Can ‘third way’ thinking guide 2017 General Election agenda?
Voters wait to cast their ballots during a recent by-election in Malindi. PHOTO | KEVIN ODIT
It is always terribly amusing to observe politicians and commentators lamenting our “permanent politics”, supposedly at the expense of “development”. The thinking seems to be that “politics” equals “elections”, and Kenya shouldn’t be in permanent campaign mode.
I am no political scientist, but watching US President Barrack Obama’s perennial battles with Congress and Senate, observing UK Prime Minister David Cameron during PM’s Question Time, it seems that politics, if not elections, is permanent.
Further, for these leaders, it isn’t just about dealing with difficult political parties or adversarial legislatures; it’s also about addressing private and public comment and criticism encouraged by freedom of speech.
Surely, how would any of our so-called political leaders survive in these democracies if they keep asking for time to “develop the country”?
One argument I hear is that “there is a time for politics, and a time to govern”.
My simple answer has always been that of former US President George W. Bush, who once reportedly differentiated politics as “who gets to do what” from governance as “the doing of the what” (presumably on all sides of the political divide).
Simply, politics and governance are two sides of the same permanent coin – the first instills legitimacy and authority, the second demands responsibility and accountability.
Thought about this way, our emerging tensions over the 2017 election, including this week’s anti-Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) brouhaha, signal our failure to understand the permanence of politics and governance.
Instead, we treat national elections in the same way we treat national (school) examinations – as a time for the country to “close shop” during the event, followed by another “shutdown” when results are announced.
One suspects that if we could truly reform our electoral and education systems with a sense of lifelong permanence in mind, we might just have found the “African holy grail”, and cracked our political-development dilemma for all time – including how we avoid our usual pre-electoral economic slumps.
More interesting is what sort of electoral agenda will emerge for 2017. Agenda, you ask? Isn’t it all about tribal formations and ethnic alliances?
Aren’t our prospective candidates organising around “safe zones”, “contestable regions” and “battleground counties”? Won’t 2017 simply be about “tyranny of numbers” on the one side, and “40 vs 2” on the other?
Methinks it’s a little more complex than that, especially when we move beyond the presidential election, and consider the multi-level electoral matrix introduced by gubernatorial, senatorial and even, county assembly contests. But I digress.
Our conventional (Pareto-like) wisdom tells us that 80 per cent of voter choice hinges on identity, and 20 per cent on issues.
But what if this proportion is wrong, and our changing demographics mean that issues matter more than we think? After all, poverty and inequality do not recognise identity, as our youth are quickly realising.
Taking this thought experiment forwards, and assuming that in fact, issues will hold great sway in 2017, I fear that we may be looking at a false choice between those inside, and those outside of government.
Those on the outside will build their agenda around real and perceived incumbent shortcomings.
In 2014, at the height of calls for national dialogue, seven ‘grand failures were highlighted – negative ethnicity, skewed public appointments, grand corruption, high cost of living, insecurity and devolution vs provincial administration.
The outsiders have tremendous cannon-fodder when they review the incumbent’s manifesto which promised almost 300 “solutions” to take Kenya to the next level.
And it won’t be so much about a headcount of which solutions have been delivered against those that haven’t, but rather a focus on why the latter were not delivered.
Aside from the manifesto, the outsiders will focus their audit on the official government development agenda – the second Medium-Term Plan (MTP) under Vision 2030 – and its further promises of 10 per cent gross domestic product (GDP) growth in 2016 and 2017, 1.5 million formal jobs, and 3.7 million informal jobs in five years, debt at 39 per cent of GDP by 2017 and investment and savings at 31 and 26 per cent of GDP respectively by the same time. We’re not even talking about the Eurobond.
We can also guess at how the insiders (incumbents) will respond. Now that a “Delivery Book” (that is, tracking mechanism for all key projects) is available, this will replace the multiple “ghost-written” columns we read in the Press from their politicos – MPs, Senators et al.
Infrastructure, energy, health, education and security achievements will be highlighted. References to the manifesto, and the MTP will be kept to the bare minimum even as countrywide “field visits” to deliver “local goodies” become the “new normal”.
What’s wrong with this picture? On the one side, we will hear fine critiques from the outsiders about non-achievement, but we will not hear about real solutions. On the other, we will be bombarded with great (digital?) messaging on the real gains that have been made since 2013.
Simply, we will listen to multiple truths around broadly similar facts – a veritable “he said, she said” cacophony for the next 15 months.
While I have nothing against this democratic process, one senses that the growing frustration across Kenya around this Animal Farm-like exchange is behind increasing calls for a “third way”, even a “third force” in Kenya’s politics.
Not the “kati kati” (middle-ground) noise we heard in 2007, but a real democratic and development alternative in a political contest where the two main protagonists at presidential level are scions of the protagonists we had half a century ago.
I have no specific thoughts on what this “third force” would be all about, but I suspect that there exists sufficient time and space between today and 2017 to begin a national debate on a “third way” that – through researchers, think-tanks and media – can actively influence Agenda 2017.
There’s plenty of stuff that could go into this “third way” discourse. Like Kenyans’ “Top 3” everyday concerns – according to opinion polls - about corruption, unemployment and the cost of living.
Or private sector in Kenya’s “Top 5” everyday concerns – according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report – around corruption, access to (affordable) finance, crime and theft, infrastructure and tax rates.
Isn’t it time to step away from the “thud factor” of voluminous manifestos and “bureaucratic blather” of bombastic policy documents and actually set out the real Kenyan agenda that those seeking election must deliver on?
So that our electoral choice represents the political platform that appears most willing and able to deliver what Kenyans want? Isn’t this how we begin to develop a half-predictable permanence in our politics and governance?
Call me a socialist anti-democrat, but isn’t that what our emerging and highly participatory, rather than merely representative, democracy should be all about?
