Kenyans should not peg development on the ‘right party’

It sounds quite retrogressive in this day of global political advancement, generally speaking, to hear of some Kenyan politicians luring opponents to the ‘winning party’ because they will not develop their areas if they are not in government.

This demonstrates that learning from experience is indeed difficult for most of us. We spent many years fighting for the (new) constitution, largely to run away from political enslavement by those in power. The idea of devolution as we have come to know it since the 2013 General Election is mainly anchored on distributive justice. In the past, national resources were shared on “sweet nothings”. That is, you needed to pledge loyalty to be able to stand at the table from which crumbs of national resources could spill for you to “develop your area”.

We have learnt nothing if, as we start another electioneering process, party hopping and expected political realignments are founded on the negative premise that developing an area of any county is dependent on proximity to the centre of national power. Of course, the centre holds power. But, this is not power to use as a weapon against non-compliant political bases.

Well, candidates for elective posts can jump in and out of political parties of their choice. That is within their constitutional rights. But the justifications for such political behaviour must be challenged for us to get our electioneering process right.

Let us take an example of a desperate attempt to win re-election. Mr Bond, having tested the trappings of power, and Neema who is an aspiring candidate are approached by campaigners of a ‘winning party’. The main line of persuasion is that for a winning candidate to develop a constituency, the said candidate must be in the ‘right’ party. Right party here means a grouping that is close to, or in fact, is the centre of power. And, power here means, the ability not just to serve self-interest and make public decisions that affect the ruled, but also the right to determine scales of resource distribution.

Several concerns can be raised here. First, the misconception that the centre of power means only those in the right party will have absolute control of the development agenda must be disabused. Secondly, the exercise of power must not be seen as a bitter lesson for those who are not in the so called right party. Thirdly, turning power into a mechanism of exclusion and or inclusion to one’s political advantage is insensitivity to human dignity even when there is contestable theoretical justification of politics as a game without morals.

But, let us assume Mr Bond and Neema bend to the powers of the day and join the ‘right party’. For one, they would have submitted their dignity to a force that can use it at will. Further, their continued existence in the ‘right party’ depends on how much they are willing to serve the master.

Since voters want development, and development comes through self-giving to the ‘right party’ and therefore self-compromise, Mr Bond and Neema must do what the force in power wants as a trade-off for the development they are after.

Is this not the lowest level of human and social development? Moreover, Mr Bond and Neema may have heard and known all this political games long before they decided to seek elective posts, and somehow, have come to terms with whatever happens in the sanctum of politics. Basically, by joining the ‘right party’ they would have taught the younger generation to acknowledge and be in agreement with the Swahili saying ‘ukitaka cha mvunguni sharti uiname’. Loosely translated, this means ‘toeing the line’.

Yes, in life we have to bend, and we do so many times, but let us bend for the right reasons. Mr Bond and Neema seem to have given up to fate. Their world is jungle-like. They have to join the stronger animals. We have many elected leaders in Parliament who were beacons of hope yesterday. Listening to them today dampens our spirits.

Yet, for human beings who want a better society – a better Kenya – there is absolute necessity to resist fatalism. If we cannot get rightful services from the centre of power, the alternative is not to coil and join those in power as a second-tier category of human beings.

There are many Mr Bonds and Neemas at the counties, especially those who belong to smaller clans. The alternative is not to be swallowed by bigger clans just for the sake of achieving ‘something rather than nothing’. It is imperative that minorities get their rights as the principle of human equality demands.

Yes of course, holding power has several advantages. However, the advantages must not overweigh social systems for service delivery, a situation that creates asymmetrical dependency. Let us forge forward into horizons very far away from politics of pity as we gear up for the electioneering moment.