Why a parliamentary system would be wrong for Kenya
Published on
By Atieno Ndomo By instituting a bloated Executive, the Accord sanitised an immoral plunder of public resources to placate and satisfy self-appointed tribal ‘messiahs’. As we await the draft constitution, perhaps one aspect more than others will receive greater attention, the choice of system of government. Focus is likely to be on whether the new law will propose a presidential, parliamentary or hybrid system. In anticipation of this discussion, this article suggests that a close reading of our country’s prevailing political culture; deficiencies and emerging dynamics of parliamentary representation; evidence from the gamble with a concocted coalition; and, longstanding tokenistic civic engagement, all militate against going the route of a parliamentary system. This view is fully aware that constitutions are made ostensibly for posterity and anticipate an evolving culture. But it is precisely due to the tendency of an ironical disconnect between the ideal and reality that we need utmost creativity to evolve a system of governance that suitably responds to our country’s unique needs and situation. For conscientious Kenyans, their unrelenting quest for our country’s rebirth rides on the promise that fundamental transformation will be secured through a new constitution. Early constitutional debates in the context of tyrannical Kanu rule exposed profound public outrage against an imperial presidency. The idea of a parliamentary system, as a counter-balance to runaway autocracy, was a natural recourse. Two decades later, what justifies our fascination with this option? Certainly, merely regurgitating such a stance is not only lazy and uncritical, but more seriously, lacks in historical rigour, legal creativity and political resonance. This is inexcusable. For all who maintain struggles for a justly governed nation; who agitate for the dignity of a voiceless majority, join me in spotlighting what I consider as some major limits of a parliamentary system. The infantile nature of political parties, their incurable patronage based orientation and non-ideological positioning, render them the lowest-trust platforms for germinating leadership. Parties in Kenya are self-preserving, thrive on engendering division, fanning ethnic animosities and epitomise an ad hoc existence. It is suicidal to perpetuate and consolidate the enormous powers granted to these amorphous conglomerations to determine the choice of our nation’s ruler. The much acclaimed Political Parties Act does little to transform the fundamentals of political party operations in Kenya. Indeed, the problems that dog parties are bound to conspire to disfigure and defeat this Statute. The essence and legitimacy of democratic representation rests with a guarantee that the voices of the weakest will be heard alongside those of the powerful. Voters partially surrender power to their elected representatives, in exchange for an obligation and responsibility on the part of the latter to be sensitive and accountable to their needs and aspirations. The sort of alienation that is the hallmark of the relationship between the Kenyan voter and their elected representatives is certainly antithetical to the notion of true republicanism. It is unfathomable that to such a grave scenario one would propose vesting in Parliament additional and exclusive powers to elect executive authority. This would run the risk of creating an illegitimate executive, well disconnected from the ordinary citizen. Moreover, characteristic deal-making in Parliament would be scaled up to ensure self-preservation in power among a select political elite. Kenya National Accord Could this attraction to a parliamentary system be merely pegged on the experience of our present coalition government? Would we squander an opportunity to build a firm foundation for our nation and adopt a system of government merely based on a fallacious appreciation of the value and outcome of the Kenya National Accord? A ceasefire agreement intent on ensuring a sense of accommodation and stability — at any cost — can hardly be considered a long-term strategy. By instituting a bloated Executive, the accord sanitised an immoral plunder of public resources to placate and satisfy the ambitions, greed and fixation of self-appointed tribal ‘messiahs’. At its best, a pure and functional presidential system, such as the American model, has inbuilt efficient checks and balances that minimise pervasive authoritarianism. Sadly, in a counter factual sense, the apparent glorification of a parliamentary system in our debate is driven by a misreading of the present governance system. We are neither ruled by a presidential nor parliamentary system. The current system (misunderstood to be presidential) is most faulted for undermining accountability and the balance of power. Ironically, adopting a parliamentary system in Kenya could itself be tantamount to courting autocratic premiership. Ranging from ritualistic elections in immediate post-independence Africa, to the recent wave of democratic electoral processes associated with multipartism, deeply entrenched structural constraints including crisis of nationalisms, severely limit many countries’ ability to internalise and propagate electoral democracy. Free and fair elections remain elusive as a myriad of forces conspire to undermine the possibility of self-determination in Africa. Arguably, in this sense, it is far more desirable to expand the sites of contestation for state power, rather than centre it around an exclusive club. As we weigh our options, let us ponder the likelihood that for various reasons, a parliamentary system would serve the latter. —The writer (bndomo@hotmail.com) is a Social and Economic Policy Analyst