An article published in the Daily Nation brought one John Maina to national attention when he mooted the idea of Kenyans living abroad – the diaspora – having their own representative in government. According to the article, the Kenya Community Abroad (KCA), a US-based Kenyan advocacy group, is lobbying the Committee of Experts to create an “Abroad Constituency” who would then have an MP to represent the interests of Kenyans living abroad.
My instant reaction, as I posted to my Twitter account, was a resounding “Hell to the no!” As far as I am concerned, while I take a keen interest in events at home and feel I have the right to agitate for reform, I am fully recognizant of the fact that by living abroad, I have placed myself at a remove from the democratic process. With no business interests in Kenya, I pay no taxes. As I cannot be there on polling day, I don't vote. I am an observer rather than a participant.
This is not to say that once I leave the motherland I should avoid all involvement. I am as emotionally invested in wanting to see Kenya progress as my friends and family who are still living in the country. I too rail against the excesses of our current representatives and lament the broken promises that were made to the populace. True, the majority of my rants are delivered to an increasingly bewildered Englishman, but that is because he is the nearest person when I am reading the news on my computer.
Nevertheless, I don't want an MP to represent my interests, and I don't believe the diaspora needs one. For one, who are the diaspora? Are they the Kenyans who have moved to the USA but still make the occasional visit home? Or are they the students who have travelled to universities in India? Do the children of Kenyans who moved abroad count? What about those who have moved abroad with their foreign spouses? How to decide who gets a say?
Next, given that the diaspora – by their very nature – are scattered to the four corners of the globe, how on earth would a single MP represent their interests? Where would this MP be based, and would the diaspora be expected to subsidise the costs of their travel as they travelled from country to country seeking votes?
This brings up the third major (for me) issue: who is paying for the MP for the “Abroad Constituency?” It certainly isn't me. I don't pay any Kenyan taxes. While some in the diaspora may have business interests at home, I am willing to gamble that the majority pay their taxes in their host countries. So would Kenyans at home be expected to pay out more of another expensive MP, who would spend more time out of the country than in, or would the Committee of Experts also need to add a clause saying that all Kenyans living abroad would have to pay a supplement to fund their representative. Perhaps all those with long-term visas in their passports would be charged a levy as they left JKIA.
Despite my antipathy, I believe that Kenyans abroad do deserve representation at home. With over Ksh50 billion in remittances per year, we are contributing to the economy even without being present. The ease of transferring money, running a business remotely and our rights as absent citizens do need to be addressed. But I do not believe that an extra MP would be able to campaign effectively on behalf of the disparate views of the diaspora community.
My alternative, which is achievable with minimal effort, would be a lobbying group. An umbrella collective of Kenyans living abroad who could voice their concerns to all MPs, rather than just one representative. A lobbying group could bring together a number of issues, formulate possible solutions, and push hard to have them addressed by representatives at home. A simple membership fee structure could fund these efforts with no salary or expense burdens placed on the state.
Kenyans in the diaspora have distinct needs and priorities that are usually overlooked in the national discourse, and this is something that needs to change. However, in seeking a greater input into the political conversation, I feel it would be wrong to demand an MP who would be incapable of adequately addressing the needs of his constituents, by sheer dint of geography alone. All of Kenya deserves better than that.
Read Daniel Waweru's response where he argues for a diaspora MP.
| 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
I am persuaded that a Diaspora MP being an invention outside of the present reality, we needn't then be hemmed in by the same framework that the rest of our parliamentary representatives work under in our imagination of what would be.
Let me take out my abacus.
a) wages
Who says this MP needs to be paid, or that he would need to travel to surgeries with his constituents? I'd propose that such a person have an allowance of say 5,000 GBP a year, and no more.
b) geography
I have heard it said, thankfully by neither of you, that this voting would be prohibitively expensive. Those who register at the diplomatic representations can be asked to help offset this cost, many would be happy to. They can also use the post, or scanners rather than voting stations.
Steff does ask what part of the world this MP would represent given the geographical spread of the Kenyan Diaspora.
The MP would be representing interests, not geographical districts. These interests, especially where separate from those affecting those resident in Kenya are likely shared. Specifics may vary, but they are broadly similar, and a representative can effectively lobby Nairobi, even simply through the embassies and high commissions.
c) taxation/representation
Unemployment rates, dependency rates and the zero-rating for VAT of several consumer items, would lead under the 'no representation without taxation' paradigm, to a radical diminution of the franchise.
If it's alright for the jobless to vote, then so can the distant. See b.
d) defining the Diaspora
If we agree that this representation is not for a place, but for a set of interests shared by Kenyans abroad, then definitions become easier.