Continuation
Prime Minister
And even further, the position of prime minister is a role given, rather than a job created.
The prime minister in the BBI proposal must be a member of the National Assembly.
He or she gets to the House like all other members. It is only then that the President can appoint the PM to execute the role.
Similarly, the deputy prime ministers. They must first and foremost be Cabinet ministers: and we all know the constitution limits than number of ministers the President can appoint.
So there is no new job; no new pay either. Remuneration must follow the system that we used for decades before we changed the system; the prime minister and the deputies only receive a responsibility allowance for the extra roles they play.
It’s much the same way chairpersons of House committees get a responsibility allowance for their extra roles above being representatives.
Lastly, there is the issue of representation and the extra cost to the public.
It is claimed that it is possible to resolve the gender parity question, and the equality of the vote requirement, without increasing representation.
It is not possible to talk about all the issues that arise but one that is most illuminating is the equality of the vote issue.
When the constitution came into force, it acknowledged that representation was skewed but allowed the situation to prevail for a while. This created what were called protected constituencies.
The option open to BBI to achieve equality of the vote was to allow these protected constituencies be wound up and these seats be allocated to the more populous areas. That would have maintained representation at 290 constituencies.
27 protected constituencies
But this was going to marginalise already marginalised populations. We would have to take away from the people of Lamu, Isiolo, Embu, Taita Taveta, Samburu, Tana River Elgeyo Marakwet and Marsabit among others.
We preferred to maintain all the 27 protected constituencies and instead come up with another method to give the populous areas what they had been promised.
Were we wrong to protect the representation of these marginalised communities only because it will cost this country more in representation? Personally, I would ask, what is the cost of fairness?
I believe in making decisions on the future of Kenya, we should be guided always by the need to have a healthy nation.
Even in our own lives, we never hesitate to undertake necessary measures to secure our well being and particularly never hold back cure on the basis of financial requirements. That would be not just a miserly thing to do but also irresponsible.
Ultimately, we would compromise the very financial resources we hope to preserve were this nation to succumb to the ravages of a festering and unattended political malady.