tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35230460.post1170321457045996590..comments2023-11-02T11:11:31.450+01:00Comments on Kenya: Killing Corruption Monster: Kenyans were duped in the 2005 Constitutional Referendum!Dr. Stephen Kabera Karanjahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13431009080897380430noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35230460.post-60461594791812881792008-02-07T16:29:00.000+01:002008-02-07T16:29:00.000+01:00I have quickly skimmed through your well written p...I have quickly skimmed through your well written post. I will no doubt read it in more detail, when in not as much of a rush as I am at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Two issues however:<BR/><BR/>1) While you have repeated the often used phrase of 80% good, 20% bad, you failed to comment on the various alternatives available under the Wako draft to amend the so called "20% bad".<BR/>I believe the opponents were not as much much concerned with the "20% bad" in and of itself, as they were with the disproportionately onerous requirements under that Draft for making good "the 20% bad". <BR/>Constitutions should not be too easily altered, but the opponents argued that the Wako draft took that idea to ridiculous extremes.<BR/>(e.g See the art. 283 requirement for a million signatures to just PROPOSE a popular initiative FOLLOWED by Parliamentary 2/3 approval/referendum, or the mandatory requirement of Parliamentary 2/3 majority (or million signatures FOLLOWED by Parliamentary 2/3 approval) FOLLOWED by a referendum to alter even a fullstop in any of the areas covered under Art 281(1) - see Art 281(1) as read with Art 282(5) or 283.<BR/><BR/>Viewed in that light, the opponents would say the 20% bad gets a whole lot scarier.<BR/><BR/>2)While I do agree with your statement "Preserve the energy for future victories not war and mayhem", I am curious as to whom that comment was addressed?Digz guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11740582784765231282noreply@blogger.com