In Summary
- The only choice that Kenyans can make for the good of the country is to support respect for the rule of law
Kenya’s General Election has become an international must-watch game. It has attracted attention of many governments and policy think tanks, for both good and bad reasons.
Some are watching us to see what a radical Constitution can give birth to. They want to know whether our leaders learnt anything from the violence that ended in 2008.
Kenya is gaining attention also for bad reasons. The world is keenly watching how we circumvent the Constitution in the name of sovereignty. There is concern that Parliament watered down the laws to operationalise this Constitution so as to safeguard interests of those who were in the Tenth Parliament.
This is the context in which we are holding the March 4 election. It is for this reason that the choices we make will have consequences in future.
The idea of consequences after the elections is not new. In fact, from 1992, our choices have had consequences. Electoral consequences are the result of how we frame the main theme for our elections.
Organising question
Every election contains a framework on which issues are built and leaders elected. In 1992 and 1997, the theme was ‘Moi and Kanu must go.’ This platform led to violence in Moi’s and Kanu’s strongholds.
The organising question and theme for 2002 was ‘We want change’. There was support for change everywhere, including in areas supporting Moi’s political project at that time, Uhuru Kenyatta. The country did not witness repeat of the cycle of violence associated with previous polls.
The organising question for 2007 lacked clarity. There was the question of whether the country should appreciate economic recovery, the main success of President Kibaki’s five-year term, or chide the Kibaki government for excluding from power leaders who were not from Mount Kenya region.
So vicious were the arguments for and against these two issues that the country imploded after ODM rejected the results.
The theme and the organising question for the March 4 election is complex. There is no consensus on the defining platform. Intervention by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and implementation of reforms under the new Constitution are the emerging issues.
But ICC has gained traction for obviously bad reasons. Failure to address the problem of impunity and develop a society based on rule of law has meant an increase in the number of leaders who seek to prevent accountability. They are ready to block the ICC intervention.
They see the intervention as interference with the status quo. They are afraid it will trigger demands to bring everyone to account for their actions; be it theft of public property, grand corruption or other breaches.
Results of ICC intervention
Campaigning and winning the election on the platform of ICC, therefore, has several consequences, too. The ICC platform implies that leaders elected at county level will comprise those who are vocal in shouting against the court.
Those who are vocal in preventing accountability will be elected. Such leaders will not be passionate about development issues. They will promote self-interest.
A review of nomination lists by different parties reveals this. There was no public check on the character of those nominated to run for offices. Those suspected of having been involved in abuse of office at the local level either as councillors or leaders of local cooperatives will still be gunning for some of these offices.
Because we have not resolved the question of the big elephant in the room, no attempt has been made to address this challenge.
The ICC platform also has consequences on the character of our Senate. A review of those seeking to be senators shows that the Senate is likely to be compromised, especially by the old politicians and ethnic chauvinists.
Third is the consequence on gender. Debate on ICC intervention has distracted our attention from discussing the quality of women leadership. In many instances, men sat down and agreed on which woman leader should be on the ballot for which particular seat.
The consequences for our electoral choices will be most pronounced at the national level. Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto have spent the last two years, from January 2011, fighting to lift ICC yoke off their shoulders.
They have been so preoccupied with ICC that they finally settled on running for the leadership of the country, probably to fight from a position of advantage. They had on their side Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, who was shuttling to many cities seeking support from African leaders to fight the ICC.
What is now referred to as UhuRuto alliance will present several consequences on Kenya if it won and assumed office. First, other governments will adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach in their dealing with Kenya.
Official transaction of business will be so limited that Kenya’s economy will thaw like ice rolling down a hill. Investors and governments will be waiting to see what will happen; and it could take long.
Secondly, no major economic activities will be taking place during the ‘wait and see’ period. The economy will be on a downward trend. Development agencies, private businesses, and even individual entrepreneurs, will plan their activities and contractual obligation with March 2013 as the end point.
The third consequence of UhuRuto leadership will be on the economy. Contrary to the thinking of many Kenyans, the government does not wholly finance development expenditure. Flows of official assistance contribute about five per cent share to GDP. Development aid supports 18 per cent of the budget.
The significance of development assistance is visible when one examines the pattern of development expenditure. In 2011, net official development assistance as a share of development expenditure was about 60 per cent. Some sectors are likely to have even more than this share. One cannot wish away development assistance on the assumption that Kenya finances, on its own, its development budget.
The choices we make will certainly affect this pattern of development assistance and expenditure. It will affect service delivery.
The only choices that Kenyans can make for the good of the country is to support respect for the rule of law and building a strong foundation for constitutionalism. The rising ethnic nationalism, based purely on the ICC intervention, erodes the foundation of rule of law and future prospects for democracy in Kenya.
Prof Karuti Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Nairobi, karuti@south.co.ke
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment