Issues Kenya should watch out for ahead of 2017 elections
An IEBC official (left) helps a woman register on the biometric voter registration platform during a workshop in Nyeri in May. PHOTO | JOSEPH KANYI
When one steps away from the antics surrounding the 2016 US Presidential Election, it is useful to view this as an “issues” contest (in PR slogans at least) between “I’m with Her Stronger Together” and “Make America Great Again”.
And then a “numbers” contest at the end of the day. Everything else is noise. Let’s take a roundabout look at four of these as our 2017 fiesta approaches.
To begin, last week’s Youth Summit attracted a larger audience than previous ones (or was it more invitations), and reflected the youthful majority in our adult population.
Naturally, there was mention of opportunities afforded, tenders awarded and training provided, plus growing partnerships with private sector and development partners.
Then there was President Uhuru Kenyatta’s stern warning to procurement, not finance, officers to accelerate outstanding payments, or else..
When we think about our inequality issues, any government that pursues a programme of affirmative action is “pure gold”.
Think about this in numbers. The affirmative action provisions demanded by our Constitution cover children (under 18s - 52 per cent of the population), youth (age 18 to 35 - 27 per cent), older members of society (over 60s – five per cent) and those in the fair gender and marginalised groups between ages 35 and 60 – nine per cent respectively) – basically 93 per cent of the population.
In one sense, the real test for the Jubilee administration (and county governments) is in how the daily lot of our 93 per cent has improved in line with the constitution’s promise.
And rather than think only about money dished out, we could apply one of the outcome tests I mentioned last time – around food, education, health, water, security, shelter, social protection, income opportunities, access to assets, participatory governance beyond elections and how this group is treated in a rule of law context. Call this “Issues and Numbers” point number one.
Then there are our election preparations, which have raised concerns around tight timelines among actors, local and foreign.
Like the fact that our amended electoral law requires that all ICT equipment be procured by December 8, eight months before the election; less than two months from today.
Of more interest is the “audit” of the electoral register. According to the report of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on the IEBC, this was to be completed by November 30.
According to the law written by the same committee, said audit is to be effectively completed within 60 days of the commencement of an Act which didn’t have a commencement date.
That’s not the real problem. Consider this. If the audit is to be completed ASAP then it can only be an audit of the current register of 15.7 million voters, including the recent 1.4 million voters registered, and not the anticipated pre-election register of 21.8 million voters.
Will there be two audits? If so, which one does the IEBC’s recent expression of interest invitation refer to?
Let’s not even get into the fact that only 21 days are allowed for the audit. A previous audit of the 2013 register (that is, 14.3 million voters before the recent mass registration) by the Institute for Education in Democracy (IED), according to its own report, consumed at least 30 days on training, fieldwork and data analysis, that is, excluding design and preparation time, and actual report writing.
Indeed, the IED’s audit of what is effectively 90 per cent of IEBC’s current register found three main things. First, a one per cent error rate in the biometric part of the register (roughly 145,000 voter records).
Second, a 68 per cent voter registration rate in “people-to-list” sampling tests (that is, testing voting age people at random on whether they were registered).
Third, it was impossible to perform “list-to-people” sampling (that is, picking names from the register and finding actual people) due to lack of contact details. If we know this, what is the new audit about? Call this “Issues and Numbers” point number two.
Moving quickly along, our business press pages are increasingly sounding the alarm around government spending (and debt accumulation) heading into the election. This we all know – projects must be completed, promises must be kept and politics costs money.
Let’s process the monetary and fiscal climate differently. Bank interest rates are capped. Much of the new retail lending claimed by banks is “top-up” lending.
Meanwhile, government spending continues unabated. County governments can now access overdraft facilities from the Central Bank. The 2017/18 budget will be passed at the point where the 2016/17 budget is 75 per cent implemented.
Will we have Supplementary Estimates for 2016/17? Or, more cheekily, an early Vote on Account for 2017/18? Remember, “fiscal year” is an accounting, and therefore “paper”, term.
In all of this, banks choose between risky lending in a tentative business climate, and government’s risk-free paper. The demand for Treasury Bills balloons. Rates fall.
Government has access to cheap money. We have a perfect storm. Call this “Issues and Numbers” point number three.
Finally, to territory least explored since 2013, the state of government-owned enterprises and government-linked corporations.
Beyond the Mwongozo leadership code for government-owned enterprises, very little is heard about the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Parastatal Reforms.
Then there are what this report terms “government-linked corporations” (generally, where government owns a less than 50 per cent shareholding). Think about companies like Nyari Estate, Kenya Poultry, Merkat or Nairobi Securities Exchange. What is the investment strategy here?
Confused? Let’s try another sample. Think Safaricom (30 per cent shareholding), KCB (17.7 per cent), Mumias (20 per cent), Uchumi (13 per cent), Kenya Airways (23 per cent) or National Bank (22.5 per cent).
Beyond the idea that these are/were supposed to be institutions of national policy and pride, I can see a dividend/investment strategy in the cases of Safaricom and KCB.
What about the others, which in purely private sector hands, would have been restructured, reorganized, or closed down outright?
Where is government’s invisible hand in realising its investment, or restoring these “policy and pride” institutions? Or, the resolve to divest so as to cut public losses and stop bailouts now, not tomorrow? Call this “Issues and Numbers” point number four.
In sum, four ostensibly unrelated perspectives – affirmative action, electoral preparedness, fiscal/monetary prospects and investment/divestment choices – inspired by the pre-2017 sounds surrounding us.
Can we now talk about “Issues and Numbers” before we get back to the “Tyranny of Numbers”?
