Nairobi — Prof Yash Pal Ghai, former chair of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, last week spoke out passionately on the dangers we confront -- yet again -- in the latest thrust to conclude our constitutional reform process.

Arguably nobody in the country is better placed to speak out than he.

The dangers he so eloquently spelt out are clearly illustrated by the kind of debates we've been forced to endure over the past two weeks -- starting with the seemingly innocuous comment by President Mwai Kibaki on the need to restore the principle of "one person, one vote" during his Kenyatta Day speech.

Seemingly innocuous, but toxic.

Because of what it apparently enabled in terms of the increasingly acrimonious pronouncements and counter-pronouncements that have ensued since.

Let us be clear. Each Kenyan of age already has one vote.

The question that confronts us -- and the Committee of Experts (CoE) as it prepares options for consideration by the Parliamentary Select Committee on our future electoral system -- is twofold.

On the one hand, how best to address the gerrymandering of the past so as to restore the equality of each person's vote.

And, on the other hand, how best to address whatever legitimate reasons may have underlain that gerrymandering.

Yes, it is true that illegitimate reasons too prompted gerrymandering -- the perception that gerrymandering was the only way to counter the numerical strength and supposed homogenous voting patterns of people from Central and Nairobi Provinces.

But it is equally true that, in a directly representative electoral system, minorities of all kinds (not just ethnic) are unlikely to ever be able to achieve political representation.

It is partly for these reasons that both the CKRC and the so-called Bomas draft Constitutions proposed a mixed-member, proportional representative electoral system.

The other reasons, being the expressed desire of Kenyans to have directly elected representatives (those who function well at the constituency level) as well as indirectly elected representatives (those who function better at the national level or who could ensure minority representation).

This was a largely agreed upon position -- and certainly did not emerge as one of the contentious issues during the referendum on the new Constitution in 2005.

So what has happened since to inform the growing hysteria and intolerance evident over the past two weeks?

What has happened since is, it must be said, partly a problem of sequencing with respect to the reforms envisaged in the mediation agreements.

The CoE is charged with proposing options for the design of our electoral system -- and it is widely believed that they will retain the MMPR (mixed-member proportional representation) electoral system proposed by the CKRC and Bomas drafts.

The facts that this sequencing was not followed and that there is no agreement on the principles to be taken into account in setting the numbers and sizes of new constituencies have contributed, in no small measure, to the madness we've seen over the past two weeks.

Those with political interests from Central and Nairobi have put their foot down -- with an eye to 2012 and, needless to say, the ever-larger pots of funds available at the constituency level.

Those with political interests from all kinds of minorities (most notably, those from the arid and semi-arid regions) are also putting their foot down -- to the extent of proposing an entirely new basis for democracy: "one kilometre, one vote."

We cannot afford to go into another general election under the current electoral system.

That much is clear.

But neither can we afford to let the direction of change be determined by those with solely immediate and personal political interests at heart.

The Constitution is for all of us. And it is for our long-term future.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission