thin line

As always, this government never ceases to fascinate. I sensed from the start that pinning down whomever it was who had clandestinely edited the draft constitution to insert the words “national security” would be a tall order.

Simple as it would seem to nab the culprit, it would take guts – real guts – which is not one of the things this government of ours is blessed with.

Aside from the frenzied and quite welcome distraction of building roads all the over the place, a firm and orderly management of government is something the leadership keeps running away from.

The spectacle of ministers who sit in the same Cabinet battling from opposite ends over a draft constitution the same Cabinet had okayed is quite something. It’s a thin line between freedom of expression and bedlam, between a tolerant and a weak leadership.

The Judiciary has now taken the cue and added its own mix into the broth. Frankly, it is a stretch how a ruling based on the Bomas draft, which died like a dodo in 2005, would carry relevance today.

Judicial “independence” is a slogan that oozes nicely from the mouth. Yet rulings that have no grounding in common sense and political realities are bound to kill the institution sooner or later, even if the feared clause to vet sitting judges gets sabotaged.

The same government, harassed to the hilt by the No-sayers, was seriously contemplating sharing the referendum campaign booty from the Treasury equally between the Reds and the Greens.

Until somebody somewhere saw the absurdity of it. Only in Kenya can a government, which has already spent billions on constitution-making, entertain the zany thought of throwing a couple of hundred millions more to characters who want to kill the same draft you want passed.

An inelegant compromise seems to have been reached where none of the camps will get official campaign money.

Only the Committee of Experts will receive allocations for civic education, a decision the Reds oppose since they now demand an “independent” body other than the CoE be created out of the blue for the civic task.

On second thought, maybe it was for the best that neither camp got taxpayer funding if it is true that members of the joint PNU-ODM Yes committee had been demanding that they get a fleet of Prados as part of their “facilitation”.

Talking of loot, the Lord’s warriors in the Red camp at some point also demanded “facilitation” from the Treasury. I would have imagined the Almighty can get His way without needing earthly assistance of the sort that is provided by the Consolidated Fund.

Their political bedfellows in the No camp, after first screaming that such appropriations would be illegal, then coyly sought the same. They must have reasoned that spreading the illegality evenly would make everything else above board.

For their part, the clergymen have come up with a heavy caveat. They will not allow the Yes side to spread their evil from church pulpits.

Fair enough. But if the government gets to shower its largesse equally on both camps, why don’t the Lord’s shepherds do the same with the tithes? After all, they have loudly vowed to use this money they harvest for their No campaign.

The last time I checked, their congregants are also taxpayers. And, by the way, the rumoured dollars from US evangelicals should be shared through the same equity principle.

I have noticed with considerable amusement that a cabinet minister the media has taken to describing as the leader of the Red camp has been attending rallies with a Bible piously clutched in his hand.

But when he stands up to speak, it is difficult to discern anything divine in his vehemence and the themes he rages about. Nor do you get to hear much from him about heavenly injunctions against kadhis’ courts or the nature of the foetus.