Power play in Parliament

A Dog once gave a long chase to a Hare. The Dog having not long since made a good meal, was not at all hungry, and in consequence in no hurry to put an end to the sport. He would at times, as they ran, snap at the Hare, and at others lick him with his tongue.

“Pray,” cried the persecuted and bewildered Hare,” are you a friend or an enemy? If a friend, why do you bite me so? and if an enemy, why caress me?

Mistrust among friends or even colleagues can cause a lot of harm. And this cuts across all facets of life, whether in politics, business or just social settings.

I must confess that I have been cautious to weigh into the supremacy wars between the two houses of Parliament. And this is more so because this debate cannot be shaped from a legal perspective or by taking sides.

The supremacy wars are based on mistrust between the two houses, which are supposed to be working for the common good of the public. In fact, the two groups know the legal ramifications of their divisions but concentrate on trying to prove who is more superior.

The roles of the Senate and the National Assembly are clearly outlined in the Constitution and there is no ambiguity, as MPs would want us to believe. Articles 94, 95 and 96 outline the functions of the two houses.

It would not be of use now to go into the details of this, as this debate is not even based on this.

However, although every constitutional provision or law can be read with different lenses and argued from different angles, I believe we must be sincere and realise that the framers of our Constitution expected the National Assembly to be the upper house to the Senate.

To put it more candidly, and to quote a charming lawyer on a talk show last week, "The Senate is the lower house with an upper house name".

Some are also introducing the intentions of the previous draft Constitution from Lancaster to Kilifi bringing in even more flawed and unconvincing arguments into this supremacy war. The fact is that we promulgated a new constitution in 2010 and that is what we have before us as the only living document, period.

It is even more instructive that the Supreme Court has never given any binding direction when called upon to engage in this supremacy war.

It has, therefore, become obvious that beyond the details of interpretation of the law and the semantics surrounding this conflict, it is clear that the nature of this dispute revolves around power and resources.

We appear to be still experimenting with the bicameral system in a manner that suggests that the conflict has all to do with mistrust between senators and their colleagues in the National Assembly.

Essentially, Kenyans are being served daily with political comedy when in fact it is simply power play. Elected office holders forget that they are in office to serve the same common employer – the public – and instead focus on how to undermine each other.

More threatening is the current stalemate between the houses of Parliament that is almost becoming an annual ‘bullfight’ ritual when it comes to the debate on the division of revenue bill by the National Assembly.

Hopefully, this matter will be resolved soon so that government and county services do not come to a halt. But from where I sit, this matter should not even be playing out if the two houses respected their distinct mandates and respect their employer.

But even common sense shows that the Speaker of the National Assembly is superior to the Speaker of the Senate even in public pecking orders. So why do Senators not see this in relation to the Senate?