The history of the process, his own role in it - including participation in at least one of the pre-review Bill discussions, his earlier publicly stated suspicion that the MPs could not adequately and competently handle the review exercise, his alacrity to sign the review Bill into law, etc - clearly point to reasons other than a belated realisation that the review properly belongs to Parliament.

And that reason naturally resides in what is known as Kanu's single-minded determination to control the political evolution of this country well into the future, not by governing according to the desires and wishes of the majority of Kenyans, but in line with the whims and interests of the dominant clique within Kanu.

The growing suspicion is that the immediate concern of the President and the direct beneficiaries of his rule is how to extend his tenure beyond 2002. His denial of this suspicion has been lukewarm at best and the unwillingness of the party to allow internal preparations that ordinarily would herald impending change of such magnitude has fortified the feelings that he is a reluctant retiree.

At the moment, the President bestrides Kanu like a colossus, running it by fiat and manipulating it any way he wants. The warring cliques within the party are irrelevant for now as he has effectively corralled them and it is therefore clear that it is his interests that are being pursued here.

It is the fear that the constitutional review may bring forth a Constitution that whittles down the privileges and powers of the ruling elite generally and the presidency in particular that is propelling the latest effort to take back the review process to Parliament.

It is a cinch that Kanu (read the President) had hoped that with a significant presence in the Review Commission, it might have been possible to produce a Constitution which, although pretending to be based on information collected from the people, interprets it through the eyes of the dominant party and therefore waters down whatever recommendations are seen as unfavourable in the short or long term to Kanu.

(Kenyans' experience with the famous Saitoti Committee - which filed a report which was a direct contrast to what Kenyans wanted is instructive in this regard although its character was radically different from the envisaged Review Commission which derives its legitimacy and mandate from Parliament and by extension, the public).

A desperate Kanu, faced with the prospect of failing to control the Review Commission due to the refusal of other parties to agree that it grabs a giant slice of the seats assigned to parliamentary parties has now decided that it has a better chance of achieving its objective if it goes through Parliament.

The party knows that it has an upper hand in the House. With its decisive majority, it can get away with most decisions it wishes to push through. That is why, for instance, to repeal the Review Bill will be a piece of cake as this requires only a simple majority. Equally easy will be the creation of the committee that will be charged with the review exercise.

Kanu is certain to control - or at least dominate - the review itself and it must have thought of a way in which it will get the two-thirds vote it needs to have the Constitution amended. The guile and persuasive power it used to win over the former arch-enemy National Development Party will be used again, not to mention its sharply honed predatory sense that time and again has led it to broke or greedy opposition MPs willing to be bought.

That is its game-plan. But what have other Kenyans got to say about it? A resounding, angry NO. No party, not even the NDP is willing to ride along with the President. The only categorical support has come from Kanu ministers and MPs (a handful have rejected it). All mainstream religious leaders have rejected it except the appropriately named and consistently pro-government Nyanza Inter-denominational Church and State Cooperation and the African Inland Church.

To press the point home, a religious led demonstration was held in the city yesterday and there will be more, if the promises the leaders have made are anything to go by. It will get worse if Mr James Orengo's call for street protests wins support, as it will probably do from many genuinely concerned Kenyans and thousands of frustrated others who will view the prospect of combat with police and destruction of property as a diversion to relish.

Mr Orengo made an instructive statement when he declared his intention to mobilise people for street protest: that the history of change in this country has been marked by active protest and bloodshed all the way to the 1991 restoration of multi-party politics and the 1997 agitation for review of the Constitution.

Once again, progressive forces are ranged against reactionary forces which want to hold back, delay or derail altogether the process of change. I do not think who wins is as much the issue as who loses. Who loses is this country, its future.

Clearly, the President is not in harmony with the people on this matter and he misdirects himself grievously when he suddenly sees a conspiracy to by-pass Parliament in a strategy initially agreed on as the best to progress the nation's political evolvement. Barbs go to the forces keen to stall that progress and the bouquets to those saying No to this betrayal.

* * *

Lofty words saying nothing

Almost to the day, a year ago yesterday, an excited public applauded what was considered as one of the most well-thought budgets in years. Wage-earners were spared heavy taxation and stringent fiscal controls were proposed. The budget deficit was to be met by dedicated implementation of austerity measures.

As the new Finance Minister ploughed through his presentation yesterday, the irony did not escape keen observers that in more than half the instances, none of last year's targets were met. In fact, on many of them, the situation degenerated. He will be aware that barely six weeks ago, he had to plead with Parliament for more money to finance a Sh10 billion deficit.

Mr Masakhalia knows also that he was wasting his and everyone else's time making the pledges he made if the government has no intention of making them work. What needs to be done is known by a great many Kenyans and why it has not been done is also pedestrian knowledge.

The stoicism of over-taxed Kenyans who are deprived of roads, health facilities, job opportunities and general development who agree to listen and even clap to such fudge as we heard yesterday deserves a thousand bouquets. Not so the tired political elders in the driving seat.

Comments\Views about this article