Equality paradoxes in the Kenyan constitution: The case against gender quotas
by admin on | 2024-09-05 20:58:29 Last Updated by admin on 2024-12-22 01:42:01
Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 484
We live in a time where human equality is a fundamental principle and order of the day. Despite this, it is lucidly evident that you need only to look at the physique of men to note that by nature, men are unequal. Equality does not exist even in factory products. Equality is an egalitarian wish that is impossible to achieve which explains the coercive force used by states which sought to impose equality; to impose the impossible. The only equality worth dying for is equality before the law which is enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya. The article states that every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit from the law.Further, women and men have the right to equal treatment and the state shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground including race, sex, or any other ground. It is important that while looking at this, one must note that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. My argument is that while Article 27 of the Constitution was established to ensure that both genders are equal and not discriminated against, it has served a purpose with a reading of other parts of the Constitution that I will analyse below of curtailing the right to free political participation in Kenya. Article 27(8) introduces the egalitarian principle that not more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies shall be of the same gender. Article 100 outlines groups that will be beneficiaries of the political quotas. Men are conspicuously missing. That means the quotas introduced by Article 27 (8) favour women and other groups. I will also argue that the introduction of political quotas does not serve to solve the problem of discrimination but rather is a barrier to political participation. This reasoning emanates from an erroneous egalitarian understanding of Equality. “Reformists” have extended the meaning of the word to include not only equality before the law but also equality of outcome.That is appealing but laughably idiotic. It emanates not from strong abstract reasoning but from fervent emotions to do the “desirable and necessary” thing. Be that as it may, it does not make their cause right.
