Kenyans should peg election campaigns on national issues

IEBC is already preparing for the 2017 General Election as politicians also begin to campaign

NAIROBI: One of the most desolating facts about the ongoing 2017 election campaign re-alignments is that none of the existing or emerging political parties is forming, so far, on the basis of a specific developmental priority issue.

Instead, what we have is the usual like-minded buddies transacting allegiances, buying and selling of real or imagined post-2017 General Election opportunities. From the West to East, the big talk on the 2017 elections is about who is scheming with whom and at what cost.

Our election campaign is a bit like bullfighting. The spectacle is great for pleasure. It is fun. It diverts our daily concerns, even if momentarily, to entertaining externalities. The question is whether we actually stop and ask why the bulls fight in the first place. More importantly is to ask whether we have solid justifications to get bulls into fighting mode.

Besides the thrill of electioneering, what exactly do our political parties and individuals stand for? What is the one single election issue that defines a regime be it at the county or national level?

We have tones of issues to define political party formation or calibration towards next year’s general election. On the governance platform, security, including during the general elections, corruption, youth unemployment and ethnicity top most research findings. On sectoral delivery both at county and national levels, the issue of health, education, infrastructure  - specifically roads - and agriculture are major challenges and therefore areas of great interest to the voters.

Surely, there is no sound Kenyan who does not know that corruption, ethnicity and youth unemployment remain huddles for the county and national governments.

Yet none of this is coming out strongly in any political party as an election agenda. To appreciate that we have challenges is almost operating at an awareness level. Developing good strategic plans for implementation is moving a step higher. But, without implementing the strategic plans is simply choosing not to press a painful wound however high we might seem to have gone. Election issuefication has two main advantages. One, in a country where ethnicity and clannism (at the county) seem to be our second nature, issuefication means we will have to negotiate with political parties and individual candidates to nominate an issue and give it priority in their political manifesto.

It is not simply listing the concern we have. Far from that, it is ensuring that the nominated issue is implemented by the incoming government. As voters, we sign a contract before the elections that the issue will be sufficiently funded regardless of what other priorities emerge.

Second, aware of the high levels of corruption in our country, as voters we need a guarantee that a regime delivers “something”. Niceties in rhetoric do not transform society. Actions do. If every single county, for instance, were to identify, negotiate and sign contract with either political parties or candidates seeking elective offices on specific priorities, the level of corruption may reduce. Or at the very least, we shall be able to see the value of our taxes in concrete projects.

Election issuefication is therefore about deliberating on common goals, common strategies and defining a common destiny. Besides, it is one sure way of ensuring public participation. Elections cost a fortune, and so, it is only fair that priorities are set by both those seeking power and the voters.

We should not let the 2017 elections run without any issuefication. As a country and as counties we need to discern together the main focus of the post-2017 governance. To achieve this, we need to ask political parties three basic questions before we vote: what is your priority if you were to be elected? Two, what is the funding source of the priority? Three, why the priority?