However, when a politician does so in Parliament, they are accused of engaging in ‘terminological inexactitude’ because the word ‘liar’ is judged un-Parliamentary language. Yet the word ‘liar’ is one some of the leading politicians use with relish outside Parliament.

In and of itself, the term is judgmental and, therefore, inappropriate to use in the absence of evidence to justify its use. In the ongoing debate on majimbo as a system of governance, ‘liar’ has become a catchword. Rather than advance points to shore up their case, those opposed to the people-friendly system simply dismiss its advocates as ‘liars’.

With the debate, Kenya is at cross-roads. People have to choose between two diametrically opposed systems for their future governance. For the debate to be productive and, therefore, of use to the country, soberness is required on the part of all concerned.

This, in any case, is not the first time this debate is raging on the subject in this country. The first time was the period leading up to the General Election preceding Independence in 1963. If anything, the concerned elections were fought and won on the twin issues of a unitary versus a majimbo (federal) system of governance.

Two of the main independence parties, Kenya African National Union (Kanu) and Kenya African Democratic Union (Kadu), were on opposite sides of the debate, with Kanu and its unitary system carrying the day. Were it not for Kadu’s voluntary dissolution in 1964, debate on the pros and cons of the two systems would have continued and intensified. In that eventuality, the political landscape would have taken-on an entirely different form and shape from the one we have today.

Evidently, majimbo is, in its original sense of federalism or regionalism, no strange word to many in Kenya. Much has since changed in terms of personalities at the heart of the debate. Be that as it may, the context of the subject has also since changed fundamentally.

Majimbo — a system of devolved powers in the context of the Bomas Draft Constitution — is a completely different thing from that of the yore. Those talking of majimbo in the old context of ethnic regionalism cannot mean well for Kenya. They are deliberately out to mislead Kenyans. They know the difference but have, conveniently, chosen to ignore it.

The misfortune those rubbishing the majimbo system have is two-fold. On the one hand, they are going up against the tsunami of change. In the words of India’s Mahatma Gandhi: "You cannot stop an idea whose time has come." On the other, they are going against the grain of popular will and push for change. This, from a system that has failed to deliver to something new, something people are eager to test and or experiment with.

We have been experimenting with the unitary system for 43 years now, a whole generation’s time. They are as poor today as they were 30 years ago. They are, as it were, fatigued with the system.

The unitary system has been misused and overly abused in Kenya. Whereas all pay taxes equally, the unitary system has been used to enrich and empower the community and region from where the President comes. Other communities and regions, especially those perceived as opposed to the power s that be have, in the process, been discriminated against and marginalised.

That the politically connected and correct communities in Kenya have benefited from the unitary system of governance at the expense of others is a given. Also given is the fact that the privileged super-rich under the system can only rubbish and demonise the majimbo system. This is, largely, due to the fear of losing some of their wealth, unjustified as that may be.

For the masses for whom the unitary system has been a disappointment, the drive for change to a more friendly system could not be more urgent. And, legitimate as some of the fears may be, it must be appreciated that such are but the one side of a two-sided coin manifested in an election contest. The fears of the other side are just as, if not more, legitimate. And the elections are, if anything, about weighing which of the two sets of fears is shared by the majority and, therefore, more compelling.

The fore-going are, no doubt complex matters for which decisions must, of necessity, be informed and guided by the supreme law of the land — the Constitution. Unfortunately for us, the current constitution is a sell-by date, leaving the Bomas Draft the only instrument one can rely on, on a matter as critical as this.

Chilling poverty remains a major characteristic of many faces in Kenya. This is, in and of itself, a compelling need for change. But, determined as the people here may be to break out of the poverty circle, their efforts have, routinely, been blocked. Beneficiaries of the system at work have and remain as determined as ever to thwart any efforts to free Kenyans from the stranglehold they have, over the years, been condemned to. What advocates of the system forget is that having experimented with it for decades, people know it inside-out. The more these seek to perpetuate the system, the stronger the peoples’ resolve to walk out becomes.

Call it a miracle if you may. ODM has devised that the majimbo system, the system best conveyed in the Kiswahili term "madaraka mkoani" is the surest way of empowering and making people masters of their own destiny. Besides, the system stands out as one that would consolidate the decision-making process in the hands of the people, thereby making both corruption and tribalism things of the past. More importantly, the system would put paid to continued oppression and exploitation of the Kenyan masses by the handful few super-rich of the land.

This is the path that is trodden by some of the most prosperous countries of the world.