The
recent calls for a referendum to change the Kenyan constitution and implement a
parliamentary system of governance, rather than a presidential one, may remain
just that, talk. However, that should not take away from the fact that many Kenyans,
I included, are unhappy that despite a new constitution, we remain as divided
along tribal lines as ever before.
The March 4th elections split the country right down the middle,
with the two major coalitions garnering support from different tribes almost
exclusively. Indeed, the candidates who attempted to run on other platforms
such as national unity and “issue based politics” such as Professor ole Kiyiapi
and Martha Karua performed dismally, coming dangerously close to being usurped
by the comical Dida (where is he, by the way?)
This
only served to remind Kenyans two things; firstly, that even with a new
constitution, you cannot legislate a stronger nation, where national identity,
values and ideology matter more in politics more than one’s tribe. Secondly, it put ethnic identity and tribalism
back at the centre of the national dialogue on politics, where it deserves to
be. And this is where the hot political topic of the moment, whether we should change
our political system to a parliamentary system rather than a presidential
system, comes in.
The
argument is this: as long as Kenyans are voting for a president, and certain
tribes have the numbers, the control of state machinery, control of a subservient and
intellectually bankrupt mainstream media and a judiciary whose reputation among Kenyans is still not positive, then the “other Kenyans” will never
see their tribesmen as President or his Deputy. Instead, we should have a parliamentary system, where the
strongest political party forms a government and elects a prime
minister/president from within its ranks in government.
Of
course, this argument has various holes. I do not think that a parliamentary
system will promote national unity, since the very same Kenyans who are voting
along tribal lines for a president will be the same people voting along tribal
lines to elect their members of parliament and political parties. A parliamentary
system requires very strong political parties, where the Members of Parliament realize
it is only their support for their party in parliament that keeps the
government in power. In a country like Kenya, where political parties are weak
and lack the capacities to exist without the financial, political and personal
support of the most powerful tribal chiefs, this would be a recipe for
disaster. Imagine a situation where a government is only propped up by a few
votes in Parliament. A few brown envelopes pushed to some hands would see mass
defections to the opposition and the government would collapse and elections
held. And of course, the proponents of this system fail to tell us how Kenyans uniting
in political parties that are ethnic in character to choose a prime minister
rather than a president makes tribal differences disappear.
But
this is not to say that they do not have a point. As long as we are voting for
a powerful president and only one group of tribes can win at the expense of others,
ethnic divisions will remain part and parcel of our politics.
There
have been various solutions tried in Africa and beyond to solve the ethnic
character of politics in countries, and there is no magic bullet as yet. Indeed, despite
the devolution and separation of powers tried in the United Kingdom it could see
still the secession of Scotland, while the USSR and Yugoslavia collapsed long
ago with the various ethnic nations in these countries becoming fully fledged
nation states. Indeed, as is evidenced by the upheavals in Russian regions such
as Dagestan, and the efforts of Kosovo to break away from Serbia, sometimes there is no
end in sight in ethnic groups demanding sovereignty from a heterogenous multi-cultural nation once the process starts.
The
efforts to support devolution and decentralization of powers from the national
government should continue to be supported. But this will not be enough. I think,
as I mentioned a while back in a post I did on tribalism in Maseno university
politics, Kenyans should consider permanent power sharing and consociationalism.
Consociation
is a system of government whereby all major groups in a state are guaranteed
representation and a seat in government. In such a situation, all the ethnic
groups in the country would have a seat in government and political power guaranteed to them according
to their relative populations, for example one tribe getting the presidency,
others the prime minister, another tribe the vice president, others the
speaker, and so on. Consociation has been attempted in Lebanon, and although the
country is still divided and prone to ethnic violence, the system of government
has quelled insecurity and civil war, as well as promoting coalitions in
government and some semblance of an all-inclusive government.
Whether
or not Kenyans change their constitution or not, we cannot run away from the
fact that the process of forming a cohesive and united nation has not had the
best results. Ethnicity and tribalism remains real, and unity is still a
mirage. The conversation about the right of all communities to be part of
government, and share fairly the political and economic benefits of being part
of Kenya should continue. Hopefully it will someday lead to solutions we can
use to unite all Kenyans of various ethnicities, economic classes and religions
to unite in a legitimate government so that we can achieve socio-economic and
political development together.
