Despite these undeniable advances, the proposed constitution was opposed by two well-financed elements: politicians whose ambitions are likely to be thwarted by the more democratic basic law, and the church. The former group included William Ruto, the minister of higher education and a prominent ethnic Kalenjin, who is suspected of directing the violence that followed the 2007 election.
He is an opportunist and ethnic demagogue who intends to run for president in 2012. Backed by former President Moi, Ruto captured the loyalty of Kalenjins in the Rift Valley who voted overwhelmingly against the draft because it was supported by Kibaki (who cannot run for a third term in 2012) and Odinga, Ruto’s principal rival and arguably Kenya’s most popular political leader.
Moi and Ruto had another incentive to oppose the constitution: its provisions for devolution will break up their power base in the present Rift Valley Province. Voters there were the only ones who did not ratify the draft, rejecting it by a margin of 67 to 33 percent. The end result is that Ruto and Moi, whose political obituary can finally be written, marginalized themselves and their fellow Kalenjins. But this outcome could provoke renewed violence in 2012 if Kalenjin grievances, especially over land, are not addressed.
Other prominent politicians who aspire for the presidency gave lukewarm support for the constitution because it was backed by Odinga. Uhuru Kenyatta, a Kikuyu and the minister of finance, was largely silent in the run-up to the referendum. Like Ruto, he is suspected of fueling the violence that followed the 2007 poll; both men are expected to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for their roles in the crisis, which will certainly complicate their respective quests for the top job.
Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, a prominent Kamba leader and born-again Christian opposed to abortion, campaigned half-heartedly for a “yes” vote. Support for the proposed draft in his native Eastern Province was 57 percent, the lowest in the seven of Kenya’s eight provinces that endorsed the draft.
The church was a somewhat more puzzling opponent of the constitution. Once highly respected for its vigorous opposition to authoritarian rule during Moi’s reign, the Christian clergy seized on two benign provisions of the draft: a ban on abortion and the retention of Muslim Kadhis courts. Unlike the old constitution, which was silent on abortion, the new law unequivocally bans abortion except to save the life of the mother. Yet this was not strict enough for some rabidly pro-life clergy in Kenya. With the financial support of evangelical groups in the United States, they campaigned against the document.
The Kadhis courts, meanwhile, only regulate civil matters such as marriage between Muslims. But the clergy, particularly the country’s evangelicals, falsely claimed that the courts will introduce sharia law. This is utter nonsense — the Kadhis courts have worked without problem in Kenya for more than a century. Indeed, a failure to retain them would have radicalized the country’s Muslims — particularly those on Kenya’s coast and the Kenyan Somalis on the border with Somalia — who have long been skeptical of the government in Nairobi.
Rejecting the courts would have made some Muslims more susceptible to the sort of Islamist terror networks that have struck Kenya before, and are suspected of carrying out the recent bombings in Uganda. It is, therefore, not surprising that the “yes” vote in Coast Province was 79 percent, and over 95 percent in the Somali region of the country. Much like those presidential aspirants who opposed or tepidly supported the draft, the churches that opposed the constitution emerged from the referendum diminished in stature.
In the run-up to the vote, the role of the United States and the international community became a subject of controversy. The “no” camp tried to portray the United States as meddling in Kenya’s internal affairs. Although it has limited leverage in Kenyan policy, the United States is widely admired by most Kenyans, who regard President Barack Obama as one of their own. Obama’s endorsement of the proposed constitution in May, followed by Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Nairobi in June, was big news in Kenya.
The official U.S. position was that Kenyans must make their own decision on the new constitution, but Obama and Biden, as well as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, made clear that passage would benefit Kenya at home and abroad. The United States supported efforts by the National Democratic Institute and by Kenyan civil society organizations to carry out monitoring and parallel vote tabulation of the referendum.
In contrast to the U.S. effort during the run-up to and following the botched presidential elections of 2007 — when the U.S. embassy in Nairobi failed to anticipate fraudulent electoral procedures yet endorsed the disputed poll — the State Department and USAID acquitted themselves well, laying the groundwork for what all hope is a similarly well-run and peaceful poll in 2012. The challenge now for Kenya and its friends — especially the United States — is to ensure that the new constitution is fully implemented to foster democracy, grow the economy, and maintain peace.
