The perils of nomination consensus

Political parties have finalised their nominations in preparation for the August General Election. The next stage of the process is submission of those names to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

People dissatisfied with the outcome of the nominations also have the option of seeking redress from the political parties’ disputes tribunal and subsequently the courts.

In the past, party nominations were accompanied by violence and other irregularities. From a macro perspective, there has been less violence in this year’s party nominations — an improvement in the manner that parties choose their representatives for various elective positions.

There has, however, emerged a new phenomenon in this electoral cycle called consensus. All the major political parties have applied this approach either for all or a majority of their elective seats, especially for national-level positions and governors.

Indeed, it is difficult to point out counties where nominations have taken place for the position of governor.

While parties must have sound reasons for adopting this methodology — including ensuring harmony and avoiding fallouts that accompany party nominations — there are fundamental issues that the approach raises.

The first is the timing of the methodology adopted. Many parties justified their action on the basis that their constitutions and nomination rules gave them leeway on which method to use to select their nominees.

However, the need to communicate to candidates early enough so that they are clear about how the choice would be made builds objectivity and fairness. The Constitution speaks about credibility and transparency.

A quick review of the consensus approach adopted by political parties demonstrates challenges in meeting this standard.

In addition, the Constitution recognises political parties are fundamental instruments of governance with the public role of providing citizens with an avenue of realising their constitutionally guaranteed political rights.

The consensus route that several of the parties adopted left members of parties in these electoral areas without an avenue of expressing their preference on the candidates.

Coming from a background where the main political parties have always conducted nominations, there was a legitimate expectation by party members that they would get this chance in this electoral cycle. To decide without their active participation erodes their power as members of political parties.

The manner political parties conduct their affairs is fundamental to the health of the country’s democracy and a critical contributor to the conduct of credible elections.

It is important that mechanisms adopted by parties in choosing their representatives to contest elective positions improve and not pollute the credibility of elections.

From this experience, there will be a need to rethink the process of political party nominations. After the 2017 elections, the Registrar of Political Parties constituted a multi-stakeholder forum to develop a regulatory framework to govern the way nominations are conducted.

The reality is that leaving the nomination process solely to political parties has always been a source of discomfort.

While there have been attempts in the past to regulate the process, including the latest amendments in the Political Parties Act, the country is yet to provide a balance that guarantees fairness and supports democratic governance.

It is even more critical when one considers that in some parts of the country, the nomination stage is even more important than the General Election. The toughest competition is at that stage and whoever emerges victorious will most likely be declared the winner after the General Election.

While consensus is an option for picking candidates, the challenges it has raised including candidates spending time and resources to campaign and then being told they are not the party candidate raises questions about democracy that need to be resolved in future electoral cycles.