Our run-away official corruption is a result of flawed electoral processes

IEBC officials and police inspect voting materials to be used for the Ugenya Constituency by-election at Sega Polytechnic on April 04, 2019. [Denish Ochieng, Standard]

As gloves get dropped off in the campaign trail, a keen observer cannot fail to notice some titbits about the inner workings of our politics and leadership at the top levels.

In the past three weeks, we have heard opponents wash their dirty linens both in foreign capitals and in various corners of the country soliciting for votes.

We have heard talks of the possibility of stolen elections, alignments with the mythical Deep State and on who is using what taxpayers’ money for their campaigns. The bombshell was on which candidate is best placed to protect the economic interest of the first family. While this could easily pass as political mudslinging to score points against opponents, we definitely must take notice of who is saying these things. From an analytical point of view, it matters a lot the source of these statements.

If they came from a mere mortal like me, then it is honorable for everyone to ignore and treat them as delusional musings. If they came from a known loose political canon for hire, then they ought to be treated as political trash. But when they come from the highest echelons of individual party leadership, insiders and senior public officials, then they are worth giving them a measure of consideration.

It would be expected that top government officials, party leaders and insiders would have access to privileged intelligence/information. In the world of economics, we treat this as insider trading/information. But the worthy questions to ask here are: One, what insights can the voting masses deduce from these statements? Two, do they constitute persuasive evidence of a tinkered democracy that only serve the interests of the royalties and promote aristocratic tendencies? Three, could the massive pilferage from our public coffers be engineered long before it is executed in the administrative processes of the government?

Unified greed

In an earlier article on this page, I shared demonstrable evidence that political handouts/goodies do actually influence political choices at the ballot, especially in young democracies and poor nations. However, one can never truly understand how pervasive and deeply entrenched the culture is unless one has been to our political trenches. Not long ago, I wandered into the thickets of Kenyan politics. I do have tales to tale someday.

At the risk of courting controversy, I am persuaded to believe that to a big extent, ordinary folks lack the moral authority to complain about the run-away official corruption in the country. The voters sow and nurture the tree of corruption themselves. Let us lie on the bed we make until that time we shall individually and collectively understand the laws of economics harbor no vacuums. Unless we honestly and candidly confront the real demons in our politicos, the poor masses will continue to wallow in misery while their leaders live in wanton extravagance.

Let us unpack these facts from the perspective a typical political candidate, say in the 2022 elections. The eligibility criteria for political office in Kenya as set out by the voters has nothing to do with the candidates’ ideas, vision, values and demonstrable leadership capabilities. It is first and foremost dictated by the number and volume of donations one has been making in all manner of functions from village baraza’s, weddings, burials, birthday parties, free booze and to places of worship.

Other events have emerged disguised as rural empowerment or affirmative action initiatives but the majority target political candidates. Noble events like our famous chamas, merry-go rounds, women and youth groups have been turned into political forums to mint money from political candidates. Recently, I have seen WhatsApp groups organising events for people to be ‘taken to go see their parents.

Beyond these events, folks expect a candidate to finance public goods and services like bursaries, road maintenance, bridges, boreholes, garbage collection, street lighting, provide employment opportunities and healthcare services. It does not matter there already exists a government, elected by themselves that is supposed to provide those basic services. The business community and professional groupings will demand you fuel their cars and sponsor elaborate banquets to attend political meetings.

Sportsmen and women expect the candidate to sponsor their events, tools and equipment in exchange for votes. High end machines and a demonstrable public flamboyance is a critically added advantage to win the affection of the average voter. It rarely matters whether your audience is highly literate, semi-illiterate, illiterate, religious or non-religious. In truth, nobody cares where you get the money from or your own personal financial responsibilities and/or obligations. Besides, the candidate will be expected to make huge donations to their sponsoring parties, support their party leaders’ voyages and appease party gatekeepers. Yet, there never is an assurance that these folks will vote for you. Betrayal is the rule of the game.

No vacuums

As clearly argued on this page consistently, economic systems harbor no vacuums. The handouts that the electorates demand from political candidates must come from somewhere. In a mature democracy, electorates are presumed to be able to identify with a candidate’s views, ideas and commitments on matters that are important them. To ensure such a candidate so identified represents them, the electorates would thus mobilize, volunteer and even offer material support where necessary.

The thinking behind Financing Political parties with tax-payers money was to minimize the campaign burden on the part of individual candidates. The Public Officer Ethics Act of 2003 as revised in 2009 had sought to limit the participation of public officers in collections for harambees to avoid undue pressure in the conduct of their public duties. The Elections Act bar political candidates from participation in fundraisings at least six months to the elections.

Unfortunately, the legal intents largely remain pieces of paper. The realities in the actual campaigns both for the candidates and the expectations from the voters are the exact opposite. Our politics has been reduced to a business venture as opposed to an opportunity for good men and women to offer their competences in service to the nation and their fellow citizens. In as much as the political candidates abuse the electorates, they are equally exploited and misused by the voters. It has been reduced into a zero-sum game.

Consequences

There are three primary outcomes from this toxic co-existence. One, it creates huge barriers to entry for potential leaders committed to integrity and values. There is obviously no way somebody who has made clean money and wealth is going to splash it carelessly as the voters would want. In any case, an ethical leader will find it pretty hard to bribe for votes if and when they don’t practice it in their professional and business life.

Two, it creates a suitable medium for ‘state capture’ to thrive. Simply put, the corrupt and those that profit from state coffers are able to buy-in loyal allies into political and other state offices to perpetuate their plunder. The electorates thus live in the illusion of a democratic process while in actual sense a privileged few dictate the limits on their economic opportunities and the quality of the air they breathe. The Russian Oligarch system should serve as a lesson to us here.

Finally, such a system is great a breeding ground for autocrats and widespread unethical behavior in society. With professionals locked out of positions of influence and a few with ability to install leaders of their choice, the guardrails of forbearance that guide democracies are completely eroded.