By Prof. Mauri Yambo
Kenya’s political climate in the 21st century is quite different from what it was when Jomo Kenyatta was president, and during most of Moi’s 24-year presidency. The year 2002 was a dramatic watershed. Kenya’s experience suggests that in countries steeped in years of one-man rule, the “democratic bug” – some would now call it the democratic meme (a sort of “mind virus”) – is first genuinely, and even innocently, caught by the people (the voters). Eventually, it must catch up with the leaders too – both those in power and in opposition.
Through many sacrifices, shifting coalitions and unforgettable cliff-hangers, Kenya’s democratic space has in the last decade and a half evolved to be, now, much wider, deeper and more vibrant. In the post-2002 period, it continues to evolve. But not fast enough. In particular, the democratic space within political parties remains scandalously under-evolved – and the membership under-involved!
Party governance, even among opposition parties, remains steeped in the big-man mindset of yesteryear, no matter how many position papers are developed in the name of democracy. However, 2007 may be a landmark year, certainly for opposition parties, and particularly for ODM-K. The party must somehow choose a presidential candidate in the next six months, and rally behind that choice, without tearing itself apart. Obviously, the party of the incumbent (President Kibaki), whichever party it is, will not be under the same kind of pressure in 2007. Its choice is already in State House, and will run again – unopposed by any of the GNU parties.
So what is ODM-K going to do? How, exactly, is it going to choose its presidential, parliamentary and civic candidates? In the name of democracy, the answer should be obvious – and yet there is much beating about the bush. There is much lingering suspicion among the party luminaries, though they will publicly deny it. And MPs continue to hog party organs and functions as though no one else has a voice, a mind or an iota of legitimacy.
Consistent with basic democratic principles, party rank-and-file should be involved in choosing party candidates at various levels, through direct voting during primaries in respective constituencies, and/or a graduated delegate system. Such voting may be by secret ballot or some version of queuing (mlologo). The former is preferably, though the logistics and cost of doing so may be prohibitive, even at the constituency level, for a cash-strapped party.
If the 2002 experience is anything to go by, the direct-voting route favours incumbents, or aspirants who have the ears of those at headquarters – and who offer to foot the bill. Queuing is a public spectacle whose results, in an organized environment, are there for all to see. However, it disenfranchises those who arrive after the lining- up phase is closed and the counting begins, or who must leave before it is completed. And so it has too many flaws itself to be adopted during general elections proper.
Though there has been much debate and agonizing about how ODM-K should choose its Presidential candidate, some agreement seems at last to have been arrived at. What is unsettling many observers (members of the silent majority) is that, having agreed on the version of the delegate system to adopt for nominating its presidential candidate, and how the actual voting will broadly be conducted, some ODM-K luminaries seem to be developing cold feet even before the ink dries on the paper on which their agreement was presumably penned. We are back to the notion that, somehow, a consensus among the aspirants is the best way to choose the presidential candidate. Great danger lurks in this apparent change of mind.
In the first place, a consensus cannot by definition be imposed – particularly among forces of roughly equal power or influence. Consensus implies unanimity among those involved in trying to reach it. Consequently, no consensus can be reached which does not in fact anoint the aspirant who believes, rightly or wrongly, that the delegate system would deliver him or her the nomination which the consensus might, by subterfuge, deny him or her. To threaten such a candidate with ostracism and even expulsion from the party is to threaten the very existence of the very party whose presidential candidate every luminary wants to be. As I see it, and I want to be forthright here, consensus, as it is conceived of now, is just another word for Tosha! Because of 2002, and of what has transpired in Kenyan politics since, Tosha has become a dirty five-letter word. The sooner it is abandoned the better it with be for the social capital of those associated with it.
Secondly, attempts to broker a consensus among ODM-K luminaries and those close to them – away from the ordinary members’ prying eyes – are a very loud and clear message that the leaders (at least some of them) do not trust the people, who trust them. They do not trust the people’s judgement on this matter. But why on this matter, and why now, if the people’s judgement in 2002 and 2005 continues to be the subject of so much chest-thumping? Moreover, these attempts bring to mind a discredited practice exemplified by Mayor Daley’s Chicago of the 1950s and ’60s. Senator Obama, and ODM-K’s donors such as NDI and IRI, would caution us against this practice, if we chose to consult them or heed their advice.
I believe that the delegate system will choose for ODM-K not only the right candidate but more importantly the only presidential candidate it can legitimately and democratically choose – indeed, the winning candidate. The challenge for each aspirant is to network within genuine democratic parameters such as these to put together a winning combination. Power comes from the people. We should consistently preach this and show that we mean it by practicing it. And as Mwalimu Nyerere used to say, though he did not treat his own opponents kindly (but that was another era, which must not return), “It can be done!”
To suggest that voters registered in certain regions should by definition be disqualified from the ODM-K presidential nomination process – or that their votes should be less than equal (that is, a fraction) those of their counterparts in other regions – is to tell them to take or keep their support elsewhere. You cannot win by being associated with such a view, or by forgoing such large chunks of votes! It simply does not make sense – even in the name of enlightened self-interest.
Come to think of it, that is the same kind of “Siasa mbaya, maisha mbaya” attitude, in top government circles, which has denied an equitable share of development resources and state appointments to “opposition areas” from 1963 to 2007! The widespread rejection of this attitude across the country provides the basic explanation for the equally widespread support, reported in recent months by Steadman, which ODM-K continues to enjoy.
It should be expected that the eventual ODM-K candidate will campaign in all regions of the country during the actual presidential elections, and will not surrender any votes anywhere to anyone. This, one suspects, will also be President Kibaki’s strategy for victory.
The trouble with trying too hard to tilt the democratic process in one’s favour, to ensure one’s own victory, is that one’s opponents or co-contestants – if they are not to be presumed dumb – can see through this too clearly for one’s eventual comfort. This is particularly so in arenas where the goodwill of at least some of one’s peers is a prerequisite for the looked-for victory. They may for a time be silent or muted, or even confused, about what they see, but such seeing and such machinations are a lethal combination. The combination has easily predictable consequences. For our political leaders, this is the fundamental lesson of Kenya’s general elections of 2002, and the referendum of 2005. The end does not, should not, always justify the means.
What is my prognosis? Attempts to broker a consensus will fail. For the sake of Democracy, they should not and must not succeed! Democracy will catch up with ODM-K luminaries and MPs in 2007. For goodness’ sake, the D in the party’s name stands for Democratic – without quote unquote! ODM-K will choose its presidential candidate through the delegate system, which will perhaps have been amended more than once between now and June. The losing presidential aspirants will rally fairly forcefully behind the winner – perhaps on the uncertain promise of the Prime Minister’s job.
Abandoning the party after a well-organized leadership selection exercise via the delegate system would spell doom to the political future, nationally, of those who do so. And, it seems mathematically clear to me at this point, the chosen candidate will have a better that 50-50 chance of winning the actual presidential elections in 2007. However, should ODM-K formally break up before its candidate is officially nominated, into pro-consensus and anti-consensus camps, then – from that moment of split and long before the elections are actually held – the country will know the winner of the 2007 presidential elections, and that the winner will be the incumbent, President Mwai Kibaki.
Can the country live with that? Sure. We have done so since 2003. Can the losing luminaries do so? Yes, at a terrible price. The inevitable consequence of a second Kibaki victory would be a passionate scramble for new leadership in various areas across the country, as Democracy finally catches up with the remaining diehards – reluctant democrats. Democracy should be a quality of mind inscribed in our routine practice, not merely something we occasionally preach.
Only one eventuality can radically change much of the above scenario, while still delivering victory to President Kibaki in 2007. It is the push particularly by LDP, unlikely to succeed this year, to make ODM-K strictly a party of regional parties allowing only for corporate membership and run on the basis of a coalition of “like-minded” parties. While it has become too late to choose the ODM-K flag-bearer this way this year, this scenario is entirely possible in 2012.
Nairobi: Sunday, January 28, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment