?Why BBI will not foster our nascent democracy

The Building Bridges Initiative (BBI), which is a product of the historic truce between President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga, ushered in by the March 2018 handshake has been a trending subject in social and mainstream media, as well as in other quarters.

Like previous contentious key political developments, it has fractured the society into three conspicuous camps - the protagonists, antagonists and moderates. This is an unfortunate feature in Kenyan politics whereby a solution to a primary crisis often breeds secondary, tertiary and quaternary problems.

Even before the document gets distributed for scrutiny, some belligerent folks have already been zealously debating over its provisions, with some going overboard to quarrel and/or fight over the same!

Nevertheless, this is the bottom-line: Whereas from face value the process and document endeavours to create linkages between hitherto antagonistic ethno-political groupings, which had been laid asunder by toxic politics, on the flip-side it has grave glaring shortcomings!

Believe it or leave it, the BBI has the potential of adulterating democracy. Holding periodic elections is a cardinal doctrine in democracy. Like any another competition, an election is a mutually exclusive exercise. The process must create a single winner and a host of losers. Period!

Single victor

This is not a principle in rocket science, but rather an elementary fact in life. An outcome of any game is the emergence of a single victor. Losers are obliged to swallow their pride, then retreat to the drawing board to strategise how they will triumph in subsequent contests.

Ironically, among key suggestions fronted by the BBI include: Ensuring ethno-political inclusivity through, among other measures, expanding the Executive by re-introducing the position of a premier with two deputies; and introducing the post of leader of the opposition, reserved for the presidential aspirant who would have assumed the second position in a general election!

This is where BBI terribly blundered. First, should the loser in any poll be accommodated in the establishment in an attempt to diffuse tension or rather foster inclusivity, then polls would loss its allure? A substantial segment of the electorate would feel demoralised after realising that a candidate who was weaker hence overwhelmingly voted out is still in power.

Second, the trend is likely to trigger other minor unsuccessful contestants, derogatorily equated to ‘the donkeys’, to also agitate for a proportionate share in the establishment.

Third, it should be remembered that the Grand Coalition Government, popularly referred to as Nusu Mkate (half loaf), which provided for the post of prime minister with two assistants, was a result of desperation rather than the ideal route. The BBI, therefore, should not use it a yard-stick while making reforms.

As a matter of fact, wananchi simply endured the discordant 2008-2013 regime, which came with serious socio-economic and political repercussions; consequently nicknamed ‘a bloated government’ owing to its unusually large size.

Wage bill

Apart from the resultant ballooning wage bill, the grand coalition government was synonymous with incessant squabbles between the two dissonant factions - the Party of National Unity (PNU) and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). Kenyans have not forgotten the power contest between the then Prime Minister Odinga and Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka over who was most senior and therefore deserved to address gatherings just before the president!

In retrospect, should the BBI be adopted, the situation would be worse than that of the forced marriage between PNU and ODM.

Moreover, it has a more crowded government, occasioned by multiple administrative strata and oversight institutions that the 2010 Constitution instituted. With such a background, creation of any extra seat would become a final blow to the frail economy!

Truth be told, the major pandemic is erosion of credibility of poll outcome released by successive electoral bodies rather than inadequate representation. Coupled with that is a developing trend whereby a presidential aspirant who clinches the second position often refuses to accept defeat.

With that background, priority should be directed to dealing with poll credibility issues. The electoral process ought to be made a water-tight arrangement at all cost. To achieve that, I would propose a paradigm shift in the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission such that it should be managed by foreign officials, especially at the top. These personnel ought to be discreet.

Consequently, the losing candidate must be coerced to accept outcome or alternatively compelled to participate in a repeat poll. The trend of initiating handshakes and accommodating them in power to appease the losing team is setting a wrong precedence. In case an outcome of a particular election has been disputed, Kenyans should be ready for several repeat polls.

Let us not attempt to reinvent the wheel.

The writers comment on topical issues.