By Mauri Yambo
In to-day's Daily Nation (February 12, 2007), it is reported that a debate has flared up within ODM-K concerning the number of delegate-votes a candidate will have to garner to win ODM-K's presidential nomination. The first point to remind ourselves is that "50% plus one" and "simple majority" mean one and the same thing. That is, 50% + 1 (which is different from 50% + 1%, except when one is talking of exactly 100 votes) is precisely where simple majority begins. It is the minimum number required to claim majority support. The upper end of simple majority -- at which one begins to talk of a landslide -- is a matter of some conjecture; but a winner is certainly entitled to claim a landslide when his or her votes equal or surpass 66.7%. The person who merely gets the highest number of votes among three or more contestants can only claim victory based on a "plurality" (not the majority) of the votes cast.
In the years since independence, one has occasionally heard of "majority tribes". The truth of the matter is that there can be only one majority -- though such a one can be created through a coalition. There is another truth, ignorance of which has deluded some political leaders with strong ethnic bases into thinking that their respective ethnic groups somehow represent the majority of Kenyan voters. No single ethnic group in Kenya is large enought to be the majority. More importantly, we do not have amidst us any two or three ethnic groups, however you mix and match them, which add up to the majority of the citizenry.
I do not know what ODM-K leaders agreed on at the relevantNaivasha meeting. Raila is reported to believe that they agreed on 50%+1. Kalonzo claims that they agreed on a plurality. Some slants in the story suggest that they agreed on a simple majority. Mutula Kilonzo seems to agree with Raila, and advises aspirants to read the implications of a simple majority (or 50% +1)correctly and hit the campaign trail accordingly.
What I know is that it would be dangerous and eventually self-defeating for any aspirant to seek victory within ODM-K simply on the basis of a plurality. How would a flag-bearer with less than the majority of the party's support (as reflected in the actual pattern of delegate-voting) -- say 25%, or even 49% -- galvanize and energize the party toward electoral victory in December 2007? How are we to imagine that those turned off by his/her narrow margin of victory would vote in December?
It may be difficult for anyone to win majority votes in the first ballot. So I expect a lot of horse-trading when the delegates meet to annoint one of the declared candidates. Woe betide the candidate whose supporting delegates cannot network or articulate his/her case -- when such horse-trading begins.
There will probably be two to five voting sessions before the winner is eventually declared. Contingency measures should be agreed upon and established ahead of time to accommodate this possibility. And I would suggest that once someone gains 50% +1, the losing candidates should have the opportunity to "offer" their votes to the actual winner. This would serve as the first move to rally the entire party behind the declared winner.
To argue that the process winning the majority of delegates would be exhausting to the candidates is in the end to look for excuses to avoid the popular mandate. It is to reveal a certain fear of real Democracy in practice. Better to expend requisite energy in order to get the party's unequevocal support behind one, than to conserve energy only to wage a losing war in December.
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
ODM-K: Selection By Delegates or Consensus?
By Prof. Mauri Yambo
I think the debate continues, but the ''consensus'' bloc just can't win it -- not with the latest assertion by Uhuru that whatever consensus is arrived at must be approved by the delegates. In the name of democracy, he is right to insist on that.
Incidentally, the route to consensus was inadvertently missed some time back -- the moment it was decided that ODM-K would be a unitary party with individual as opposed to corporate membership. And that was not a bad decision, either -- only that its unintended consequences are being felt belatedly.
The really amazing thing in this debate is the impression being given by the pro-consensus wing that there is no merit in nomination by delegates, while nomination by consensus has no demerits, and is the rational way to go. The questions that have not been answered are these: who will the parties to the consensus-building be? Will it be every Tom-Dick-and-Harriet who has declared an interest in being President? Supposing another 100 candidates declare their interest, will they also join the ''party''? Who will be the bouncers to keep out the many likely gate-crashers? Above all, how will the bash escape the tag of a ''private members' club'' -- a la Muthaiga Golf Club? What role for ordinary members, through their delegates, does the consensus wing have in mind: (a) a direct (deciding) role? (b) a rubber-stamp role? (c) none?
In my view, there are only two and possibly three (the third most likely squeaking through as a compromise candidate) of the ODM-K luminaries with any serious hope of winning the actual presidential election -- if they can secure the nomination in the first place. The problem is that the winner of the party nomination may be any one of a somewhat larger group. Depending on how the aspirants ''romance'' the delegates -- and there is going to be selection by delegates -- any one of five may win the nomination. These are: Raila, Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Ruto and Uhuru. The others, seriously, don't have a chance -- not this year. I simply I don't see where they will get the numbers -- and the passion. The sooner they stopped fuzzying an already complicated and very serious matter the better.
If the pro-consensus wing wins this debate, what is to stop it from insisting that even nominees for Parliamentary and Civic seats be selected by their own version of consensus?
I think the debate continues, but the ''consensus'' bloc just can't win it -- not with the latest assertion by Uhuru that whatever consensus is arrived at must be approved by the delegates. In the name of democracy, he is right to insist on that.
Incidentally, the route to consensus was inadvertently missed some time back -- the moment it was decided that ODM-K would be a unitary party with individual as opposed to corporate membership. And that was not a bad decision, either -- only that its unintended consequences are being felt belatedly.
The really amazing thing in this debate is the impression being given by the pro-consensus wing that there is no merit in nomination by delegates, while nomination by consensus has no demerits, and is the rational way to go. The questions that have not been answered are these: who will the parties to the consensus-building be? Will it be every Tom-Dick-and-Harriet who has declared an interest in being President? Supposing another 100 candidates declare their interest, will they also join the ''party''? Who will be the bouncers to keep out the many likely gate-crashers? Above all, how will the bash escape the tag of a ''private members' club'' -- a la Muthaiga Golf Club? What role for ordinary members, through their delegates, does the consensus wing have in mind: (a) a direct (deciding) role? (b) a rubber-stamp role? (c) none?
In my view, there are only two and possibly three (the third most likely squeaking through as a compromise candidate) of the ODM-K luminaries with any serious hope of winning the actual presidential election -- if they can secure the nomination in the first place. The problem is that the winner of the party nomination may be any one of a somewhat larger group. Depending on how the aspirants ''romance'' the delegates -- and there is going to be selection by delegates -- any one of five may win the nomination. These are: Raila, Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Ruto and Uhuru. The others, seriously, don't have a chance -- not this year. I simply I don't see where they will get the numbers -- and the passion. The sooner they stopped fuzzying an already complicated and very serious matter the better.
If the pro-consensus wing wins this debate, what is to stop it from insisting that even nominees for Parliamentary and Civic seats be selected by their own version of consensus?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A NOTE ON BODIES OF KNOWLEDGE
By Mauri Yambo
Scholars in all fields, from Anthropology and Archaeology to Zen Philosophy and Zoology, face one permanent challenge: to demonstrate that their knowledge claims, or proposed research projects, add value to the extant bodies of knowledge in their respective fields or generally. The terminology of this challenge is typically in the form of the the question: How will it [or how does it] contribute to knowledge?
The thing that knows is, of course, the brain; but it is lodged in the human body – and here likewise projected on generic paper. The thing that is known, the being of knowledge, is in turn lodged in a body of knowledge – or is itself such a body. In a way, a body of knowledge is a disciplinary or sub-disciplinary field – a field of specialization, a field of particular attention.
Disciplines and sub-disciplines (and therefore bodies of knowledge) represent a fusion of “facts” (including Sociologists' social facts), theories and methods – the last two being explicit or implicit. Often enough, disciplines evolve into professions, in terms of which the fusion is compounded by the introduction of sets of practices underpinned by codes of CONDUCT and by SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) – underpinned by what Sociologists broadly label norms. Presently, we will see that intra-disciplinary debates/controversies are a fifth dimension along which sub-disciplines can evolve in terms of the bodies of knowledge which they represent.
There are many fields and sub-fields in Sociology, as we will see presently. But first, let us remind ourselves that Sociology is a science of society – of human (individual and group) interaction in society.
– Interaction involves at least two people or two groups.
– Interaction is interactivity – individual activities or acts interrogating and influencing each other
– Interaction is “exchange” or reflexivity of real/actual behaviours/acts (or of the meanings of such behaviours/acts).
– Interaction is co-activity.
Behaviours that are frequently repeated or which regularly occur (which recur) become habits. Goffman talks of habituation, Bourdieu of habitus.
Habits (such as man and woman living together, or two people/traders regularly exchanging goods) often evolve, or are packaged by sociologists and other observers, into institutions – such as the family or the economy. And institutions are a (if not the) key foundation of social structure – and therefore society. That whole process can be depicted as follows:
Individual Acts >> Habits >> Interaction >> Institutions >> Social Structure >> Society.
However, many sociologists (particularly conflict theorists) insist that the basic orientation of human society is toward change and conflict, not the stability implicit in the notion of structure – and which is in fact “characteristic” (the hallmark) of the structural-functional perspective. Though they may deny it, however, many conflict theorists subscribe, in a “subliminal” way (inescapably) to some form of “functionalism.”
All of the foregoing serves as the foundation of sociological knowledge. Even within Sociology, however, it is legitimate to talk of bodies of knowledge, and to acknowledge that some of these bodies of sociological knowledge are the product of raging, continuing or intermittent debates within the discipline.
There are as many bodies of knowledge in sociology as there are fields and sub-fields, including the following 45 (or their variations, as some clearly overlap):
– Adolescent Behaviour
– Criminology [or Crime and Delinquency]
– Collective Behaviour and Social Movements
– Community [or Community Development]
– Cultural Sociology [Cultural Lag, Culture Shock, Culture Change, Counter-Culture, Culture Trait, Cultural Universals, Ethnocentrism, Hybridity, Identity, Norms, Otherness, Sub-Culture, Symbols, Technology, Values]
– Demography
– Deviant Behaviour
– Economic Sociology [or Economy and Society]
– Formal Organization
– Gerontology [or Sociology of Ageing]
– Gender Sociology [or Human Sexuality]
– Historical Sociology
– Human Ecology
– Human Relations
– Industrial Sociology [or Sociology of Work and Industry]
– Labour-Management Relations
– Law and Society
– Mathematical Sociology
– Medical Sociology [or Health and Society]
– Methodology [or Sociological Methods, or Methods of Social Investigation or Q/QRM]
– Marriage and the Family [or Sociology of the Family]
– Political Sociology
– Rural Sociology [or Rural Societies]
– Race and Ethnic Relations
– Social Change and Development
– Social Organization
– Social Systems
– Social Psychology
– Social Stratification and Social Class
– Social Mobility
– Social Exchange [May be part of “Community”]
– Socialization
– Social Groups and Social Institutions
– Social Theory
– Sociology of Developing Areas
– Sociology of Education
– Sociology of the Family [which we have mentioned above]
– Sociology of Knowledge
– Sociology of Human Communication [or Sociology of Mass Communication]
– Sociology of Human Service Delivery Systems
– Sociology of Religion
– Sociology of the Professions
– Sociology of Leisure and Sports
– Sociology of Science
– Urban Sociology [or Urban Social structures] [45]
In another post I will say something about bodies of nursing knowledge; that is, the totality of sets of knowledge which different cadres of nurses, charged with the responsibility of taking so much care of the total human body, are supposed to know in today’s world. Why nurses at this juncture? Why not? It is a random choice.
Scholars in all fields, from Anthropology and Archaeology to Zen Philosophy and Zoology, face one permanent challenge: to demonstrate that their knowledge claims, or proposed research projects, add value to the extant bodies of knowledge in their respective fields or generally. The terminology of this challenge is typically in the form of the the question: How will it [or how does it] contribute to knowledge?
The thing that knows is, of course, the brain; but it is lodged in the human body – and here likewise projected on generic paper. The thing that is known, the being of knowledge, is in turn lodged in a body of knowledge – or is itself such a body. In a way, a body of knowledge is a disciplinary or sub-disciplinary field – a field of specialization, a field of particular attention.
Disciplines and sub-disciplines (and therefore bodies of knowledge) represent a fusion of “facts” (including Sociologists' social facts), theories and methods – the last two being explicit or implicit. Often enough, disciplines evolve into professions, in terms of which the fusion is compounded by the introduction of sets of practices underpinned by codes of CONDUCT and by SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) – underpinned by what Sociologists broadly label norms. Presently, we will see that intra-disciplinary debates/controversies are a fifth dimension along which sub-disciplines can evolve in terms of the bodies of knowledge which they represent.
There are many fields and sub-fields in Sociology, as we will see presently. But first, let us remind ourselves that Sociology is a science of society – of human (individual and group) interaction in society.
– Interaction involves at least two people or two groups.
– Interaction is interactivity – individual activities or acts interrogating and influencing each other
– Interaction is “exchange” or reflexivity of real/actual behaviours/acts (or of the meanings of such behaviours/acts).
– Interaction is co-activity.
Behaviours that are frequently repeated or which regularly occur (which recur) become habits. Goffman talks of habituation, Bourdieu of habitus.
Habits (such as man and woman living together, or two people/traders regularly exchanging goods) often evolve, or are packaged by sociologists and other observers, into institutions – such as the family or the economy. And institutions are a (if not the) key foundation of social structure – and therefore society. That whole process can be depicted as follows:
Individual Acts >> Habits >> Interaction >> Institutions >> Social Structure >> Society.
However, many sociologists (particularly conflict theorists) insist that the basic orientation of human society is toward change and conflict, not the stability implicit in the notion of structure – and which is in fact “characteristic” (the hallmark) of the structural-functional perspective. Though they may deny it, however, many conflict theorists subscribe, in a “subliminal” way (inescapably) to some form of “functionalism.”
All of the foregoing serves as the foundation of sociological knowledge. Even within Sociology, however, it is legitimate to talk of bodies of knowledge, and to acknowledge that some of these bodies of sociological knowledge are the product of raging, continuing or intermittent debates within the discipline.
There are as many bodies of knowledge in sociology as there are fields and sub-fields, including the following 45 (or their variations, as some clearly overlap):
– Adolescent Behaviour
– Criminology [or Crime and Delinquency]
– Collective Behaviour and Social Movements
– Community [or Community Development]
– Cultural Sociology [Cultural Lag, Culture Shock, Culture Change, Counter-Culture, Culture Trait, Cultural Universals, Ethnocentrism, Hybridity, Identity, Norms, Otherness, Sub-Culture, Symbols, Technology, Values]
– Demography
– Deviant Behaviour
– Economic Sociology [or Economy and Society]
– Formal Organization
– Gerontology [or Sociology of Ageing]
– Gender Sociology [or Human Sexuality]
– Historical Sociology
– Human Ecology
– Human Relations
– Industrial Sociology [or Sociology of Work and Industry]
– Labour-Management Relations
– Law and Society
– Mathematical Sociology
– Medical Sociology [or Health and Society]
– Methodology [or Sociological Methods, or Methods of Social Investigation or Q/QRM]
– Marriage and the Family [or Sociology of the Family]
– Political Sociology
– Rural Sociology [or Rural Societies]
– Race and Ethnic Relations
– Social Change and Development
– Social Organization
– Social Systems
– Social Psychology
– Social Stratification and Social Class
– Social Mobility
– Social Exchange [May be part of “Community”]
– Socialization
– Social Groups and Social Institutions
– Social Theory
– Sociology of Developing Areas
– Sociology of Education
– Sociology of the Family [which we have mentioned above]
– Sociology of Knowledge
– Sociology of Human Communication [or Sociology of Mass Communication]
– Sociology of Human Service Delivery Systems
– Sociology of Religion
– Sociology of the Professions
– Sociology of Leisure and Sports
– Sociology of Science
– Urban Sociology [or Urban Social structures] [45]
In another post I will say something about bodies of nursing knowledge; that is, the totality of sets of knowledge which different cadres of nurses, charged with the responsibility of taking so much care of the total human body, are supposed to know in today’s world. Why nurses at this juncture? Why not? It is a random choice.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The Logic of Giving
By Mauri Yambo
One of the enduring paradoxes (or is it simple truths?) of everyday life, since the advent of money, is that giving is far easier than being paid -- or even given to!
One of the enduring paradoxes (or is it simple truths?) of everyday life, since the advent of money, is that giving is far easier than being paid -- or even given to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)