For Kenya, Yes It Is

By Michele Hong

As preliminary results of a national referendum for a new Kenyan constitution began to trickle in this afternoon, a newspaper’s massive headline summed up the outcome and indicated the end of the country's decades-long wait: “YES IT IS.”

Kenya had been awaiting a revised government code since it gained colonial independence from the British Empire in 1963. For decades, the country’s potential to develop has been stunted by political and economic inefficiencies — issues that the new constitution addresses and attempts to fix. Today, with most votes counted in an anticipated ballot, provisional results showed 70 percent support for the revisions.

The new constitution would limit the powers of the president, a position whose duties and authority have been left unchanged since the Age of Imperialism, in part by creating a two-tier parliament. It also establishes a bill of rights for the Kenyan people and paves the way for land reform critical for economic development.

President Mwai Kibaki, who backed the “yes” campaign, was received by several hundred Kenyans in central Nairobi who were celebrating the preliminary results after the “no” campaign conceded defeat. “The historic journey that we begun over 20 years ago is now coming to a happy end,” he said. “Let us all join hands together as we begin the process of national renewal.”

The run-up to the referendum, Kenya’s first ballot since the violent aftermath of the December 2007 election, drew much apprehension. At the heart of the melee were tribal and ethnic divisions, when Prime Minister Raila Odinga, a Luo, accused just-elected President Kibaki, a Kikuyu, of rigging the election. The painful early months of 2008 left over 1,300 people dead and lingering feelings of suspicion and resentment. Indeed, part of the rationale behind creating a new constitution was to prevent a repeat of the tribal clashes; it is expected that curtailing presidential power will lower the stakes in future elections.

The new constitution itself is also controversial — especially its section on land reform, which is meant to reduce the social gap between rich and poor families and to crack down on tribal corruption. The document proposes to allow land reallocation and to have parliament determine the maximum and minimum acreage of land that can be held privately. “No” campaigners have argued that this grants too much power to the government. This and other clauses, such as those allowing abortion and Kadhi courts, have been largely opposed by the Kalenjin tribe, which was responsible for massive postelection Kikuyu bloodshed.

However, to sighs of relief and surprise, the day passed peacefully; even in Eldoret, the city in Rift Valley that experienced the feud between the Kalenjins and Kikuyus, a sense of calm surrounded voting stations and leading “no” campaign politicians accepted defeat. Odinga, who became prime minister as part of the settlement after the 2007 election, stood beside the president in backing the constitution.

While Kenya has experienced stability today, much tribal reconciliation must still be done before it can achieve a long-term peace.  Oppositionists must still be included in major governmental decisions, and tribes must enter into dialogue with one another. That some voting districts tallied overwhelming “no” ballots, and that the campaigning period itself saw scuffles and grenade attacks, is an indication that discord cannot merely be buried by a referendum.

Flickr photo by Wa-J used under a Creative Commons license.