Why we may need positive ethnic profiling in appointments

By Billow Kerrow

Parliament this week rejected the nomination of Ms Winfred Osimbo Lichuma as the chairperson of National Gender and Equality Commission on grounds that she came fourth in the selection interview and did not merit the appointment.

They felt the President and the Prime Minister abused the regional and ethnic balance consideration by sidelining merit and condoning ethnic profiling.

I find the MPs’ arguments misplaced and conceptually defective. They ignored the fact that the nomination by the principals is part of the selection. The interviews by the panelists focus on merit aspects only, but the subsequent process by the principals and indeed Parliament are intended to weigh in other factors that are conditional imperatives, such as the regional and ethnic balance. Their role is not limited to verifying merit scores but audit on non-merit factors too.

The interview panelists for the various constitutional commissions and offices do not necessarily have facts on the composition of the appointments so far made in the public sector, and cannot be rationally expected to consider ethnic or regional balancing during the interviews. However, the principals, having done all the nominations have the facts and consequently may seek to temper the merit lists forwarded to them to reflect these considerations.

It is not inconceivable the principals may indeed exercise this discretion to reject a competent individual not because of the equity balance but to promote loyalists and sycophants. But the same is also true of the MPs. Most of the appointments done through interviews by the parliamentary committees invariably disregard merit and reflect political horse-trading. These are the risks inherent in all processes run through the political mills.

But we should not miss the larger picture and throw out the baby with the bath water.

Ms Lichumba deserved the nomination through positive profiling and affirmative action. MPs rejected her name not because she lacked the qualification and experience to handle that position, but because there were others more qualified than her. Agreed. But contextualised in our Constitution, she is more deserving, and has far greater rights to the job than the top three.

It may not sound fair to those who came tops in the merit interviews. It is the role of the House to come up with appropriate legislation that would give effect to the provisions of the Constitution regarding inclusion and equity necessary to reflect the face of Kenya in the commissions and constitutional offices.

In the mean time, perhaps all the advertisements by the panelists should include caveats that these other factors will also be considered so that the candidates know that merit scores are not enough. It should, say, account for 60 per cent and the balance of the 40 per cent be used by the principals and parliamentary committees who consider the regional and ethnic balance.

In April, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission released an audit report of the composition of the civil service that revealed two communities held more than 40 per cent of all the jobs. Several other institutional audits equally revealed massively skewed domination by one or two groups. The commission has a legal mandate to ensure no one community has more than 33 per cent of the jobs in any one institution, and similarly all appointments must reflect this.

No serious effort has been made to implement this law in spite of these reports for the simple reason the same arguments used to deny Lichumba her job will be used to scuttle it. How will this country address this inequality in human resource deployment in the public service if we keep using the merit tool alone?

The vetting by the House was meant to rid the process of political patronage and ensure equity. Their focus on merit will perpetuate economic and social disparities, and fuel the 2007 type crisis.

— The writer is a former MP for Mandera Central and political economist