The Punguza Mizigo Bill currently under active debate across the counties is a test case for the viability of initiatives to change the Constitution.
Thus far, at least 14 counties have rejected the bill and only a handful have approved it. By the look of things, it has an outside chance of securing approval from at least 24 counties to attain the constitutional threshold and secure legitimacy.
Spearheaded by the Thirdway Alliance led by Ekuru Aukot, Punguza Mizigo is the first solid attempt to change the Constitution, stealing the thunder from established political formations.
Conceptually, Punguza Mizigo premises its argument on redesigning governance, protecting devolution, creating constitutional clarity, and cutting public expenditure.
Some salient proposals arising from these include changing presidential tenure, reducing parliamentary representation, increasing capitation to counties, and cutting the number of constitutional offices.
A critical examination of the issues reveals major gaps and inaccuracies in distilling constitutional challenges and, for that reason, legitimacy of pushing for change.
For instance, the argument about over-representation has not been logically elaborated. Opinions may be divided but, on per capita basis, the number of elected officials are not unduly exaggerated.
Perhaps what ought to be reviewed is the composition of various structures of governance and clarity about roles.
Similarly, reducing public spending cannot be dealt with from a constitutional standpoint. Budget and expenditures are administrative and although constitutional structures have financial implications, Kenya’s greatest fiscal challenge is corruption, theft, wastage and misappropriation.
It seems that the push for constitutional change has not been properly thought through.
Credit: Source link