By Onyinkwa Onyakundi
There is now no doubt that after the referendum, the truth shall prevail and we shall have a new constitution but the debate on the draft constitution has been very “eye opening” as to who we really are as a nation and what we stand for. The fact that the most ardent defenders of the retention of the Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution have largely been Christians and the fact also that the general Christian congregation has refused to blindly agree with the position of the Church’s aristocracy on both the Kadhi’s Courts and the abortion debate is very refreshing indeed. Further to that, the debate has revealed the true character and motivation of some of the main players, mainly our ever goofing politicians and some of the previously revered Church leaders. This has helped burst certain myths we have long held and also revealed the power of public opinion.
We all know for example that adults – and more so leaders – are not expected to tell lies but because our politicians do it so often, we all seem to have begun to unconsciously but grudgingly find it acceptable. However, members of the clergy have never been expected under any circumstances whatsoever, to tell lies. We revere these men of God so much that we accord them Godly attributes that some of them evidently don’t posses. When a man of the cloth – the Secretary General of the NCCK no less – tells a white lie on national television, then something is disturbingly wrong with our nation’s moral fabric. I saw and heard a few weeks back during the “Weekend Prime” news bulletin on KTN, Reverend Peter Karanja claim, with a straight face that the draft constitution legalises abortion. If that is how low one of our “intermediaries to God” can stoop to push the “NO” vote, then we better fear.
Another, a catholic priest in rural Kisii asks one of the faithful during mass on Sunday, to hold one end of a tape measure, proceeds to measure about 20 square feet of the Church’s floor space and then shamelessly declares that that is the size of land that we shall be allowed to own should the draft constitution become law. A third, a pastor in Kakamega tells his flock that the draft constitution provides that “Two adults can get married” and proceeds to lie that it does not specify the gender of these two adults, just to justify the equally wild claim that the draft legalizes same sex marriages. It is not just sad, it is tragic that a supposed man of God tells such a blatant lie about the draft just to score political points when even he knows that article 45 (2) stipulates that every adult has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, based on free consent of the parties.
Another trait of the money minded televangelists that we have all along been aware of but which has been confirmed during this debate is their penchant for lies and deception, a trait that can hardly be described as Godly. Aware that Christians have largely refused to heed their call to vote NO on August 4th and also of the fact that their flock would rather flock to YES campaign rallies than attend their “propagandathons”, they duped Christians into believing that the Uhuru Park rally would be a religious crusade and then sneaked in politicians and turned the event into a political rally. My eyes welled with tears as a young mother who had lost his little boy in the blast narrated to a TV news crew how she’d never have let her son go to a political rally had she not been tricked into believing it’d be a religious crusade.
The fact also that the “miracle workers” scampered to safety as the grenades went off leaving the flock to fend for themselves brought into focus the fact that the only sick people that they “miraculously heal” every Sunday are either those alledgedly possessed by demons or afflicted by HIV both of which are impossible to independently verify. The image of the Church has been so irredeemably tarnished by these selfish church leaders that unless the flock stand up to them, the Kenyan church may never regain the respect it had prior to this debate. Reports that a section of the church leadership is uncomfortable with the manner in which some of their colleagues have embraced disgraced politicians and so openly share podiums with them are very refreshing indeed. After all, how can one swim with pigs in mud and expect to remain clean?
True to expectations, our political leaders have not disappointed when it comes to adding a little drama here and there to spice up the debate, the most remarkable being the theatrics on the floor of Parliament when they sought to pass those 130 plus proposed amendments, the mischevous insertion of foreign words to the draft at the government printer, the politically motivated court ruling on the Kadhi’s courts and most recently, the Uhuru Park blasts. However one of the most significant features of the debate is the fact that a combination of motivations have forced hitherto perpetual political rivals into teaming up – albeit reluctantly – leading to such strange situations as having Balala, Kalonzo, Uhuru, Kiraitu and an assortment of other “sworn enemies” of the Prime Minister with him in the “YES” camp and up against William Ruto’s “NO” camp.
“Strange bedfellows” is not a term that can even begin to describe some of the alignments we have seen lately but the fact that these guys are being forced together by public opinion is very reassuring for those of us who yearn for the day when public opinion will take its rightful place in determining all political decisions and alignments. Contrary to our politicians’ exaggerated sense of importance that has always convinced them that they are the ultimate public opinion shapers, this time round, it is public opinion that is shaping them. How else does one explain the fact that Uhuru Kenyatta and other members of Kenya’s landed aristocracy who own unbelievably large swathes of land in the country are on the “YES” camp that wants to see the passing of a constitution that creates a National Land Commission that has – among other powers – the power to repossess all illegally acquired land and sets a ceiling on the maximum amount of land that one can own?
Comments