Written by TheDailyBell.com
Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki (left) said Friday the country's new constitution would create better economic opportunities for younger Kenyans. "There would be more opportunities and better business, a new Kenya where all citizens will live a dignified life. This is the promise of the new constitution," the President said after signing into law the new constitution at a ceremony attended by regional leaders in Nairobi. "It is also a promise that every Kenyan will unleash their full potential. We are a people with a diverse culture and languages," Kibaki said.
The Kenyan leader said the constitution would help propel Kenya into a new era of faster social, political and economic growth, and would also give Kenyans an opportunity to choose better leaders. – New Africa
Social Theme: The state knows best.
Free-Market Analysis: It would be nice to think that the new Kenyan constitution is going to be helpful to the country and to Africa generally. But when we read the constitution we find as usual these days that the power of the people is vested in the state. The dominant social theme here seems to be, "A new constitution has been drawn up that gives people hope for the future. The government hasn't been much good in the past, but now with this piece of paper things will be better."
But of course the Kenyan constitution is a piece of paper. And the Keynan state is a patchwork of some 40 different tribes. At the very largest level, the Kenyan constitution is about celebrating government. The constitutional reconfiguration has been reported (and celebrated) in major media worldwide. The idea is always that the government can reinvent and change people's lives.
In these reports, the Kenyan constitution is mentioned as having been triggered by unrest and riots. The Economist Magazine reported on the constitutional referendum back in July and noted the following, "The last time the country went to the polls, in a general election at the end of 2007, the ensuing violence left 1,500 people dead and 300,000-plus homeless. Never again, said most Kenyans."
The Economist, in a celebratory article about the constitution, goes on to explain how the vote for the referendum was held peaceably. The emphasis once again is on state action to ensure a civil society: "This time around, the government has been assertive and astute in trying to keep the peace. Ten thousand police have been sent to the Rift Valley, the most combustible bit of the country, with youth gangs from the rival Kalenjin and Kikuyu ethnic groups facing off against each other. Militias are said to be rearming, this time with automatic rifles as well as bows and arrows. If they are not kept apart, they may fight."
Finally, the Economist explains the constitution's ins and outs: "The proposed constitution provides for an overhaul of the executive, legislature and judiciary, together with a measure of devolution to the regions. The country will still be ruled by an executive president, but he (there is no prospect yet of a she) will be constrained by checks and balances, and parliament will vet key appointments that had previously been made by presidential fiat. President and parliament will have fixed terms, with elections every five years. To win the top job, a candidate will have to win support from across Kenya's 40-plus recognised ethnic groups by winning at least half of all votes cast and at least a quarter of them in more than half of the 47 newly demarcated counties."
What the Economist neglects to state is that all power is vested directly in the state not the people. This is the single most important point of any constitution. The Economist skips right over it. Undeniably, however, the Kenyan Constitution is slickly written. Its preamble, in our view, has been deliberately written to sound like the US Constitution with a reference to God right in the first sentence, as follows:
We, the people of Kenya – ACKNOWLEDGING the supremacy of the Almighty God of all creation:
HONOURING those who heroically struggled to bring freedom and justice to our land:
PROUD of our ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, and determined to live in peace and unity as one indivisible sovereign nation:
RESPECTFUL of the environment, which is our heritage, and determined to sustain it for the benefit of future generations:
COMMITTED to nurturing and protecting the well-being of the individual, the family, communities and the nation:
RECOGNISING the aspirations of all Kenyans for a government based on the essential values of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice and the rule of law:
EXERCISING our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country and having participated fully in the making of this Constitution:
ADOPT, ENACT and give this Constitution to ourselves and to our future generations.
One can read the above sentences and come away inspired. But when one reads them more closely they begin to provide a message that some might find confusing. There usage of the vocabulary is deliberate and is in fact the idiom of the modern regulatory state with its obsessive reliance on protecting the rights of minorities and on the use of state-force to do so. Here is the meat of the treaty:
Sovereignty of the people:
(1) All sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) The people may exercise their sovereign power either directly or through their democratically elected representatives. ...
Supremacy of this Constitution:
(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic and binds all persons and all State organs at both levels of government.
(2) No person may claim or exercise State authority except as authorised under this Constitution.
(3) The validity or legality of this Constitution is not subject to challenge by or before any court or other State organ.
(4) Any law, including customary law, that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of this Constitution is invalid.
(5) The general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya.
(6) Any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this Constitution.
The constitution begins by referring to God; but sovereign power may be exercised ONLY in accordance with the constitution. And the constitution itself is to be implemented via the state. "No person may claim or exercise state authority except as authorised under this constitution." This constitution also overrides Kenyan common or "customary" law, as follows: "Any law, including customary law, that is inconsistent with this constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of this constitution is invalid."
The constitution paves the way for a coming international order, as follows: "The general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya ..." and ... "Any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this Constitution."
The constitutional language was developed by a Kenyan "Committee of Experts" and voted on by the Kenyan legislature, which apparently didn't change much. What is surprising is how deliberately the constitution has been configured to ensure that the body of Kenyan law is amenable to "international law" and how it has been left open-ended to insure that further treaties or conventions can be seamlessly integrated.
In our view, in fact, this Kenyan Constitution has been tailored for the next step in the Kenyan constitutional journey, which shall be no doubt to join an African super-state that is currently being prepared. It is an African Union that will include its own currency currently called the Afro of all things. We have written about it here: Africa Union Plans Spaceflight.
The way this constitution has ended up is no coincidence. It is part of a larger, world-government promotion that is being urged on by nation-states around the world. This is the reason in fact, in our view, for the attack on the Muslim world. Yes, the West's citizens are under the impression that Islam has attacked the West, but we would argue it is the other way round. And the attacks have nothing much to do with immediate wealth or raw materials and everything to do with Anglo-American control of the levers of world government. Islam is one stumbling block and China, perhaps, is another. Russia we are not so sure about.
Seen this way, the Afghan and Iraq wars are about building, or rebuilding malleable nation states that are amenable to a larger international order. This is not a new initiative. Even the "Colonial Era" – which saw the emergence of third-world nation-states out of a hodge-podge of tribal rivalries – may be considered a concerted step toward such global governance.
Conclusion: The route to world government, if there is one, is full of twists and turns that can only be navigated by an intergenerational familial conspiracy of tremendous wealth and strategic vision. It is a kind of business and it is meant to use the power of the state itself to achieve its private ends. There is a pattern in our view. It is not a random one.