Politically complex society needs mixed electoral system

Ken M Nyaundi

The Harmonised Draft Constitution of Kenya adopts in entirety our present electoral system in which the winner takes it all.

In the presidential as well as in the parliamentary and local government elections, the victor assumes total control of the election unit even though his votes, in contrast to the total votes cast against him, may be in the minority. This is an un-desirable result which the Draft did not make any attempt to vary.

An electoral system, defined as the method by which votes are translated into seats won by parties and candidates, is a fundamental choice in any democracy. Our current system which allows the first person past the post to be declared the winner is an accidental factor of history. In 1963, Kenyans did not deliberate on and make a conscious decision on this system. Our colonial heritage and experience from other African countries assumed that this was the best option. Of course it has long been realized that this is not the brightest crayon in the box.

The post 2007 election conflict may be traced to our electoral system in which the winning team assumes absolute power and total control of the country’s resources. The attempt to share political power between the President and the Prime Minister does not take away the urgent need to re-think and reform our present electoral system. There are two broad options; the proportional system in which votes are cast in favor of parties, not individual candidates, and the mixed member proportional representation. In a proportional representation system the total national votes for each party are tallied and the Electoral Commission calculates how many seats each party has won. Each party is required to nominate its members of Parliament in accordance with a list prepared and presented to the Electoral Commission before the elections. This system forces a party to campaign on national issues and avoid an appeal to parochial ethnic interests. This system produces a representative legislature and is better suited for democracies which face deep societal divisions. The proportional representation system ensures that both minority and majority communities have a stake in the government. Every voice is represented in the legislature and there are few wasted votes. Almost all the votes cast go towards electing a candidate. Parties are assigned parliamentary seats proportionate to the number of votes they get. Further, supporters of small parties are guaranteed to have at least one member in Parliament. This is a sure way to break the monopoly of dominant parties in certain regions of the country.

No obligation

With proportional representation, constituency boundaries dissipate. This is perhaps the greatest weakness to this system as MPs are removed from constituencies and feel no obligation to any particular population unit. Leaving it to party leaders to choose members of Parliament is the other weakness. In a nation wrought with corruption, nepotism and favouritism, this system may hinder political progress for little known personalities.The affluent may purchase their way to parliament, at all times. There is no guarantee that the preference of the party leadership is synonymous with that of the voters.

However, Switzerland has developed a sophisticated system which permits voters a stake in the choice of candidates. Kenya may need to understudy this case. The Switzerland scenario ensures that the most qualified candidate is selected represent the constituency.

A mixed member proportional representation electoral system is the third one. Each voter casts two votes; one for the party of their choice and the other for a particular candidate who does not need to belong to the party voted for. The party votes form the basis on which the Electoral Commission shares out the parliamentary seats. The National Assembly is made up of members elected through the party list and those elected as individuals. In a politically convoluted and tortuous society the mixed member proportional system affords the best option which unites the nation and minimizes localised politics. It may well be that before we pass the draft constitution we reconsider whether the time has come to re-evaluate our electoral system.

The writer is a commissioner of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission