya are such 'illegalities' glossed over, allegedly in the interest of the greater good.
In other words, we can flout the law as long as the greater good means serving the interests of powerful individuals.
While the vote was largely inconsequential, we must acknowledge there was the political necessity that the Bill gets overwhelming support.
It was all about optics really. Its rejection would’ve had multiple effects on an already stymied referendum vote by a public that is angry, filled with pent-up frustration by what they deem as punitive government economic decisions through heavy taxation.
A large segment of the public is convinced the referendum isn’t a priority. So, it turned into a do-or-die for the promoting duo of President Uhuru Kenyatta and ODM leader Raila Odinga.
On the eve of the vote, the duo pleaded for the Bill through a joint press statement. That’s how dire it had got.
A defeat would have emboldened DP Ruto to emerge from his double-standards hideout to pose as a NO vote crusader.
Hence the Yes vote by Parliament assuaged Uhuru and Raila's fears that they couldn’t marshal the numbers.
A disastrous message would’ve been sent out to an already irritated and restless public that it was indeed right to reject the Bill at the referendum. That was the fear.
Indeed, the Bill needed public credibility and had to pass in Parliament with the ripple effect of legitimising it among Kenyans.
A loss would’ve denied the proponents the steam to bring the public on board at the referendum.
As Kakamega Governor Wycliffe Oparanya confessed, the plebiscite would be a hard sell.
The win gave the Bill credibility and the duo mojo. But only because the test of the pudding is in the eating.
If the MPs weren’t playing to their leaders’ vanity but representing their constituent’s wishes, then the chance of a referendum win is uncertain.
The MPs will invade the countryside to activate a passive voting machine already psyched to a Yes vote.
Unfortunately, if the MPs were merely playing to the party bosses’ wishes at the expense of what the constituents prefer, then expect the Yes vote to receive a thorough beating.
It doesn’t have to take a Ruto to lead the No troops into battle. There is enough pent-up frustration with the BBI process among Kenyans that they may feel justified to dismiss it.
There were dividends accruing from the vote, though. Ruto can thank Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru for the caution that you can rent a Kikuyu, but you can’t buy one.
On the other side of the aisle, the fissures that’ve been simmering in ODM are now seismic. A section is saying it doesn’t like the BBI end game. And the chasm is growing.
The scarcity of details of the Bill among a large segment of Kenyans is just one reason.
A clever campaign can turn an incredulous public ignorant of the Bill into the propaganda that negates what it is actually about. It’s reverse psychology, a deadly weapon in the hands of a versatile opponent.
BBI proponents have their work cut out for them out of self-inflicted mistakes in the process — that is if the courts won’t put a rude halt to the road to the referendum.
Nonetheless, just why it was necessary to keep the report(s) and Bill from the public beats the logic of promoters eager to curry public favour.
They will be starting from the disadvantage of explaining the Bill's contents for a buy-in, while opponents will ride on public fear of the unknown.
(Edited by V. Graham)
