The word “democracy” has several meanings. In the context of this presentation, it is only used to mean “a system of governance in which all the people have a right to elect their leaders”.
A British clergyman, one Sydney Smith (187 -1845); is on record as having said the following:- “Mankind are always happy for having been happy; so that if you make them happy now, you make them happy twenty years hence by the memory of it”.
Last week, a fellow columnist, John Mukumi Mbaku, who introduced himself as Professor at Weber State University presented, in his article published in The CITIZEN of 19th September, 2022, titled “Why Raila should be thanked for his election defeats”; a scholarly analysis regarding the ‘democracy’ effects of Raila Odinga’s Presidential election defeats; and his court actions challenging the relevant results; wherein he asserted that these “have positively contributed to enhancing democracy in Kenya”. He argued thus:- “ It is important to recognize the role that his legal petitions have played in helping to improve, entrench, and deepen democracy in that country”.
This would appear to confirm the words of the British clergyman quoted above. One way of interpreting that Clergyman’s statement, is to assume that the return of our countries to the democratic system of governance, made us “happy”; and that we become happy “by the memory of it”, when we see ‘democracy’ being practically implemented; as was done in Kenya in solving their 2022 Presidential election conflicts.
The ‘practical’ lessons from Kenya’s 2022 Presidential election
Lessons can be either positive, or negative; and in the latter case, they become known as “salutary” lessons. But the word “salutary” is normally used to refer to something unpleasant, which should therefore be avoided. For example, as used in this sentence: “the road accident was a salutary reminder of the dangers of dangerous driving”.
Professor John Mbaku’s listed his “positive” lessons to be learnt from Raila Odinga’s court actions in response to his defeats in the relevant Kenya’s Presidential elections as follows :- (i) That “Odinga’s petition will result in far-reaching reforms in the electoral commission”; which he says, “will be good for the electoral system in particular, and democracy in general in Kenya”.
(ii) That Odinga’s petitions have achieved important shifts in public attitudes regarding the courts as the final arbiter of election conflicts”. (iii) That “Odinga has granted the Kenyan Judiciary the opportunity to establish and enhance its independence”. And that “its 2017 ruling is what contributed to the reforms that were made in preparation for the 2022 Presidential election. (iv) That these changes helped Odinga’s supporters particularly, and Kenya’s in general, to appreciate the role that peaceful resolution of election conflicts can play in deepening democratic governance”.
The negative lessons
As we have stated above, lessons can either be ‘positive’ , or negative. I fully agree with the learned Professor, regarding the positive lessons relating to Kenya’s 2022 electoral process; but would want to go a little farther beyond that, and also point out the negative ones.
The books of authority on this subject, tell us that there are certain ‘essential elements’ in an electoral system, which are designed to produce the following positive results:-
(i) To ensure that the largest possible number of its citizens are given a legitimate voice in choosing who will govern them.
(ii) To ensure that all the votes cast count for something, and are as close as possible to equivalent weight.
(ii) To ensure that it is free from manipulation and/or abuse, with built-in safeguards to ensure this.
(iv) To ensure that it establish a close link between the electors and the elected; by making the elected people directly accountable to those who elected them.
In my humble opinion, Kenya’s 2022 Presidential results are a ‘salutary’ reminder of the democratic disadvantages of the “First-past- the-Post” electoral system. The majority of the commonwealth countries continue to operate their elections on the basis of the “First-past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system, that we all inherited from the British at the time of our countries becoming independent from British colonialism. This system is also otherwise known as the “majority system”, or as the “Plurality System”; which basically means that the candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast at an election, becomes the winner. And the political party (or coalition of parties) that wins the majority of the Parliamentary seats, gets the exclusive right to form the ‘government of the day’.
However, this arrangement can, and has indeed been, criticized on several grounds, such as that: (a) large numbers of people who voted for the losing party or parties, will be governed for long periods of time by people whose policies the disagree with; and (b), that capable men and women who do not belong to any political party can play no effective role in the country’s governance.
In the just ended 2022 Presidential election in Kenya; the declared results show that the winner, President William Ruto, obtained 50. 49 % of the valid votes cast; while the loser, Raila Odinga, obtained 48.85 % of those votes.
The ideal model of contested elections between political parties assumes that each party will present to the electorate in its election manifesto, a detailed set of issues and implementation programmes; which will give the voters clear alternatives to choose from. This ideal model also assumes that the voters fully will understand these alternatives which are being offered to them by the different parties; and that, as a result of this understanding, they will rationally make their choices between the competing parties.
Thus, on the basis of these assumptions, and in view of their declared election results, this means that practically a whole half of the Kenyan electorate will, for the next five years; “be governed by people whose policies they disagree with”.
Tanzania has had similar experiences
Needless to say, there is a very similar situation here in Tanzania; where, starting with the first multiparty election in 1995, the declared results of the Zanzibar Presidential elections have been showing similar ‘razor-thin’ victories for the ruling party CCM. But, because of the constitutional prohibition that we discussed in an earlier article in this column; these results could not be challenged in court.
However, apart from that prohibition, it should also be remembered that our Opposition parties were totally new (coming, as they did, after thirty years of one-party’ constitutional governance system). Thus, they had not yet developed their policies and election campaign strategies, on the lines of the ‘ideal model’ described above. Instead, they mistakenly believed that under the strength of the popular “wind of change” to multi-party politics that was blowing across the world at the time, the electorate would opt for change and simply reject the hitherto ruling party. That, however, turned out to be a totally false assumption; since the electors apparently preferred “the devil you know”, to “the angel you don’t know”! Thus, presumably, they were thereafter governed under policies with which they disagreed.
I am here using the word “presumably” purposefully. This is because in our circumstances, these assumptions are basically not true, and they certainly do not apply. For, even today, after so many years of operating the multi-party system; our Opposition parties still have not been able to develop policies that are fundamentally different, to the extent that would offer a distinct, attractive alternative to those of the ruling party. This is primarily because n our objective conditions, the main issues of concern to the electorate, are those which are already at the cornerstone of the ruling party’s policies, namely the fight against hunger, poverty and disease, and for the equitable social and economic development of all the people of Tanzania. with the aim of uplifting the living standards of the people as a whole. It would therefore be very difficult, or even impossible, for the Opposition parties to design policies which are fundamentally different, for them to be able to attract voters away from voting for the ruling party.
The alternative electoral systems
For the purpose of enhancing our readers’ understanding of these matters, we will also briefly refer to the other electoral system, which is also in use in many other countries of the world, some of which are within the Commonwealth; whose elections are based on the alternative system that is known as the “Proportional Representation (PR) system. There are many stakeholders who believe that this is a more just system, for the reason that the election results truly represent the voters’ wishes or preferences among the competing political parties; plus that women, and the minority communities, have a better chance of getting elected under this PR system. However, there is no ‘perfect’ electoral system; and the PR system has its own serious disadvantages; including the following:- (a) That the voter has no direct relationship with the person he actually votes for, since, in this system, voters are presented with long lists of candidates selected by the competing political parties; which means that the voter, in fact, votes for the party of his choice, and certainly not for the candidate of his choice. (ii) This system encourages the formation of many small parties, which often leads to undesirable political fragmentation. (iii) Removing an unpopular individual Member of Parliament through elections, becomes almost impossible under this system. A more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of these two electoral systems is to be found in my book titled “Reflections on the First Decade of Multi-Party Politics in Tanzania”; (Nyambari Nyangwine Publishers; Dar es Salaam, 2014).
The PR system is not a cure for electoral conflicts
I am, however, not suggesting that that the PR system would provide a cure for Kenya’s electoral deficiencies (that have been the main ground for Raila Odinga’s basic repeated complaints and resort to the Supreme Court); in which the main culprit has always been the Kenya Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC); which, in 2017, was accused of false transmission and verification of the Presidential results. And again in 2022, Odinga’s main complaints alleged several irregularities including fraud, and impunity by the Commission Chairman, Wafula Chebukati; allegations which this time were rejected by the Supreme Court, a ruling to which Raila Odinga expressed his utter dissatisfaction with.
The power-sharing solution
In the search for a viable solution to the fatal post-election conflicts which erupted in Kenya following their 2013 Presidential election; the negotiating parties reached Agreement on a power-sharing arrangement, which gave Raila Odinga the position of Prime Minister in the Government of Kenya, which also included some of his supporters. And his seemed to have worked reasonably well for some time; but was subsequently abandoned.
And this is again similar to what happened in the cases of Zanzibar. When they became repeatedly faced with similar post-election conflicts in Zanzibar between 1995 and 2005; the CCM decision makers successfully negotiated a viable solution, which was to make a new constitutional provision for a Government of National Unity in Zanzibar; which made provision for power-sharing between the main contending parties.
This was effected in 2010, by introducing appropriate amendments to the Zanzibar Constitution. And this arrangement has worked reasonably well ever since.
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.