My approach to this draft constitution is as follows;
1. I will read it and then decide whether to vote yes or no. I hear it is a big document, very big document. That sets me thinking that not many people will read it. It therefore means they will vote on what they have picked on the document from others. If 'others' can influence the outcome of the referendum, then I should try to influence others like 'others' on the position I take on the document. Why is the document so long, I keep asking. Maybe I will be surprised when I read it but my suspicion is that the COE- I mean the 'expert' drafters- wanted to provide for everything yet that defeats the purpose of constitution making which is to provide for the fundamental law.
2. While I read and after I read, I will ask whether (a) the effort to make the constitution (b) the content of the constitution is worth adopting it. On the first issue, it matters not how long and how much in money it has taken if the second issue is not satisfactory. There goes my low regard for the argument that it has taken us 20 years and so many billions to get us where we are. I will, however, be looking out for the influence of 'effort' on 'content' with a warning that constitution making must be based on the 'need' rather than the 'effort' because 'effort' may be driven by very selfish sectarian interest. The 'need' must also be interrogated to differentiate between 'process need' and 'content need'- I have in mind one of the touted underlying 'need' for new constitution, being that it is part of Agenda 4 reforms and that without the new constitution we will witness violence like the latest PEV, to the extent that people are ready for a new constitution whatever its contents. My suspicion is that 'process need' may have given way to 'content need' especially because the political players must deliver Agenda 4 and do not want to look like they are stalling the process of the constitution so that, however much reservation they have with the contents of the draft, they are still asking people to vote for it. I am yet to read the draft but seriously, if devolution and parliamentary system was such a big issue for the 'Orange' in 2005, can you see the sacrifice they must have made to accept a diluted devolved system and a pure presidential system?
3. Tied to the above is the issue, what will happen if Kenyans return the NO vote? Does it create fear or joy? Is there justification for fearing that the country will fall apart? My thinking is that if it does, we have a bigger problem than the need for a new constitution and would put to question what has kept us together for so long, seeing that a 'paper constitution' has never been a necessity in some countries like the UK . My opinion, however, is that we would still be here trying to figure out how to steel our beloved country and ourselves as individuals to prosperity because that is the essence of nationhood.