Electoral violence and disorganisation are nothing new to Kenya,
but in an election which was supposed to vindicate their claim to ownership of
the change agenda, my party fared really badly.
It is difficult at this stage in the electoral process to
ask that heads roll, especially as we need to stay together and battle it out
with the government's team on the 27th of December. And it was not
just the ODM's polls that were marred with irregularities. Opinion polls are
already showing a narrowing of the lead we had enjoyed over the president's
party and it is important that even in areas of almost complete dominance like
the Rift Valley, Nyanza and Western Province
we persist with efforts to ensure a high turnout.
The difficulty of holding elections was a foreseeable one
and the party leader had already made clear that mechanisms were in place to
ensure a free and fair election; and that those who lost in these nominations
should remain loyal to the party with the full knowledge that they would not be
orphaned. So it is that it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth when we hear
that ballots did not make it to many areas until well after voting time. In
many other areas there are claims that voting took place at venues different
than the ones announced. Worst of all, is the revelation that candidates
arrived at the polling station and found their names were not on the ballot.
|
| ? |
Unlike the PNU, our party's strategy of going it alone has
served to send many of those who lost the election away from our umbrella party
and into what are properly enemy ranks. This may have little significance in
terms of party seats where there were fair outcomes but where the candidate and
his supporters maintain a grievance against the party's electoral board, it may
well cost us the seat. This is especially the case in the Rift Valley and Western
Province where the PNU candidates
are not too far behind and our splitting the ODM vote may serve to ease their
path to parliament.
Even worse for the party's prospects is the fact that the
larger resources of the incumbent MPs would have worked well in boosting
turnout and battling the PNU MPs. Some of the announced winners may not be as
resource rich and if forced to battle both a PNU candidate and a defecting ODM
candidate may find themselves stretched to the limit.
The sense of being hard done by, unless resolved once and
for all, is sure to bog down ODM's efforts in such constituencies, especially
if tensions flare up repeatedly and Election Day violence sends many voters
away from the polling stations.
I would like to speak out against the party's direct
nominations too. These were completely unnecessary and discolour the party's
credentials as a reform movement. It is true that this practice, as with all
the iniquities mentioned above, were widespread and not unique to the ODM. But
we are the party claiming to be clean, it is the ODM that is promising Kenya
a better day, better democratic processes and greater organisation. Our
opponents are very keen to paint us out as a rowdy gang; we must eschew any inclination to employ our
efforts in sustaining that stereotype.
It would have all been so very different, and the damage can
still be limited. Here is to the hope however vain that the results as first
announced in the media are upheld. If the likes of James Orengo, Jakoyo Midiwo
and George Khaniri lost the nominations, then they must be put aside. If there
is any person that is deemed crucial to the ODM's efforts, such a person could
always be nominated to Parliament or placed in another position of service, like happened
with Matere Keriri last time. Imposing candidates can only hurt the ODM, and
for many of us, this fiasco has killed the fire in our hearts.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
It may help to compare foreign systems:
In Germany e.g., a double tier of (federal) parliamentary elections exists. Every voter has two votes.
- The second vote (the important one) determines the percentual composition of parliament and thus ultimately the government (chancellor). If for example 42 % were to give their vote to the Christian Democratic Party, 35 % to the Social Democrats, 10 % to the Green and 8 % to the Liberals, this (not exactly, but quite) will then be the distribution of MPs in parliament. 5 % is the minimum quorum for representation. Obviously, this system - while certainly not perfect - is much fairer and more democratic than the utterly rotten and dysfunctional British and US systems.
- The first vote (the less important vote) is the constituency vote. It determines which candidate shall be the directly, people-elected representative for the constituency.
One half of the sitting MPs are direct constituency representatives (1 seat for each constituency), the other half is taken from the parties' national lists, and is distributed according to percentage of overall national votes for the party (all of them must also have been constituiency candidates). A candidate who cannot secure the constituency will have to gain a sufficiently advantageous position high enough on the national list (if the Social Democrats win 38 % votes, then only the first 38 % on the list can make it in this venue). This list is established by intra-party democratic elections (and of course by a lot of patronage and networking).
In rare cases (only a handful), a popular candidate may win "her" constituency ad personam even though "her" party loses it, numerically. Meaning: the electorate trusts a certain candidate more than her party, or vice versa. This constitues a so-called hang-over mandate and according to complicated arithmetics can even lead to more (additional) seats in parliament than originally were prevised.
Alexander