US could learn from Kenya's constitution

With only one month remaining and the most recent opinion polls showing unprecedented potential voters either still undecided or inclined to vote for one of the two main ‘third party’ candidates in the US presidential election, its outcome remains unpredictable.

In this context, recent revelations on both the Democratic and Republican sides have added yet higher levels of turmoil to the campaign.

For Hillary Clinton, the release of documents by WikiLeaks quoting or summarizing some of her previously occluded speeches to senior officials in major banks and investment houses have magnified the gap between her perceived sympathies for the ‘super rich’ and her public declarations regarding the needs of ‘ordinary Americans’.

Earlier, e-mail communication from her time as Secretary of State released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (that cleared her of criminal charges) suggested a wanton disregard of national security procedure. For Donald Trump, the access to and subsequent release of personal information has likely caused him even more damage.

For example, several weeks ago a section of his 1995 Federal tax returns anonymously made available to The Washington Post (and which was verified by tracking down his tax accountant at that time) showed him suffering a massive loss in that tax year of over $900 million, apparently allowing him to avoid paying any tax whatsoever in subsequent years – perhaps up to two decades.

His refusal to release his more recent tax returns “until the current audit being conducted by the Internal Revenue Service is complete” – not expected until after next month’s election – only added fuel to this simmering fire about his financial probity, or at least to the debate about the legal devices available to the ‘super rich’ to escape the Taxman’s net.)

Most recently, a video-clip from 2005 captured him making highly offensive self-congratulatory remarks about his sexual exploits and continuing appetite for the same (even though his third wife was apparently pregnant at this very time). Indeed, this latest drama has led a number of leading figures in the Republican Party, including prominent incumbent senators, congressmen, and governors, to call for him to withdraw from the race, however slim the logistic and legal possibility of replacing him at this stage of the campaign (with ballots printed and many absentee votes having already been cast).

Altogether, such developments suggest the American political system might be strengthened by having both political party officials and lawmakers take a hard look at the integrity provisions and requirements in Chapter 6 of Kenya’s constitution.

However weakly they may have been enforced so far, they suggest the benefits of establishing a vetting mechanism that would scrutinise the backgrounds of candidates for at least the most important elective offices, and that this should occur well before the (somewhat different) nomination processes within their political parties are completed. Whether this should be the responsibility of each political party, or of Government at the State or the national level (depending upon the office sought), what the specific criteria should be for rendering decisions, and whether or not they are legally binding, can be left for the legally-guided democratic process to determine.

Of course, individuals and voters in the US and leaders and citizens elsewhere may consider the policy positions of such would-be candidates on particular critical issues to be much more important than their personal probity or integrity.

But even without pre-judging the verdicts of any such (for now, hypothetical) test, surely, given the stakes involved, both Americans and the wider world deserve a higher standard than what this current US presidential race has on offer.

And wouldn’t it be ironic if Kenya could then take at least partial credit for improving the governance standard in the world’s oldest democracy?