I don’t do politics – not generally. I don’t have any deep-seated opinions on this whole who-rules-who-how-where thing. I know that I have my new purple pinkie though I think the old one looked cooler. This one is all soft, wishy-washy, and the photo looks worse the one on my ID, which is a feat in itself.
I don’t plan to vote yes or no … which is an extremely daft admission. Why? Because saying ‘constitution’ makes people think you’re smart, even when they have no clue what you’re on about.
And that’s my problem. I like to look smart. I’m supposed to know about stuff like this. But I’ve read the constitution – the old one. Scratch that – I’ve tried to read the constitution. I didn’t get very far. Why? Because it’s boring. Incomprehensible as well, but mostly boring.
Yes, I know, I know, I have just shot my credibility to hell by equating this holy grail document to counting sheep. Truth is I want to get all excited about contentious issues and bills of rights and Bomas and typos and all, but thing is, the little of it I read, I couldn’t understand! It’s all in legalese.
The major things that bother me are naturalisation and joint citizenship. Also, abortion. But when I tried to read those sections, all I heard was blah-blah-blah-a-female-cannot-transfer-citizenship-to-her-spouse. Meh.
Now, if somebody would take out all the lawyer-speak and put in some color-coding and a pretty little flow-chart…
Article 345 section 27 (b) states that marriage shall be between any legal persons aged between the years of 1987 and 2056 living within the refined borders of the Former East African British Protectorate heretofore known as Mt Kirinyagaland, and referred to in sections (c) and (d) respectively, as governed by the statutes of…
Translation: No/Yes to gay marriage?
Bottom line remains that few people will read the constitution, old or new. And of the few that read it, fewer will understand it. And then some will agree with it, and some will yell that religion is allowed in some courts. The people who will vote will do so because their mother/sister/pastor/third-cousin’s-ex-wife–twice-removed told them to.
Others will vote because they were swayed by whomever yelled loudest, sounded smartest, made the most sense or carried the biggest stick – whether or not the person knew what they were saying. The only people who will vote intelligently are … I don’t know … lawyers? [Of whom a frightening number are MPs yelling and callously swaying their minions. Scary thought that.]
Also, others will vote because they prefer oranges to bananas. Something about climaxes and felatio, I have no idea.
I suppose that translating it into layman’s terms is the work of the whatsitcalled, the civic education process. But that might largely consist of people yelling their opinions through megaphones with Homeboyz or **insert appropriate road-show-crew here** in the background. And I expect phrasing these laws in common English will dilute the stature of our learned friends. But really now, I’d like to have a sensible discussion about, say, kadhi’s courts, without quoting twenty-six subclauses.
Who even says things like clause?
And while we’re on the subject of kadhi’s courts, pilipili usiyoila yakuwashia nini? Why are Christians so bugged about a legal process that doesn’t govern them? Could someone civically educate me on this? As at now, I really don’t see the big deal. Resident DR lawyer-types: help please?
The way I see it, our new constitution, if we ever get one, is going to be a combination of symbolism and fluke. Then we’ll be stuck with it until the next rainbow revolution. And to think, all this can be solved with some pretty flow charts.
Now to see if I can find the pdf version I ripped off a twitter RT some time back and actually read it. Crayons anyone?
♫ Snuff ♫ Slipknot ♫