How party hopping law will weaken Parliament

How should we deal with politicians who switch parties at will? What implication does this have for governance standards in Kenya? And what does it mean for the development of institutions like Parliament and our political parties? These are questions that we must answer before we legislate on the matter of party hopping. And as we do so, we must realise that not all good things go together. We may want strong parties – that discipline their members and ensure that politicians do not switch parties like they change clothes. But too much party discipline and control over politicians is also a bad thing. We want parties to be avenues for vigorous policy debates. We want elected officials in Parliament and county assemblies who are free to represent Wananchi, and not their party leaders. At times this may mean allowing the same politicians to switch parties.

Before proceeding further, we should begin by asking the question: Who benefits from the curtailment of party hopping? The simple answer here is: our self-styled ethnic chiefs cum party leaders. And who are the losers: Voters and state institutions are the obvious losers. When our leading parties have the power to limit the choices available to voters at the ballot, we are the ones who lose. Our representative institutions also lose out on independent talent. We don’t want a Parliament and county assemblies dominated by individuals who parrot party lines at the expense of the real needs of wananchi that they purport to represent. Giving parties the power to regulate entry into specific races will achieve precisely this outcome. The fear of not being nominated in the next election will limit the independence of elected officials in Parliament and the county assemblies. The lack of independence among these legislators will necessarily stunt the organisational development of these institutions.