The folly of one-man-one-vote principle

The one person one vote principle otherwise called universal suffrage is the constitutionally prescribed measure to determine the outcome of the August 8 Kenya general elections. However, it is a weird measure, in fact overrated in a democracy such as ours – Kenya.
The basic legal understanding of the principle is that all persons are equal before the law. And so, all persons enjoy their rights as provided for in a constitution. All eligible persons to vote have the same right and each voter has the same value in the act of voting. No one, therefore, should be discriminated on the basis of religion, race, education, wealth and so on when voting. As long as an individual is able to decide whom to vote for and expresses that decision on a ballot voila! The right is enjoyed.
But what is voting for in competitive politics?
In simple terms, voting is an act of making a choice between competing options – candidates and parties. It is a choice for a type of leadership an individual deems most suitable to govern. Governing is a demanding art of leadership but also management that requires both skills and relevant knowledge.

Lessons from Socrates

To elect persons of practical skills who also have acquired knowledge to abstract social realities and complexities, voters themselves ought to be persons who are of sound judgement.
Socrates, the great Athenian philosopher, was strongly opposed to democracy, specifically the one-man-one vote system. He reasoned that voting in an election is a skill formed by relevant knowledge and not what he calls “random intuition” which is what happens when any one above 18 is allowed to vote without skill and knowledge on governance. Socrates did not deny anyone a chance to vote.

Any person has a right to vote on condition that the person has rationally and deeply reflected on whom to vote for. A good education, call it civic education, will raise the level and quality of reasoning of the voter so as to make a sound judgement when voting.
Unfortunately, a significant number of Kenya voters do not have the requisite knowledge on leadership to vote wisely as Socrates would wont. For Socrates, the best leaders would be philosophers because they reason well.

Anyone who does not reason well can only be a demagogue leading people like a ship without a trained captain.
Borrowing from Socrates, voters must, at the very least, understand not just the challenges they face but more meaningfully the causes of the challenges. Here we land into two problems as we race towards the August 8 elections: voters of poor judgement and a considerable number of voters with minimal knowledge to analyze causes of their suffering.
We have many ‘bribeable’ voters. They will vote. We have people amongst ourselves battered by poverty so much so that they have no time to interrogate candidates and make informed decisions. They will be out there – somehow – and they will vote. We have many voters who have very faint reasons, as it were, objectively speaking, such as voting someone because the clan or tribe has decided on the so called “our own”. These too are of poor judgement.

Cause and effect

Then we have many voters who are excellent in describing problems but score very poorly in analyzing causes of the problems. The Public Relations (PR) propaganda machines target especially this category.
Candidates, especially at the presidential and gubernatorial positions have hired highly qualified political spinners to play with our minds.

The propagandists are handsomely paid not so much to intensify our interest in a developmental agenda and act favourably to democratic ideals, but seemingly to confound us, voters, with positive imaging of their clients while demonising the opponent.
Yes PR is critical to campaigns when professional ethos are observed, but the kind of messaging we continue to receive on the on-going campaigns is largely demeaning our integrity: lies, half-truths, distracting irrelevancies, and yes, occasionally some bitter truths.

All there is from all sides of candidates is blame games, finger-pointing, self-glorification, advancement of skewed standpoints and raft manifestos but poorly explained to the public.
Unfortunately, it is this confusing messaging that a large number of us voters will use to make decisions on whom to vote for. People disinterested or disconnected from political processes will end up at the ballot having as much say as active citizens engaged on issues-based campaigns. Worse, we are running an election that has no visible transformative agenda. What an injustice?
This one-man-one-vote principle does not work even for the Americans otherwise Hilary Clinton would be the President of the United State of America. It does not work in many democracies which explains why countries such as the UK have a parliamentary system of governance.

Dr Mokua is the Executive Director, Jesuit Hakimani Centre