Campaigns threaten rebirth of democracy

It is accurate to conclude that the by-election campaigns in South Mugirango constituency have made a mockery of the law under which they are being conducted, the Political Parties Act.

One of the main attractions of proposals by the Inter-Party Parliamentary Group (IPPG) was funding for all political parties. And in the 2009/10 Budget Sh200 million was set aside for the Political Parties Fund.

The funding came after prolonged agitation by pro-reformists for public financing of political outfits as a mechanism to prevent financial annihilation of small groups by a Sate-sponsored incumbency.

But that was not all the Act was meant to achieve.

It spelt out how political parties come into existence, conduct their affairs, co-exist, avoid unfair competition from ruling parties and together expand existing democratic space, by their mere existence.

Obviously something is cooking under cover of the South Mugirango runaround.

First, when did Omingo Magara’s PDP become an affiliate of the ruling PNU umbrella? When was the memorandum of understanding signed to allow PNU members to lay it thick on the ground for PDP? As it is, the party has previously boasted only one MP, who it publicly disowned a while back.

And did PNU not have its own registered candidate in this same by-election? Was the affiliation announcement made to gloss over complaints by rival ODM campaigners on PNU’s double-take? Who’s fooling who?

Deep pockets

Secondly, it was argued that funding would free parties from personalised control and manipulation by politicians whose deep pockets intimidate their peasant supporters. Was this affiliation a lifeline to a PDP that may not be so endowed?

Third, the Act is clear about avoiding conflict that may lead to any form of violence. Clearly this was not adhered to at the weekend after pro-PDP campaigners sought to land a helicopter at a venue recently used by their ODM rivals. This was not a smart move given the rowdy scenes that were aired by media from that debacle. The aerial antics could have at least caused a stampede and at worst been a tragic accident.

Fourth, there have been claims of hate speech, negative ethnicity, voter bribery, and even talk of stage-managed assaults to cast aspersions on rival candidates. How true are these allegations?

After the widely-hailed Bomachoge and Shinyalu by-elections, tomorrow’s is the first real test for the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) and its coming of age.

The IIEC owes its birth on the systemic and sometimes comical failings of the defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK). As an immediate reform measure, Kenyans demanded ECK’s disbanding owing to its ineptitude, lack of teeth and bystander role, owing to its being a creature of vested interests that appointed its commissioners.

Would IIEC rise to the occasion and tackle electoral fraud, rein in cowboy tactics such as the helicopter incident that looked to spiral out of hand?

Will the youths caught on camera bearing concealed daggers be arraigned in court?

What efforts have been made to trace their sponsors, who would then bear the greatest responsibility for unleashing terror during peacetime?

Ultimately responsible

Will the IIEC and the Registrar of Political Parties allow political considerations to conspire to choke many of the progressive reforms proposed by Kenyans?

If the commission fails to handle this by-election in the manner prescribed by the Political Parties Act, would it be prudent to let it touch the referendum in two months time?

Would a checked scorecard qualify any of the commissioners to oversee the 2012 General Election? Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring Kenya does not slide back to the poll period cycle of violence?

The IIEC is a mere representation of Kenyans’ fears of past violence and aspirations of a rosy future. Will the commission deliver?