In Summary
- One will not win without support from more than three tribes and wide ethnic and regional support, says Prof Karuti Kanyinga
Kenya’s General Election to be held on March 4, has attracted debate on two interrelated issues. One is how ethnic numbers will shape the outcome of the election. Two is how new ethnic and regional alliances are reproducing the old pattern and behaviour of voting. It is about how the old way of organising political competition will prevent change.
Both arguments look somehow plausible if one is using naked eyes. But use of clear lenses and careful scrutiny reveal both the mythical nature of the “tyranny of numbers” and the mysterious ways in which the Constitution has forced politicians to organise political competition.
Tyranny of numbers
The argument on tyranny of numbers is built on a loose foundation and a spurious claim that Kenyans vote along ethnic lines and, therefore, two ethno-regional blocs, together, have numbers to win the election.
The argument here is the Jubilee Alliance, comprising the Kalenjin and the Kikuyu, together with the related Meru and Embu groups from the Mt Kenya region, have numbers that give the alliance a headstart.
The argument proceeds to point out that other alliances have a weak numeric starting point. Cord, in particular, comprises the Luo and Kamba who do not have sufficient numbers to match Jubilee’s strength.
These observations are based on the myth of ethnic numbers. They are based on the assumption that Kenya’s political competition follows the same old pattern of organising political competition. They are mythical.
First, the ethnic structure of Kenya comprises many ethnic groups but among the five numerically large groups, there is no single group large enough to dominate others. The Kikuyu, Luhya, Luo, Kalenjin and Kamba are of almost equal size in number.
Second, the voter registration figures, although they are not disaggregated by ethnicity, reveal the share of registered voters of the two main groups in the Jubilee alliances is not disproportionately higher than their share of population.
If you torture the voter registration figures by counties, which is an inaccurate exercise to get actual registration of voters by ethnic group, the results show the Kalenjin and the Kikuyu counties have about 36 per cent share of registered voters. This is about five per cent above their combined share of the population.
And going by opinion polls, Cord’s support base appears to be beyond the two groups where the two leaders come from. Both Jubilee and Cord, therefore, have a lead start but in different forms. Jubilee’s support lies in ethnic-concentration while Cord’s support lies in ethnic-dispersal.
Thirdly, the myth proceeds to observe that other groups in the Mt Kenya region, the Meru and Embu, have natural affinity to the Jubilee alliance. They are relatives and therefore they will naturally vote, as a bloc, for the Jubilee presidential candidate.
But these groups vote in a mysterious manner. They voted in support of some Kanu members of Parliament in the 1990s when the rest of the region voted for Mwai Kibaki, then a presidential candidate in the opposition.
About 21 per cent Meru voted for Moi in 1992. In 1997, 35 per cent in this region voted for Moi. In both elections, presidential candidates from the Mt Kenya region faired badly in other regions except in Western Province.
A look at the pattern of voting in the 2002 and 2007 General Election reveals ethnic groups split their votes between candidates even when they had their own. This is tactical voting. It is not that they did not want their own to win.
They were quick to recognise that you cannot win without the support of at least three large groups plus a number of statistically significant group.
Reproduced pattern of settlement
The Kisii, Mijikenda and the Meru fall in the category of statistically significant groups. These are important for alliance. But they cannot have a candidate on their own and win a presidential election. Thus in the 2002 General Election, Simeon Nyachae led the Kisii to an election whose main result reproduced the Kisii pattern of settlement in the country.
Similarly, in this election, the Meru attempted to drive a bus on their own but realised the futility of the attempt. They gave up after many false starts.
This new politics of numbers tells an interesting story; the lead start by Jubilee is no guarantee to win the election in the first round. Similarly, the geographical spread of Cord’s political support may be an advantage, but it does not guarantee a victory either.
There is a possibility of a run-off if we go by findings from opinion polls. Mobilising beyond three groups will shape the outcome.
The debate on numbers denigrated the science of opinion polling. Some have even argued common sense is more advanced than scientific methods of analysing opinions. But even Christopher Columbus debunked the common sense notion of the earth as flat by doing some practical sailing.
One fact with us now is from 2002, opinion polls have been showing almost the exact pattern of election results. The 2002 polls accurately predicted the outcome of the presidential election. The last poll that year showed Kibaki at 62 per cent, Uhuru at 31 per cent and Simeon Nyachae at five per cent.
In 2007, the polls had predicted a close election, even though the flaws did not make it easy to know who had won. In fact three different polling firms showed a close contest, a tie.
The three polls differed on who would win the election but were clear on one thing: Whoever won would win with a razor-thin margin. And when Justice Johann Kriegler led the Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the election, the conclusion was it was difficult to know who had won.
The polls on the 2013 General Election again show a close election. They show a tight contest — a tie. Going by the new politics of numbers, this tie suggests none of the top candidates will win the first round. Kenya will go for a run-off. However, the outcome of the run-off will be determined by several factors.
It will be determined by the ability to consolidate a wide geographical and ethnic support base. This will include how many governors and National Assembly representatives are elected under each alliance. Voter turn-out may be useful in this respect but still one will require to mobilise support and turnout from more than three ethnic groups to win.
Mobilising support
These observations make the power of ethnic numbers not only mythical but also point at the new politics of numbers and new pattern of voting. Any group that prides itself on the strength of numbers risks political isolation. A legitimate presidency requires wide geographical and broad ethnic and regional base of political support.
This is at the core of the argument that organisation of political competition is following the old pattern of doing politics and that this is preventing change.
This argument is plausible in some ways. One, the new alliances are established as an end in themselves notwithstanding the party manifestos and arguments the candidates made during the presidential debates. True, the alliances have been formed to improve prospects of winning the election as an end. They are a product of the old order.
Two, the candidates are not any different from what Kenyans know of their political leaders. The leaders have limited sense of nationalism and patriotism. They are driven by an agenda to win the election. Period.
The abuse of government over the years has resulted in a weak foundation for patriotism because, to many, the government provides resources for development in a biased manner. There is the perception and of course realities of different forms of inequalities.
Importance of counties
But this argument is oblivious of the significance of the devolved system of government and the importance of counties as the engine of development and growth. If the devolved system of government starts without major hiccups from next week, March 5, then the process to address these distortions will begin in earnest.
Thus whatever the outcome of Monday’s election, Kenya is changing. In political competition, one will not win without support from more than three communities and, most important, wide ethnic and regional support.
In terms of development, it will be difficult for a president to turn public resources into patronage for use to build political loyalties.
The devolved system of government is the next theatre of competitive politics.
If there is a run-off, the number of governors and National Assembly representatives elected under each alliance will certainly inform the final result.
Prof. Karuti Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi, karuti@south.co.ke
No comments:
Post a Comment