• Authors of the process wanted a contested draft where clear fault lines would emerge.
• Reactions to the BBI task force report pointed to a disappointing finish.
I was surprised the other day when reactions to the BBI task force report pointed to a disappointing finish yet in fairness, the team was not mandated to review and/or overhaul the Constitution.
As I have argued before, the team was not only narrow in representation but was at best a political management tool whose mandate may not have been the well stated nine points they went out to find solutions to.
It has been jealously shielded from people with choreographed town hall meetings-the only window for a few to engage the team and possibly ventilate.
Then came the report and all the weekend marketing tours dissipated, in its place came lamentations on how the report is 'underwhelming'.
Forget the fact that the report was much bigger than the restructuring of the executive which is now becoming clearer as the sole reason for all the noise about BBI, other inclusions remain mere fillers if the comments we hear are any guide.
This means the authors of the process wanted a contested draft where clear fault lines would emerge. Because, like what happened in 2005 during the failed referendum, this was to give rise to political formations that would take certain players to the 2022 contest.
Something had to give but the eyes were to remain fixated on the political prize. This remains the biggest conundrum in this BBI enterprise even as President Uhuru Kenyatta extends the team's term but takes time to spell out its new mandate or terms of reference.
Economic and political analyst