Kenyans go to
the next election likely to be choosing between one of two large parties. They
would do well to nurture and defend the evolving two-horse race of
ODM-K &Â NARC-KÂ and the continued existence of two strong parties.
The evolving parties will be at the heart of an evolving democracy in the
country and we will need to make the parties competitive and enhance the
ability of each of them to offer divergent opinions on policies that will shape
Kenya's
economic and social Agenda. In all honesty , the recent introduction of free
secondary schooling by the Kibaki regime would not have come by were it not for
the ODM-K presidential candidates visions all pointing to this idea. This competition,
a jostling for the public heart results in a government that tries to play
catch-up with a strong opposition whose policy is driven by a development
agenda.
This works just like in the business world, where competition by firms to
grab a slice of the market share translates to superior customer value, and we
all know the effects of duopoly and monopolistic competition.
After 1992, Kenya
went through a monopolistic competition, where KANU faced a fragmented
opposition in parliament. Devoid of prior experience this was also a period for
the opposition to learn what being an 'opposition party' really meant. Even
after the repealing of section 2A of the constitution, the national mindset of
what an opposition party meant was still evolving.
In fact up till this day most Kenyan MPs seem to have only the vaguest idea not
only of what it means to be a an opposition MP but also what it means to be a
law maker (MP). Not even cabinet ministers exhibit a full understanding of
their job description and the required conduct of themselves in the House.
We have heard for example, MPs' complaints about what the government needs
to do about corruption. Complaints from MPs who themselves have the power to legislate
have not been pro-active in for example empowering the KACC or reducing
presidential influence in the appointment and dismissal of judges; which are
some of the key pillars in the fight against graft. So far too often, the MP
seems to see himself as a helpless bystander, the perception being that only
those in the very heart of government can do anything to cause change in the
country.
Back to the post-1992 scenario. KANU operated
for 10 years as a monopoly of policy development with little input if any from the
opposition. This was so because much of the opposition couldn't speak with one
voice in parliament since there was no ideological glue binding them. It was
also reinforced by the fact that many of the opposition MPs only thought of
themselves as having the capability to serve Kenyans when they formed the next
government and not before. This led to a less proactive nature in policy
formulations by the opposition parties of that time.
Currently as it stands out KANU wouldn't have
played that role either and we might have ended up with a return to the policy
monopoly of NARC. However, as a result of the dishonored MOU and the return to
the opposition of the LDP arm of the ruling coalition, KANU has had an education
on the role of an opposition mp.
NARC's ascension to power has thus started Kenyans
on a long learning curve towards the adoption of a culture of issue-oriented politics,
which for sure has been gaining momentum; Issue such as free health insurance,
10% economic growth, a presidency with diminished powers  (a consequence of the 2005 referendum) have
all started to gain a place in the national psyche. The politics of hand-outs
and 'eating' are being relegated to the periphery of the political sphere,
albeit at a slow pace.
The growth in importance to Kenyans of these
issues, as well as a media that is less servile to the whims of government is
what shapes a democracy. The competition for the public imagination and the
subsequent delivery of services then translates to good governance not just in
the serving government but in successive governments as well. No government
would encourage the waste of public resources in trying to offer value to a
Kenyan taxpayer who is both well informed about its promises and capable of
voting it out if the opposing side has better articulated alternative policies.
In other words, the teachers' salaries deal now coming into fruition, the free-primary
schooling now being offered by the NARC regime can only go on with prudent management
of resources. i.e. optimized tax collection and optimized utilization of the
collected tax. This would mean fighting corruption by default to ensure those
resources are used to make Kenyans happy through the value of well paid civil
servants or free-primary education.
Clearly a refutation of the old proverb about
two elephants fighting. As the NARC-K and ODM-K behemoths jostle for the
limelight and public approval, each fully aware that the slightest misstep
could be punished by their large and powerful rival, the grass is singing.
| 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
I disagree with Peter's initial statement, but it is certainly a good challenge for thought. Two-party systems have proven to be noxious and very detrimental to the common good, be it in the United Kingdom, be it in the USA. They are actually an adversary of true democracy.
I can see and respect Peter's concern; a concern of factionism and chameleonic loyalty-changing (like Gado just wonderfully drew it). Indeed, Kenyan needs not "Italian conditions". The Italian export of her politics to East Africa from 1935-1942 was enough, one could say ;-). But there are far more other countries that show that a multi-party system can be stable and working.
As to the Parliament not living up to its primary duty of being a law-maker, Peter is right of course. Bunge does not have the extensive and expensive apparatus that would support MPs in this duty, as is common in democracies in the Global North. Okay, the Attorney General's office does not have such personnel either (their entire legal drafting section is the shame and laughing stock of Africa), but that's another problem.
I would urge everybody to have an actual look at the Hansard, to see and check what her parliament is doing for her. Recently (after much incessant ass-kicking by the indefatigable Mzalendo crew), Bunge gots its act together and presented a really informative website. And they have almost one year of Hansard online. Read it. Read it!
Once you have carefully perused it, you'll have a much better and fairer image of your MPs. There still is much shadow, but also some light. And you can see the glaring and overwhelming weaknesses of the Westminster system much better once you have read through a few days of debates; notably the numerous dysfunctional Standing Orders which make the whole parliament a travesty of itself, and fairly useless for anything substantial. When will they change these?