Winner takes all theory can only be confronted by the law, its agents

Whenever politicians speak of amending the Constitution they invariably insist that the ‘winner takes all’ principle of governance has jeopardised security of the country at each General Election and so other options must be explored. It may have slipped their minds but the same argument was used by proponents of devolution during the making of the 2010 Constitution. Devolution was floated as the panacea to underdevelopment, marginalisation and ethnic conflict. Now we have devolved governance secured in a progressive Constitution but the ‘winner takes all’ precedent prevails. 

If we are to believe Moses Kuria, however, having a President from your own turf brings no tangible benefits since most national resources are used to woo voters in opposition areas. He claimed this week that the only award Kiambu residents have received from voting en masse for Uhuru Kenyatta was certificates issued to recovering alcoholics.
Joking aside, most voters subscribe to the notion that of ‘mtu yetu’ (One of our own) is in State House we will all have sausages for breakfast because it is now ‘our turn to eat’. Kuria clearly supports that ideology and resents the president’s commitment to build a tarmac road in Nyanza while there are farmers in Kiambu whose tractors cannot make it to market in the rainy season.