COALITION AND PARLIAMENT
the President and that he was duty bound by the Standing Orders to discharge this duty. Whilst upholding the need to steer clear of any Coalition differences to remain impartial, the Speaker has on various occasions not only reminded the Coalition cabinet Members of their collective responsibility, but also encouraged honest and healthy debate in the House. This is evident in the lively and free debate and sometimes opposing views fronted by the Members of the Coalition in the House. The Speaker has always guided the House, including Ministers, that the Chamber provides a unique and opportune place for all Members to debate issues of national and international importance.
New rules to accommodate a new reality
Another factor that helped to fuse the Coalition was the review of the House’s rules of procedure to reflect the shift in the political paradigm. Issues arose on the composition and chairing of the all- important committees of the House. The Standing Orders (rules of procedure) provided that oversight committees such as the Public Investments Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Budget Committee should not be chaired by Members whose parties are in government. In a House of 210 elected and 12 nominated Members, only one Member fulfilled this requirement. Could he chair more than three committees? In resolving this issue, the leadership of the House was guided by the wording of one of the instruments of the Coalition: “these are extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures”. The Speaker recognized that, even with most parties being part of the Coalition, the Back Bench was eager and able to assume the role of the opposition. Thus the House allowed the Back Bench to chair such committees, notwithstanding that their parties were in
government. The Speaker has been vindicated as committees have worked in a non-partisan manner in discharging their mandate.
On review of the Standing Orders, new provisions were introduced, such as the Prime Minister’s Time and the procedure for formation and recognition of opposition caucuses. The Coalition has constantly utilized the opportunities provided by the new rules of procedure to showcase its determination to remain true to the Accord.
One of the milestone rulings by the Speaker impacting on the Coalition was on the chairing of the House Business Committee. Being the committee that decides the agenda of the House, its appointment is the first business of the House in each new Session. While rules of procedure provide that the Chair “shall be a person nominated by the government”, at the commencement of the Third Session, the Coalition appeared divided on the chairing of the committee. Each Coalition partner submitted a name of a Member to chair the committee on the basis that each partner was in government. Failure to constitute the committee threatened the smooth running of House business.
Once again, attention turned to the Speaker to resolve the crisis. After lengthy deliberation, the Speaker, who is an ex-officio Member of the Committee, ruled that he would assume chairmanship on a temporary basis while awaiting a common position by the Coalition. It was a popular ruling. The Speaker has continued to chair the House Business Committee on a temporary basis as he awaits the resolution of the matter. The Kenya Coalition has immensely benefited from past and present lessons from the members of the Commonwealth family which have had similar experiences. These lessons have
gone a long way in helping to avert discord and resolve disputes.
Constitutional reform The clamour for a new constitution started more than 20 years ago. Since then, attempts by each successive government have borne no fruit. In 2005, the process suffered a blow when the national referendum rejected a proposed constitution. After the Coalition’s formation
in 2008, the partners undertook to steer constitutional reform as part of Agenda Four of the Coalition Agreement (Long-Term Institutional Issues). On 4 March 2008 and in a display of commitment to the process, a week after the signing of the Coalition Agreement, the National Dialogue and Reconciliation Team unveiled a roadmap detailing their agenda on constitutional reforms. In the roadmap, the parties accepted that the constitution belongs to the people of Kenya who must be consulted constantly at all key stages of the process, including the formation of the process, the draft constitution, the parliamentary process and the final enactment. The roadmap identified five stages of the reforms, including: the establishment of statutory constitutional review instruments, the enactment of the referendum laws, the preparation of a comprehensive draft constitution, parliamentary approval of the proposed draft and, finally, putting the proposed constitution to the people for consideration and approval through a referendum.
Indeed, constitutional reform is believed to be key to providing the long-term institutional reform necessary to promote harmony and political, administrative, social and economic development. In part, the Commission on the Post- Election Violence in Kenya stated in their final report:
“Kenya’s constitutional and legal framework relating to elections
contains a number of weaknesses and inconsistencies that weaken its effectiveness. This legislation needs urgent and radical revision, including consolidation….The conduct of the electoral process was hampered and the electoral environment was polluted by the conduct of many public participants, especially political parties and the media.”
Keeping everyone together Finally, all along, the preamble to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, 2008, has constantly guided the Speaker and the House in resolving any Coalition issues that may arise in the House. In part, the preamble states:
“Given the current situation, neither side can realistically govern without the other. There must be a real power-sharing to move the country forward and begin the healing and reconciliation process. With this agreement, we are stepping together as political leaders, to overcome the current crisis and to set the country on a new path. As partners, we commit ourselves to work together in good faith as true partners, through constant consultation and willingness to compromise. This Agreement is designed to create an environment conducive to such partnership and to build mutual trust and confidence. It is not about creating positions that reward individuals. It seeks to enable Kenya’s political leaders to look beyond partisan considerations with a view to promoting the greater interests of the nation as a whole. It provides the means to implement a coherent and far-reaching reform agenda, to address the fundamental root causes of recurrent conflict, and to create a better, more secure, more prosperous Kenya for all.”
This, in a way, has glued the Coalition government together in Kenya.
The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three - Kenya | 39
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52