Voter registration (the manual one) ahead of the referendum ended on 9 May.

The good news is that the Interim Independent Electoral Commission’s (IIEC) target of 10 million voters was exceeded – in fact provisional figures from the South Rift surpassed the number of registered voters for the 2007 General Election.

This is good news because the reality flies in the face of what we had all expected – voter apathy following the 2007 violence blamed on the disputed presidential election results.

And it will be both interesting and necessary to understand how sentiments changed – particularly in areas such as the South Rift that bore the brunt of the violence – from voter anger to renewed faith in the electoral system on which our ‘democracy’ is predicated.

Was it the public pronouncements about the importance of the referendum vote from the President and Prime Minister? Was it the voter registration drive advanced by the IIEC and supported by the media? Was it, more ominously, the canvassing and fear-mongering by political parties for the ‘No’ campaign – notably from most of the church leadership as well as politicians from Central and the North Rift?

Whatever it was, it worked. And that is a good thing. The vote is not the only means for expressing political opinions, but it is the most fundamental and most universally accessible.

For that reason we should be glad; this voter registration shows that the citizen’s faith in our less-than-perfect voting system remains unshaken. But just as every cloud supposedly has a silver lining, every up must apparently have its down. And the bad news is perhaps implicit in the questions above.

People generally take stands not when they are in agreement with something, but when they are in disagreement. It is when people disagree that the sense builds in them that they must do something.

In this vein the news is, if not bad, then at least mixed or not entirely good. As several parties to the emerging ‘Yes’ campaign have put it, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the choice to be put before us during the referendum.

That choice is between something bad (the current constitution) and something better (the proposed constitution, with all its flaws). But the choice is being presented and apparently understood as though it is between something bad (the proposed constitution, from the ‘No’ camp and perfectionists) and something ideal (the perfect constitution).

Ideals however, can only be realised in the abstract – not in a negotiation between people with sometimes wildly divergent interests. In this sense, the electoral Commission will have a fairly difficult time framing the referendum question. A ‘Yes’ vote, it is true, is a vote for imperfection. But a ‘No’ vote is not a vote for an ideal – it is a vote for the status quo.

The fact is that very few Kenyans will read the proposed constitution. Even fewer will understand the nuances in its provisions that may address the fears they have. This means that many will rely on what they are told about it by politicians and religious leaders. It will be extremely difficult for the government Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review to counter the misinformation that already abounds.

It will be even more difficult for civil society to do so. The only hope really is in members of the media – those with national reach as well as local language radio stations. But even that hope is slim, considering media ownership patterns in the country.

What can we do? Be truthful ourselves. Expose untruth whenever we can. Be honest about our own subjectivity, ensuring it is based on truth.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* This article first appeared in The East African.
* L. Muthoni Wanyeki is executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.