How undemocratic political parties hurt economic growth

Kenya has 68 fully registered political parties. They range in actual registered membership, national influence and regional following in their strongholds. Their shared common denominator is regional and tribal profiles. This, in essence, makes crafting of unstable ethnic coalitions at the national level to enhance national appeal and electoral fortunes, inevitable.

Through their chieftains, parties have branded themselves as bastions of ethnic nationalism and political battle formations to “secure development” from the centre to their strongholds. By development, they imply projects and public sector jobs for sons and daughters of the tribes. This ethnic nationalism and its world view are so powerfully drilled that anyone perceived to oppose or differ is viewed to “betray the cause,” and branded a traitor. This version of parties devoid of national ideological and economic visions and aspirations has in effect alienated some would-be-leaders from active political participation.

Nevertheless, the Kenyan Constitution and democratic traditions still vest the business of political organisation for participation in elections and formation of the government on the institution of political parties. While some question the values and role of parties in a democracy like ours, political scholars still insist they are the most critical institutions in shaping the future of society. A case in point was the resolution of post-election violence stalemate in 2008 where the impasse would finally be broken by putting political parties at the centre in the search for options as the intermediaries between the people and the state.

Party Heritage

The institution of the political party formations is part of Kenya’s rich historical heritage. Different community leaders marshalled their clansmen to fight the colonial intrusion from their local perspective. Notable examples include Waiyaki wa Hinga, Mekatilili wa Menza, Koitalel Arap Samoei, legendary Paramount Chief Lenana, Harry Thuku, Muindi Bingu, Dedan Kimathi, Jaramogi Odinga and Jomo Kenyatta, among others. The formations they led, inadvertently define the culture of political parties today.

In 1961 General Election and subsequent independence in 1963, Kanu achieved historic mission of leading Kenya to independence after defeating Kadu, which comprised ethnic groups that perceived themselves as minorities. This Kanu-Kadu dichotomy in which majority tribes (by numbers) were perceived to have defeated their “minority” compatriots, gave birth to an “us versus them” political philosophy that tends to cast electoral winners and losers as ethnic rivalry between tribes, than democratic contest of alternative visions for Kenya. This is the mother of our problems, including the phenomenon “that a ruling party must demonstrate hegemonic power in its strongholds” without any “madoadoa” (stains). This undemocratic and repugnant electoral imperative is unconstitutional.

At the heart of the discussion, lies the rallying call that parties should be acknowledged, celebrated, de-tribalised, supported and institutionalised. A robust democracy is essential for furthering a country’s economic development goals. Urgent reforms in building accountable and democratic national institutions call for Parliament to pass legislation to allow for funding of parties to play their rightful role in entrenching democracy in Kenya.

To achieve this, there is a need for a fundamental shift, on the part of parties and electoral stakeholders. The leadership needs of Kenya for 21st century must embrace a political paradigm shift that compels parties that aspire to form a government to attract, nurture best talents and ideas that can make a difference, not just pandering to ethnic nationalism.

- The writer is the Democratic Party deputy leader and chairperson of Political Parties Liaison Committee.