Thursday, January 8, 2004
The Ten Commandments and
Bomas circus: An allegory
Before two Cabinet Ministers came out in favour of experts to take over the constitutional review from the Bomas delegates, there were no commentators focusing on the bulkiness of the draft constitution.
Machario Gaitho (Daily Nation, January 6) and Evans Monari before him, now consider some parts of the draft constitution redundant and tautological.
I want to argue that there is no difference between editing and writing a constitution, because language is an _expression_ of value. I want to illustrate with an allegory that used to do the rounds within an international development institution about 15 years ago.
A departmental head instructed his technical staff to prepare a policy paper on conditions to attach to a policy-based lending programme for a typical developing country. The head found a list of the Ten Commandments on his table, and started editing it thinking it was the policy paper he had requested.
He and other senior managers commented that they did not like the imperative tone in the draft. The statements should be presented as recommendations, or better, suggested guidelines.
You can’t seriously intend that these guidelines should apply equally to all circumstances. There must be differences in application according to socio-economic conditions. These differences need to be discussed and outlined in a separate annex.
They also noted that the draft was rife with redundancy and repetition. Items VI ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") and IX ("Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife") say essentially the same thing, as do items VII ("Thou shalt not steal") and X ("Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods").
You can drop one of each (preferably the earlier ones - they are too specific), and get it down to eight items which is more manageable.
The language needs to be lightened up. Who "covets" any more? "Bear False Witness–?" This doesn’t sing. Starting your sentences with "Thou shalt/shalt not" does not invite the reader to stay with you.
What empirical evidence is there that welfare is improved if these guidelines are followed? Show it in a technical annex.
All these references to "your neighbour" are too provocative for some of our countries. You need to specify who are the interest groups involved, and what incentives exist to make them adopt these reforms.
Change item IX to "neighbour’s spouse" - where is your gender sensitivity?
After the above changes had been effected, the reviewers said there were still too many items. What are your three main points? What do you want the reader to remember the morning after?
Nothing is said about transitional arrangements. What should be done when these guidelines are not being followed at present - and you can’t expect all of them to be adopted with equal force. Add a section on priorities and sequencing, and a timetable for implementation. Better yet, put it in a matrix.
The eighth draft still had the comment: Have the costs and benefits of following each of these guidelines been evaluated fully? Show it in a technical annex.
What is really new here? These guidelines have been around implicitly for centuries. What makes us think observance will be any better now? Add an annex on past efforts to apply these guidelines, and show how circumstances have changed to justify expecting better compliance this time.
The final text had only the word "LOVE" and 100 pages of annexes.
JOHN T. MUKUI,
Nairobi.
Comments\Views about this article
