The 2010 Constitution marked a major departure in the organisation and funding of political parties in Kenya.
The intention was to create institutional frameworks not identified with individuals as had been hitherto in order to accord with the new dispensation as envisaged by the Constitution of making political parties occupy a special place in our democratic process under the representation of the people and subsequent enactment of the Political Parties Act 2011.
However, despite the requirement under the new Constitution, and the Political Parties Act, the conduct of the parties has not changed much. Whether this is by design, ignorance, or through deliberate acts of commission and omission is a big question mark. For instance every political party is required under the Constitution to have an elected governing body. This is today a far cry in the wilderness! Why? Sadly the majority of the parties are led by handpicked loyalists. The requirements under the Act are stringent on accountability. The public through an allocation of 0.3 per cent of the tax revenue collected by the National Government goes to fund qualified political parties. From the perspective of the Act, the usage of the Fund is very clear. The parties are required, within 90 days after the end of their financial year, to publish the sources of their funds stating the money received, from members and supporters of the political parties, the amount and sources of donations given to political parties, render amount of income and expenditure and reflect their assets and liabilities.
The parties are required to publish all that, in at least two newspapers of national circulation. Failure to comply “during the period of non-compliance the party shall be disqualified from receiving money from the fund” since these requirements are intended to provide transparency and accountability of the public funds. Empirical evidence shows this has not happened to any of the political parties.
How does the public get an assurance that our taxes are being used in accordance with the law? The Act provides for the audit of the political parties by the Auditor General, who in turn has to submit the report to the Registrar of Political Parties and accordingly be availed to the National Assembly, at least once every financial year.
READ MORE
Somaliland opposition leader wins presidential election
Ruto picks ex-IEBC boss Issack Hassan as IPOA chair
Why ODM, UDA should hasten merger plot
Kenyans must not give up their agitation for better governance
To the best of my recollection since the funding of the political parties started, there has neither been audited accounts of any political party that has been tabled before the National Assembly nor published in two nationally circulated newspapers. Why then has the Registrar, not disqualified any party from the Fund for non-compliance?
The more serious and worrisome problem is the way these parties conduct nominations of candidates to the various elective positions, MCAs, parliamentarians and Governors and especially in the last General Election. It left a lot of bitterness and last-minute defections.
The experience reflected how poorly the nominations were conducted resulting in very many disputes being filed with the IEBC Tribunal to resolve the alleged nomination malpractices by parties/candidates. Unfortunately due to time constraint and the huge numbers, the Tribunal was unable to dispense its role effectively.
The importance of party nominations is manifested clearly from the records of 2013 General Election, whereby on average between 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the major political parties in their respective strongholds, those whom parties nominated, were successfully elected. The irony of it all is that hardly did participation in party nominations generate interest of more than 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the registered voters in the respective constituencies. It, therefore, means, whereas Kenyans celebrated “free and fair elections” after the last General Election, the process of the nominations by the political parties is to say the least anything but “free and fair”. The key weakness was very low level of participation by the majority of the electorates under the mistaken belief, that nominations don’t matter!
This ignorance also informed lack of serious scrutiny by observers during nominations and subsequently the flaws had impact on the General Election results thereby compromising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country. The fundamental question is, was the last General Election also “free and fair?”
What is the way forward to correct the above anomalies? As we prepare for the 2017 elections, Kenyans cannot rely on the conduct of political parties’ nomination process to produce credible candidates during the General Election. We must demand that the Independent Electorate and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) discharges its constitutional mandate to develop dependable regulatory political parties’ mechanism for nominations of candidates on behalf of the public or at the very least provide facilities for credible supervisory oversight during the nomination process.
The IEBC’s has the constitutional responsibility for conducting civic education to the electorate to appreciate in most instances, the reality is that, General Elections will a mirror what happens at nominations and hence they must take the nomination process seriously to avoid an assault to our freedom sovereignty and democracy in the conduct of future elections at all levels as a guarantee against poor governance of our country if those who lead us are not credibly elected by universal suffrage.
The electorate must consequently make the connection between nominations and elections of their leaders in the General Election. Indifference of how we elect our leaders is tantamount to surrendering our sovereignty.
The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya