Why Kenya Needs Fewer Political Parties ...
The Statistics:
# of political parties in Kenya as year end 2006 = 75
# of parties represented in parliament = 8
# of new parties registered in 2006 = 21
Pending [notable] new parties:
i) Rap-Kenya --> Pastor Pius Muiru
ii) Vijana Progressive Alliance --> By the "Youth"
Conflicting Schools of Thought:
P. Lumumba:
"In such an atmosphere, faith in political ideology is not taken seriously;political parties are just vehicles for those who claim political office to sail through the sea of politics ... "
ECK Chairman Samuel Kivutu:
"I do not know why they are being formed. If it is because of the Bill, it is very dishonest. The fewer the better. Ghana had 10 parties, but they have gone down to four because of a law."
Kenya National Human Rights Commission Chairman, Mr. Maina Kiai:
"Let it be like a market where parties will be exposed to natural selection over time."
MY TAKE:
In my opinion, the debate on the optimum number of parties for Kenya is long overdue. Further, I would like to voice my support for Messrs P.Lumumba and Samuel Kivuitu. The proposal to drastically reduce the number of political parties in Kenya is not only laudable but also crucial to nurturing a healthy democratic system. Despite being the norm,the status quo, espoused by the likes of Mr. Kiai is detrimental to competitive politics.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the "less is better" position. The United States and Great Britain, for example , are telling case studies. I would dare suggest that these two nations - if you'll pardon my choice of superlatives- possess the best democratic institutions. The United States boasts of two main parties (Democratic Party, Republican Party) and so does Britain (Labour & Conservatives) ... we could add the Liberal Democrats to keep the naysayers at bay.
Mr. Lumumba rightly postulates why fewer parties are better. His suggestion that fewer parties foster an ideology based political system is spot on. Certainly, this claim is corroborated by the aforementioned analogies of Britain and the United States. We've all heard of catch phrases like pro-life, big government, et cetera being peddled through the media ...
That said, skeptics could argue, and perhaps rightly so, that such a scenario could readily unfold in a 5, 6, or even 10 party scenario. The "natural selection" scenario hypothesized by Mr. Kiai certainly does not look implausible at this stage. For this reason, I believe that in addition to fronting why fewer parties are better, it is vitally important to demonstrate how this ameliorated situation arises.
Keeping the number of political parties at a minimum raises the TRANSACTION COST of switching parties. "Cost" here is more roughly synonymous with "inconvenience" rather than the conventional notion of cost in $$ terms. When you have 2 main parties- A and B -the electorate are under no illusion about what each of the parties stand for. Assuming a member of party A becomes dissatisfied with his party, what is her/his recourse?
a) Switch to B and risk being labelled wishy-washy or "flip-flopper" ?
or
b) Fight to impose her/his viewpoint within party A?
Clearly, a few individuals would opt to incur the higher transaction costs by switching to party B. This would likely transpire if:
a) They feel they have been aggrieved irreconcilably [Joe Lieberman -closet Republican as we speak]
or
b) The said individuals enjoy significant political economies of scale with their electorate within the niche in which they compete, hence offsetting the high switching transaction costs. This can be occasioned by any number of factors including longevity (Muite would probably always win the Kabete seat based on this), fanatic following (Raila maybe) or quite simply the lack of a viable opponent (Better the devil you know ...)
However, as long as a critical mass of aggrieved individuals remain to advocate for change in their original parties, then the aggregate effect in both parties A and B is positive. Leaders in both parties, faced with a barrage of complaints would have to accede to compromise and stronger, ideologically driven parties A and B would evolve.
Mr. Kiai's idea of party evolution would ultimately be manifested, but not by natural selection. After all, natural selection depends a lot on unpredictable chance. Although we could be sure that the 'fittest party" will survive, we have no clue whether "the fittest party" would provide a conducive climate for a prosperous Kenya. What if , God forbid, a party of bullies and dictators overcomes?
Hence, I'd advocate that we take the more certain route ...
posted by jm at 11:09 PM
5 Comments:
Mwangi,
You're interesting analysis suffers from the lack of a historical perspective. Not only do you fail to explain how the US and UK got their current party numbers (they had more), but you egregiously ignore the fact that at independence Kenya did have a political system dominated by two parties, KANU and KADU. That proved to be a less than certain route to a less tribalised and more ideologically oriented political system.
I would support Maina Kiai's position seeing that party evolution does seem to eventually lead to fewer and more ideologically focussed parties.
Secondly, the current ethnic-based parties simply reflect the pre-occupation of the citizenry with tribe. To impose an artificial ideology-based system will simply alienate the populace and lead to a system that is unresponsive to the wishes of its subjects. Better to allow the reform to come from below. When voters realise that getting one of their own at the top does not necessarily translate to an improvement in their daily circumstances, then they will wise up.
Finally, I have a problem with the whole ideology thing. Why should we be importing our ideological positions from the West or developing a home-grown version that takes into account our unique set of circumstances? I find it comical that we have parties that are, at least nominally, devoted to the ideals of Liberal-or-Social Democracy, while their membership (and leadership) has absolutely no clue what those ideologies stand for. We need parties that articulate the issues of the electorate and can then fashion an approach to providing solutions. In such an atmosphere, relevant ideologies can arise and thrive.
i restricting the number of parties is a bad idea. maybe what we need is to streamline the registration and reporting process and allow for independent candidates(which i think is the real reason for millions of parties)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gathara:
Why is the historical perspective necessary? I am merely advocating that we do not "re-invent the wheel". Ultimately, we can apply the Western model and gain a headstart. Plus we wouldn't be trying to import Western ideology per se, but rather a system, which we can then tailor to our own unique needs.
That said,you are right in pointing out the element of ethnicity. That variable does indeed make the situation more complicated for us, as opposed to the Western countries.
It is not insurmountable though. In fact, the existence of fewer parties forces/encourages multiple ethnic groups to work together since there are limited exit strategies. When any tribal leader can form a party at will and use that to rally his/her tribe, this obviously discourages the "give and take" politics that is so vital to disintegrating tribalism ...
The two party system as in the US and UK formed from the same elements that we are experiencing in Kenya today. You have multiple political parties coming together to form coalitions (ODM & NARC) during a general election.
Over time these coalitions evolve into formidable parties that force smaller political entities to either merge with them or become obsolete.
The number of parties in a democracy should not be restricted by any law. However political cost as you mentioned will eventually dictate alliance to one of the few major parties.
Independent candidacy is perhaps the best short-term measure that Kenya can take to curb this problem.
Eventually though I think that having two or three major parties will go very far in curtailing tribal influences in Kenyan politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home