On the 20^th of November 2005, the people of Kenya went to the polls to vote on the proposed draft constitution. In the end, they rejected it, reflecting perhaps that they did not feel it represented their needs and aspirations.

A Referendum (plurals: 'referendums' or 'referenda') or plebiscite (from Latin plebiscita, originally a decree of the Concilium Plebis) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may be the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. The referendum or plebiscite is a form of direct democracy, i.e. there is no mediating authority that speaks on behalf of the citizens.

The idea behind putting an issue to a vote by way of a referendum is to ensure that the decision on the issue is a representation of what the people want, and to ensure their ownership of the decision then reached. It is obvious then that the success or failure of such an exercise depends in its entirety on an electorate being informed not just on the issues between which they are choosing (i.e. They should for example know that it is different from an election) but also that they are aware of the repercussions of their choices. In addition, because referenda are called on issues of vital national importance, it is imperative that provisions be made for every last voter to express his wish without hindrance.

Opponents of the practice of carrying out plebiscite argue that they are distrustful of the ability of the average citizen to make an informed decision. They worry about the susceptibility of the public to the well-rehearsed and manipulative advertisements of well-financed special interest groups.

In a bid to ensure that the process was democratic, the government through the Electoral Commission of Kenya promised to provide civic education for all who wanted to take advantage of it. Copies of the constitutions, both the current one and the proposed draft were made available to the electorate. To enable an easy identification of the two options, the commission decreed that henceforth the 'Yes' vote would be symbolised by a banana and the 'No' vote by an orange.

But a select few was about as far as the education got. In no time the political class was on the road, educating the people after their own fashion. Soon violence and incitement took over as each side tried to intimidate the other and its supporters. Determined to win, politicians on both sides decreed that the mwananchi did not have to read the Draft, but only to trust that the politicians views were in their best interests. Subukia MP Koigi wa Wamwere is understood to have asked wananchi on the 25^th of October to chase away Electoral Commissioner Mutaha Kangu when he came to the constituency for a voter education drive. In Nyanza similar statements were made decreeing that Langata MP Raila Odinga had read the document and had found it unworthy of voter approval. This it was said was enough appraisal, all that was left was to reject the Draft.

Almost 50 years after independence Kenya has become a melting-pot of different religious, cultural and ethnic traditions. Inter-marriage and the growth in urban populations has resulted in a mingling and awareness of other people that would have suggested a national unity. However,there have been historical events that have pitted the different tribes, races and religions against each other resulting in a general feeling of distrust and resentment towards particular ethnic groups and races. Further, the political history of our nation is such that enmity between leaders of different ethnic group translates to enmity between the people of the two groups. In many instances, both current and past leaders, arguably without exception, have been keen to take advantage of this distrust and play tribal politics in their campaigns. The run-up to the 2005 referendum was no different. Soon enough, it was not the constitution but ethnicity that took over discussions on the referendum and political rallies across the country. On the rare occasions that the constitution was discussed it was done with political, religious and ethnic slurs.

"That Asian who was brought here called Prof Yash Pal Ghai went to Sri Lanka and wrote a Constitution like the one he brought to Bomas. Immediately he left, people in Sri Lanka were already slaughtering each other even worse than the Tutsis. -We Kikuyu are many, we are found all over including Mombasa, Kisumu, and Isiolo. We should then turn out in large numbers to vote so that we are not defeated."

Mutahi Kagwe, MP for Mukurweini, 6th November 2005

"Raila the monster should be hit on the head and killed so as not to destabilize the Kibaki government"
William Wambugu, Councillor, Mukaru Ward on 6th November 2005 in Tetu.

"No one knows whether Uhuru ever got circumcised since he studied abroad. But I want to tell you that since he will come to lie to you here, we should all position ourselves strategically in the various exit points. Then we strip him naked and establish whether he is circumcised," James Gathaka, Former Mayor of Nyeri, 6th November in Tetu.

"If YES wins, the Kikuyu should pack their bags and move out of Eldama Ravine,"
Musa Sirma, MP for Eldama Ravine, 6th November 2005 in Eldama Ravine.

'People should prepare for war if NO wins."
Mwangi Kiunjuri, MP for Laikipia East on 28th October 2005 at Kabazi.

"Pesa za barabara za Pwani zimepelekwa Mt. Kenya Region."
Najib Balala, Minister for National Heritage & MP for Mvita, 15th October 2005 in Kilifi

"Delamere kills Africans like dogs, the new constitution will teach him and the settlers a lesson since their land will revert to the government."
P.G. Mureithi, MP for Nyeri Town, 6th November in Tetu.

"They hate us (the Kikuyu) because we are hard working. Luos just go fishing and fish is free, and then ask the government for relief maize to make ugali"
Alfred Nderitu, MP for Mwea, 5th November 2005 at Kerugoya

That this is incitement and dangerous goes without saying. Indeed it is proved both by the incidences of violence and by the pronounced animosity that arose between the different ethnia prior to the election. It is also illegal under Section 77 (3) (e) of the Penal Code, which makes it a crime to utter any words intended or calculated to promote feelings of hatred or enmity between different races and communities in Kenya. Regrettably ,however, such incendiary talk is also widely acceptable in Kenya as is clear from the large numbers of wananchi who showed up for the rallies in which such utterances were regularly made.

Numerous televised debates were held where the supporters of either camp were brought together to discuss the draft constitution. Both sides recruited academics to defend their cases but through it all it was painfully clear that even among the leadership many were unaware of the contents and/or the ramifications of the Wako Draft. But maybe that was the whole point. On the 6^th of November that year, Muhika Mutahi, Immediate Former MP for Mukurweini, 6th November in Tetu was quoted in the Press saying

"Debate about the constitution stopped long ago when Raila and his group started scheming on how to usurp power from our tribe. Now the big question is, are you surrendering power to Raila or not? You have to turn out in large numbers on November 21 or else this Luo takes over power from us. We are three million while the Luos are only seven hundred thousand."

Clearly Kenyans did not understand what the referendum was about. One TV Vox-Pop showed an eager mwananchi saying that he would vote 'No' to ensure that Former President Daniel Arap Moi was ousted from State House, many others voted 'Yes' to get done with the whole business of the constitution once and for all. Many others saw it as a vote of confidence on the government of the current President Mwai Kibaki. This was clear in the numerous national and international articles published after the fact. Others still, voted unashamedly on ethnic lines. Even religious leaders took to the streets pitching their tents with either side. In the end far from being a democratic evaluation of the people's desire, it became a contest in the manipulation of mwananchi emotions.

In the end, the people spoke and the government was handed a resounding beating, gaining only 41% of the vote. The glaring question still stood though, what exactly had the people voted for, or voted against? Was it that they were against the ratification of the proposed new constitution or was it that they were against the leadership of the government of the day and or the President's ethnic group?

As constitution goes, it is arguable that this was a predictable even inevitable result. Constitution making after al is most successful immediately after or during an intense crises that compels compromise and understanding between the various parties. However, what was obvious then was that the people were ill equipped to make a prudent decision, they had no idea what they were really voting for.

In December of 2007, the electorate goes back to the polls this time to decide on who their next governments, both local and central. The danger, again expected and predictable, is that we have learned nothing from the referendum, and that the election will be decided on the basis of voter manipulation especially through incitement against rival ethnic groups. It is a pity that the elements of the victorious multi-ethnic coalition that won the 2002 election have failed the country so badly. Ethnic polarisation, rather than diminish has been enhanced. It is doubtful even that elections are at all helpful in this context, as they serve only to reinforce this animosity and not to promote the wishes of the wananchi. Now, to paraphrase from Ayi Kwei Armah's The Beautiful Ones are not yet Born, five years down the line, the opposition is singing the same ‘old songs with the words changed from the old praise of (President Mwai Kibaki) to insults for him. Does the cycle ever end and are elections worth it at all?