No wonder the majority of the MPs that are tampering with the constitution in Naivasha have never been involved in the struggle for democracy in the country. They were part of the dictatorship that was opposed to democratic reforms.

While patriots and progressive Kenyans were being persecuted by the Moi and Kenyatta regimes for struggling for liberation from dictatorship, those who are now purporting to decide about the constitution for Kenya were accumulating wealth through corrupt deals. The few of the MPs at Naivasha that were reformers yesterday have now turned into opportunists and traitors and are either silent or collude with those who are manufacturing the constitution which Kenyans should reject.

The MPs went to Naivasha with a mandate to discuss about the harmonised draft of the Committee of Experts that had been improved by various views of the Kenyan people and organisations.

However, the MPs decided to exceed their mandate by rewriting the draft constitution and messing it in the process.

Rather than listen to Kenyans they opted to listen to foreigners and impose their system of governance chosen by imperialists upon us. They chopped off chapters and sections from the draft that embody Kenyan cultural values, social and economic rights and all that empowers the poor. They have removed from the draft the wishes and aspirations of the people that have been expressed over the decades of the struggle for the new constitution. Thus from the imperial president under the present constitution, the MPs have created a king in the new constitution. They have done this by claiming that the majority of Kenyans want to elect their chief executive, president, directly.

What they deliberately avoided to say is that while the Kenyan people want to elect all their representatives, they have never wanted to elect a king whether in the form of president or prime minister. In fact, that is why they struggled against colonialism, the Kenyatta and Moi dictatorial regimes. It is for the same reason they struggled for multiparty democracy that has now completely been undermined by the king in the form of a President proposed by the MPs at Naivasha.

As a revolutionary, I cannot afford to be pessimistic. That is why I always argue that a constitution is not the Holy Bible neither is it the Holy Quran. Over time constitutions are amended to reflect the dynamism of a country. However, a good constitution needs to be adopted so that it only requires few amendments, and even then these should be a long time coming. I am therefore of the opinion that this time round Kenyans must have a new national constitution.

I agree with those who are proposing a yes yes referendum in which we shall vote for either the constitution with the presidential system or with a parliamentary system proposed by Kenyans and for Kenyans and based on the historical and material conditions of Kenya.

This has been arrogantly rejected by some MPs who falsely tell Kenyans that the yes yes referendum will polarise and divide Kenyans. Some of them have even proposed that there is no need for the referendum arguing that it will divide Kenyans. It is as if in a democracy, and especially in a class society like Kenya, division and class struggles can be avoided. This argument assumes that, in this capitalist system, Kenyans are united.

I understand the cynicism, pessimism and a sense of hopelessness that is now growing among progressive Kenyans. How can we justify the energy and struggles we have put for constitutional review for so long if we end up with a constitution that is worse than the present one in terms of governance, many are asking?
Perhaps when the document being manufactured in Naivasha eventually comes to parliament it will be rejected by the committee of the whole house. But the chances of this happening are slim. Again, should it be passed by parliament then Kenyans will still have a chance to reject it at the referendum. Yet the importance of the referendum in this regard is being questioned even as the propaganda for the king- president is intensified through the media.

This brings me to the argument and the propaganda that Kenyans want to elect their chief executive directly, and that therefore they are for the presidential system of government rather than a parliamentary system. In the first place, in both systems the head of governments are elected directly by the people. The difference is that in the presidential system the people elect a head of government and state called president who is not directly accountable to parliament and therefore the people. In a parliamentary system, on the other hand, the people elect a head of government who may be either a president or prime minister but who is not head of state and who is directly accountable to parliament and therefore the people. Under the presidential system Kenyans will vote mainly for a rich individual while paying only lip service to ideologies and political parties. Under a parliamentary system Kenyans will vote both for political parties, ideologies and leaders of political parties. A leader of a political party that has the most votes and that forms the largest party or coalition of parties in parliament also forms the government to practice the policies they promised the people for a given period in the constitution.

We can glean from a story in the Bible. The elders of Israel told Samuel to appoint them a king to rule them. Samuel, in his consultation with God, warned them against having a king for a rule arguing authoritarianism, dictatorship, oppression and slavery. A king, he said, would be a despot who would rob them of their land, property and make them perpetual servants with no freedom and rights. And so the story goes that they insisted on kings; who ruled over them for thousands of years mistreating them in the process. Therefore, if it is the desire of Kenyans to have a king in the place of an imperial president then they will get their king. And the Kenyan ruling class will have the last laugh.

For the office of the president proposed by the MPs will have even more power than what it already has. This president will be both the head of state and head of government. Yet, under the proposed provisions, this office will not be required to justify decisions to parliament.

Kenya is already governed by powerful people and institutions that are only accountable to the president and not the people, from permanent secretaries, heads of parastatals, judges, heads of the army, police, prisons, various commissioners and commissions and ambassadors among others. If the PSC is to have its way we can now add minsters to this list. The president will appoint ministers from outside parliament. These ministers will only be accountable to the president without having to seek approval from parliament. Like permanent secretaries, ministers will be above politics and therefore Kenyans will be ruled by the king president and civil servants who are not accountable to the people.

In a multiparty system like Kenya, ministers are appointed to implement the policies and programs of their political parties. The presidential system proposed by MPs will render political parties useless and instead strengthen authoritarianism, tribalism, nepotism, corruption, social inequality and arbitrary governance. This is good for the present political and economic ruling class that is united in their desire to maintain the present status quo. But it is the bane of those struggling for a democratic, just, equitable and progressive system in our country. Under this system, the chances of person from the peasant and working class becoming president, nay king, is the same with that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

Yes, the struggle for social and national liberation is not easy; it is long, hard and protracted. Yet it has to continue.