A common argument being proffered against the proposed Constitution is that it will be more expensive to run and that the country cannot afford it. It is being said that the system of government being proposed will require the establishment of new administrative structures and employment of extra personnel.

Possibly the point to start in addressing this concern is by asking a question: How much should a good constitution cost? By what measure do we evaluate whether the draft constitution will be too expensive?

Critics of the draft constitution are basing their objection on the fallacious assumption that cheaper is better; that we should not adopt the draft constitution as it will be more expensive than the current one.

In reality however, better is often more expensive, German cars cost more than Japanese ones for the simple reason that they are better. This comparison may sound banal, but it is because the point is really that simple. We are not likely to come up with a new Constitution that will cost less than the current one: Not if the new one will be better.

But in deciding whether to adopt a more expensive constitution, we must also ask ourselves what we have benefited from the cheaper one. What is it in the old constitution that we would want to maintain because it has worked so well and at such affordable rates?

Clearly, the argument should not be whether the new Constitution will be more expensive. That it will be. The concern should be whether it is good value for money, whether it is extravagant?

The way the critics should proffer their point to us is by showing us the credible alternatives that would be cheaper and better than the draft constitution and thereby prove that we can get better value for our money.

For instance, the draft constitution has expanded the judicial arm of government by creating a Supreme Court, and the legislative arm by creating a Senate. That will of course cost us more. But our experiences since independence have shown us that these two new institutions are necessary in resolving the problems we have had with both arms of government.

So far we have not thought up a better solution that would be cheaper. That lacking, we have only two alternatives: stay with our less expensive problematic provisions, or adopt the better more expensive solution.

Which brings in a third perspective to the cost debate: Can we afford to remain with our cheaper Constitution? How badly to we need the cure of a new Constitution?

The simplicity of the issue calls for another banal comparison; that of a sick patient. No patient willingly undergoes a surgery when other forms of treatment can suffice. But no patient with a sound mind will reject a life saving surgical procedure when there is no alternative. The cost of such rejection is, of course, that the patient will invariably die.

Those who reject the draft constitution on the basis of cost without offering creditable cheaper alternatives are either being reckless, or do not believe we have a problem that requires a new system of governance.

The irony of the Constitution debate is that all sides begin with the testimony that we need a new Constitution. All sides also testify that this search has been long, far too long, and expensive financially, politically and psychologically.

All sides also agree that this is the best consensus ever reached in this process and that our disagreement is largely on three issues only.

The above being true, we should start asking ourselves how much more we want to pay before we conclude this process. How many billions do we want to spend? How many more billions do we want to lose through the current system before we change it?

When we talk about cost, we must address it in all perspectives. For it is not a simple question of how much more we shall have to pay under the new structure of government. It is also about how much more we shall continue loosing without it.

Eventually, this issue may also come to rest on the ultimate price we pay by not having the new Constitution. Constitutional reform has been identified as one of the critical exercises that Kenya must undertake to avert a fate worse than the tragedy of the Post Election Violence of 2008.

Is there an amount of money we are not wiling to spend in a new system of government inorder to avert a collapse of the nation? Would we rather face national catastrophe than adopt a better working though more expensive system of governance? What is the price of our nationhood?

A final perspective at cost is in respect of the financial returns; the basic question being whether the new constitution is a good investment. In looking at he Constitution in this perspective, the concern is not just how much it is costing to operate it but how much we are benefiting financially from it.

In administrative systems, money is lost chiefly through corruption and wastage. In Kenya, we have lost an economic heritage through rampant corruption and bureaucratic wastages. Decisions made by the Central government often fail to resolve the problems of those in the provinces as the latter are left out of the governance and decision making procedures.

The new system of government is tailored to address these loses and wastages. Looking at what Kenya has been losing under the old system, a more efficient and money saving system is urgently required. Such a system cannot be free, neither is it likely to be cheaper than the old inefficient one.

It will cost more, every year, to run the proposed system of administration. But we shall save more and earn more from it. Ultimately, the new system shall be a safe investment and a good value for our money.

Published in the Sunday Nation Newspaper of 11th July, 2010