The recent political discourse in Kenya has been dominated by a proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill seeking to extend the presidential term limit to seven years. The bill, sponsored by Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei, aims to alter the current two-term presidential cap to a single, longer term of seven years. This proposal has sparked intense public debate, with many criticizing it as an attempt to undermine Kenya’s democratic institutions.
Among the critics is the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), the ruling party, which has vehemently distanced itself from the bill. UDA’s Secretary General, Hassan Omar, made it clear in a statement on Tuesday that the party neither supports nor endorses the bill, calling it “profoundly misguided” and “self-serving.” The party’s reaction, alongside the broader political implications of the proposed amendment, opens up critical questions about the future of democracy in Kenya, the role of term limits, and the tensions within political elites.
In this article, we delve into the motivations behind the bill, the UDA’s firm stance against it, and the wider implications for Kenya’s political future.
The Constitutional Amendment Bill: Cherargei’s Proposal
The bill proposed by Senator Samson Cherargei aims to extend the term of the President and elected representatives from the current two five-year terms to a single seven-year term. Proponents argue that this extension would allow for more stable leadership, enabling elected officials to implement their long-term vision without being distracted by frequent elections.
Cherargei and his supporters believe that the current two-term system restricts a president’s ability to make significant changes, especially in a political landscape where development projects and reforms often require more time to come to fruition. They argue that the seven-year term would provide sufficient time for a president to stabilize their administration, carry out reforms, and oversee the completion of major projects without the pressure of re-election campaigns.
While this might seem like a legitimate argument from an administrative perspective, the bill’s opponents, including UDA, argue that the proposal threatens the principles of democracy and accountability.
UDA’s Strong Rejection of the Bill
In a strongly worded statement, UDA Secretary General Hassan Omar condemned the proposed bill, describing it as a move that undermines the democratic aspirations of the Kenyan people. Omar emphasized that the bill contradicts a key tenet of Kenya’s democratic journey—the regular opportunity for citizens to hold their leaders accountable through elections.
“Of grave concern is that this cynical, profoundly misguided, and self-serving bill contravenes a long-held aspiration of the people of Kenya to retire the undemocratic entrenchment of unaccountable political monopolies,” Omar stated, highlighting the bill’s potential to regress Kenyan democracy.
Omar’s statement reflects the ruling party’s concerns that extending the presidential term limit would create conditions ripe for entrenching political monopolies, where leaders are insulated from regular scrutiny by the electorate. This insulation, in turn, diminishes the sovereignty of the people, as it reduces their power to directly exercise control over their elected officials.
Further, Omar accused those behind the bill, including Cherargei, of indulging in “political delinquency and legislative mischief,” and accused them of distracting the country from more pressing issues. According to the UDA, these political moves are not about pursuing meaningful objectives but rather advancing narrow, personal, and short-term political interests.
Omar added, “This juvenile political experimentation and delinquent affront to our constitutional values must now crush to halt,” urging the party’s supporters to reject the bill unequivocally.
UDA’s Position: Safeguarding Democratic Institutions
The United Democratic Alliance’s firm opposition to the bill highlights its commitment to safeguarding democratic institutions. Omar’s statement reaffirmed the party’s position that regular elections and term limits are vital components of a functioning democracy. These mechanisms not only ensure accountability but also provide citizens with the opportunity to remove leaders who fail to deliver on their promises or abuse their power.
For UDA, the importance of term limits extends beyond political theory; it is a matter of ensuring that leaders remain answerable to the people. By rejecting the bill, UDA is signaling its belief in the power of democracy and in the principle that leadership must be regularly renewed to prevent stagnation and corruption.
Omar also called upon Kenyans to be vigilant in defending the Constitution, warning that the proposed amendment could lead to a slippery slope where future governments may seek to further weaken democratic institutions.
The Role of Term Limits in Kenyan Democracy
Kenya’s current constitutional framework, enacted in 2010, was designed to promote accountability, transparency, and checks and balances within the government. One of its key provisions was the introduction of presidential term limits—two five-year terms. This was a significant departure from Kenya’s post-independence system, which saw leaders like President Daniel arap Moi stay in power for over two decades.
Term limits are widely viewed as a safeguard against authoritarianism, ensuring that no individual can monopolize power for too long. They promote democratic turnover, allowing new leaders with fresh ideas to take office and encouraging competition among political parties.
Critics of the bill argue that any move to extend presidential terms erodes these gains and risks returning Kenya to an era of unchecked political dominance. The UDA’s rejection of the bill, therefore, can be seen as a defense of these constitutional principles, which were hard-won through years of political struggle.
The Political Context: Tensions Within the Ruling Party
While UDA’s opposition to the bill is clear, the bill’s sponsorship by Senator Cherargei, a close ally of President William Ruto, raises questions about internal dynamics within the ruling party. Cherargei’s proposal has sparked speculation about the motivations behind the bill and whether it reflects a factional split within UDA.
Some analysts suggest that the bill could be an attempt by a section of the ruling coalition to test the waters for future constitutional changes that would benefit those in power. Others view it as a move to preempt any challenge to Ruto’s leadership by extending the length of his presidency.
Omar’s forceful rejection of the bill suggests that there may be a rift between those in UDA who are committed to preserving Kenya’s democratic framework and those who are willing to explore constitutional changes for political gain.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
The public’s reaction to the bill has been largely negative, with many Kenyans expressing concerns about the potential erosion of democratic values. Civil society groups, opposition leaders, and ordinary citizens have voiced their opposition, warning that the bill could set a dangerous precedent.
The debate surrounding the bill comes at a time when many Kenyans are grappling with significant economic challenges, including high inflation, unemployment, and the rising cost of living. For many, the proposal to extend presidential terms feels out of touch with the country’s immediate needs. Instead of focusing on constitutional amendments, they argue that the government should prioritize addressing these pressing economic concerns.
Furthermore, the bill’s introduction could have long-term implications for Kenya’s political landscape. If passed, it could embolden future administrations to seek additional amendments that further weaken democratic institutions, such as removing term limits altogether or reducing the independence of the judiciary.
Conclusion
The United Democratic Alliance’s rejection of the Constitutional Amendment Bill to extend presidential term limits to seven years marks a significant moment in Kenya’s political landscape. By distancing itself from the bill, the UDA has positioned itself as a defender of Kenya’s democratic institutions, reaffirming the importance of term limits and regular elections.
The debate over the bill has exposed tensions within the ruling party, with some factions seemingly willing to explore constitutional changes that could benefit their political interests. However, the broader public sentiment appears to be firmly against the proposal, with many Kenyans expressing concerns about the potential erosion of democratic values.
As the bill continues to be debated, its ultimate fate will likely depend on the strength of public opposition and the willingness of political leaders to prioritize democratic principles over personal gain. For now, UDA’s clear stance against the bill sends a powerful message: Kenya’s democracy is worth defending, and any attempts to undermine it will face significant resistance.
