By Njoki Ndung’u

Besides indicting our civic leaders for manifest absence of leadership decorum, the endemic chaos characterising mayoral elections in the country point to the acute disconnect between party manifestos and practised leadership.

If you study the incessant infighting, wheeler-dealing and sneaky tactics that precede the election and that often enjoy the backing of competing loyalties of party bigwigs, it is evident political parties controlling civic authorities are keener on the gain than the means. Rarely is there evidence the manifestos that loftily enumerate their leadership vision for these important centres of service are being followed. Rather, the campaigns and the subsequent tenures are largely defined by personality traits of the winner and the push-and-pull political loyalties of the day.

This is hardly the ideal situation. The reason why different political parties promise the electorate different things in regard to various aspects of leadership is to invite it to make informed choices. The expectation is that a voter will be won over by Party A ahead of Party B on the strength of conviction that the choice best represents his needs and desires. In a healthy party democracy, the difference in the service and style menu as offered by the parties would be a key decider in electoral preferences. But like with our voting patterns for Parliament and the presidency, the ballot box choice is unhealthily influenced by subjective considerations of the candidates ahead of party substance.

The latter is especially evident in the ongoing mayoral campaigns. In Nairobi, where the elections are scheduled for next month barring fresh date wrangles, parties manifesto in so far as the vision for running the city is involved has been a mute concern. None of the contesting candidates has cared to peg his campaign to the document or even cite it. Influential party leaders also appear either contemptuous or blissfully ignorant of the blueprint considering the deafening silence on it. Rather, their primary concern has been on the party retaining or clinching seats and never mind the candidate’s knowledge or loyalties to what should essentially be a must-know for any aspirant.

Insistence on mayors who have a specific, well-thought-out leadership agenda that is rooted in the sponsoring manifesto is not being bookish. In a multi-party democracy like ours, this is especially important in drawing the line of performance and apportioning blame or praise. It would be important for democracy to say, for instance, that the reign of Party A was better than Party B because of so many identifiable advantages. As it is now, civic authorities’ first loyalties are ostensibly to self-aggrandisement. There is no sense of belonging. There is no pretence to shared party policy values.

Even in situations where different political parties agree to share the leadership of a local government, as is the case with the outgoing City Council of Nairobi team, the deal should be sealed with respect to respective party manifestos. That would entail a negotiated hybrid ideally sanctioned and consummated at the party level unlike the current situation where compromises are almost always verbal gentlemen’s pact hammered in hideouts.

Often, civic leadership election is marked by competing line-ups glued by secretive and dubious retreats amid allegations of open bribery for opposing candidates. Ironically, and without expectations of courting backlash, some of the opponents belong to the same party as is being witnessed in Nairobi. This is a good evidence of party indiscipline. No wonder the city is under the spell of inept and rudderless fathers with a shared appetite for doubtful deals and shoddy service delivery. And this is really not strange considering mayors are elected by fellow councillors who are naturally likely to exhibit the same personal interests ahead of genuine wish for enlightened leadership.

If we are serious about instilling professional leadership, we must enact in law changes to the process of electing leaders. Mayoral candidates should be exposed to greater scrutiny and competition. The ideal way is to subject them to a popular franchise vote similar to parliamentary and presidential elections. This will take care of civic bosses who literally buy their way to office by dangling fancy junkets at the Coast and other goodies.

Concomitant to a popular election for mayors should be an amendment to existing laws that will stretch the tenure of office bearers to five years. The current period of two years is unreasonably brief for a realistic implementation of whatever plan the incumbent envisages. Besides, this brevity of office is partly to blame for the plunder of council resources typical with successive civic regimes as it nurtures the desire for hasty exploitation of the limited time for personal enrichment.

For good reasons, the icing of mayoral elections is Nairobi. Outside the political heat generated in the build-up to the exercise, the excitement stirred by the vote is understandable considering the city is in many ways the heartbeat of the nation economically, socially and administratively.

By conservative estimates, Nairobi’s population is around six million — representing nearly a sixth of our nation’s population. Around 60 per cent of our economy is domiciled in the city. Alternatively put, Sh6 out of every Sh10 in the country is generated in Nairobi, which is also the seat of Government. As the headquarters of choice for nearly all the major private and public organisations in the country, its importance cannot, therefore, be exaggerated.

Consequently, its leadership equally assumes significant importance to the country’s wellbeing. The choices of leaders made next month will, in one way or another, affect us all. That is not to diminish the importance of other towns and their civic leaders. Whether municipalities, town or country councils, urban centres are important administrative and service units that, directly or otherwise, impact on the quality of the lives of their residents.

For instance, they are expected to complement the Central Government in providing services such as health, education, water and sanitation, planned development, security and infrastructural maintenance.

Sadly, this expectation is seldom met largely because of the kienyeji (casual) way leaders to these institutions are chosen.

The electorate is partly to blame for its focus on the presidential and parliamentary elections; many of us do not know or care who we vote for councillor. We just vote for the candidate vying on our preferred presidential candidate’s party ticket. The calibre of councillors has also been wanting, especially in regard to their private CVs.

It is, therefore, necessary to raise the bar of minimum academic qualification and personal integrity of candidates. As it is now, the liberal eligibility criterion has only succeeded in bequeathing our councils theatres for the worst of gangland duels.