Kenya in Crisis Day 59: Is the Power Sharing Agreement Unconstitutional and Undemocratic

It is unclear what has happened to the power sharing agreement that folks like Kofi Annan said would be wrapped up and finalized by yesterday. As we wait for this agreement to be reached, it is time to examine the wisdom of this agreement. Here is the view from one expert in the region.

The tradition in any sovereign nation is to have a government that must operate on the foundation that is constitutional. America is known to believe in the rule of law. All laws are based upon the constitution. Bush is asking the Kenyan government that is established under a constitution and laws to ignore the tradition of laws which they, the United States, values.

By asking the government to ignore the constitution and create agreements which go against the very foundation on which Kenya’s democratic principles stand Bush is contradicting the very essence of America’s foreign policy: encouraging states to uphold democratic principles.

Democracy is not just voting, democracy is rule of law, laws founded on constitutions. It is these contradictions that give America a bad name. A double standard that supports the Israeli aggression and disregard of human rights and fighting Palestinians when they democratically elect their leaders. The same kind of policies that rejects the Kenyan government efforts to deal with hooligans who have used the 2008 election to burn businesses, rape women and displace children, and move to remove through violence legitimate land owners in the rift valley. If this is bush’s definition of democracy then Kenyans better stick to African socialism and the rule of the chief.

This is the sort of utopian and theoretical view that is frankly quite dangerous when analyzing this sort of crisis. I have my problems with the power sharing agreement. I see this crisis as having a very strong element of tribalism, class warfare, as well as criminality, and I don't know that a power sharing agreement will help relieve those tensions. That said, to claim it is unconstitutional, is dangerous even if it is technically correct (and maybe especially since it is technically correct). The country is on the brink of full tribal genocide and here we have a commentator focusing on whether or not an agreement meant to stop the genocide is within the keeping of the Constitution.

That is an idea that is beside the point right now, in my opinion. The Constitution is no suicide pact and furthermore it certainly didn't save this country from the crisis it is in. In fact, the current leader, Mwai Kibaki, used an obscure law within the Constitution to quickly swear himself in while the mess surrounding the vote was still being sorted out. Whether or not this agreement is or is not constitutional seems an issue to be resolved when armed gangs of men with machetes are no longer roaming the streets of Kenya. The only thing that should be relevant to anyone now is how to stop the violence that is gripping the country.

A Constitution is worthless if the folks on the street have no safety. What really makes this arguement infuriating is its implicit indictment of the United States. Once again, we have anti American arguement that twists our foreign policy beyond all recognition. The U.S. is again blamed for the lack of civil society in another country that has once again created chaos. Certainly in a perfect world, we would like every country to follow its own Constitution at all times. The situation in Kenya is anything but a perfect world and thus our foreign policy has become pragmatic to realize that. We would also like to recognize the duly elected government of every nation as well, however when a territory, not even a nation, elects a terrorist group we once again must act with pragmatism.

It seems the perspective of this author is that the U.S. recognize terror, chaos, violence and death in our inflexible pursuit of seeing Democracy flourish all over the world. If we don't, not only is this nation hypocritical but the rightly recipient of venom throughout the world. It is time for world leaders, academics, and pundits to realize the shortfalls and misgivings of other nations. When nations elected terrrorists, there are consequences, and when elections lead to the brink of genocide there are also consequences. Those are not situations that the U.S. created. We must deal with them, but it takes pragmatism and that pragmatism must not only be recognized but respected. To use that pragmatism as an opportunity to further an anti American agenda will not be tolerated or overlooked, not by me at least.