Britain and Kenya’s Constitutions, 1950–1960
Powered By Xquantum

Britain and Kenya’s Constitutions, 1950–1960 By Robert Maxon

Chapter 1:  Introduction
Read
image Next

This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.


meant that the number of European unofficials in the colony’s LegCo should be equal to that of all other races combined. Parity was thus a means to maintaining European political dominance. By 1950 there were eleven European unofficials (non–civil servants) in the LegCo and eleven unofficial members drawn from the Asian, African, and Arab populations. The maintenance of parity was indeed a critical political issue for Kenya’s European politicians. This stand was symptomatic of the fact that politics and political contestation in 1950s Kenya was primarily defined by race.

Constitution Making

A primary focus of this work is on constitution making for the racially stratified colony during the period 1951–1960. This involves a study of politics of the time as well as that of imperial policies and goals for Kenya. Accounts will be provided of the negotiations leading to the main constitutional innovations of the period 1954 to 1960, illustrating how the details of the Lyttleton, Lennox-Boyd, and Lancaster House I Constitutions emerged. The role of the major players in these episodes of constitutional innovation—the Kenyan political elite, the British government, and the leadership of the colonial state—will also be investigated.

This description and analysis shows the divergent nature of the goals and tactics of these groups. The racially defined groups in Kenya were interested in developing a constitution that would provide a system of government for the colony and, after 1960, for an independent nation. They recognized that a constitution represents a form of social contract. A system of government is established that can maintain law and order and provide access to national resources on an equitable basis. Although this formed part of the constitutional discourse of the 1950s, there was disagreement as to who exactly should govern and how government should be chosen. Most viewed as the ultimate goal a democratic form of government, but there was disagreement as to the means and timing of achieving that goal.