Merger taking us closer to dominant party system

PHOTO: COURTESY

With the launch of the Jubilee Party we could be edging closer to a “dominant party” system. This isn’t the same as, and shouldn’t be confused with, a single party system.

The merger of the ruling Jubilee Coalition affiliate parties into one giant Jubilee Party has rattled the opposition. It could, unless the opposition picks itself up from the deep morass it is currently languishing in, set the stage for perhaps one of the most one-sided contests in the history of our electoral politics. Mr Raila Odinga, the ODM leader, and Mr Musalia Mudavadi, his Amani National Congress counterpart, are unequivocal in their criticism of the merger.

They assert that it is an assault on the Constitution and nostalgic of the single party days. State House, the choice of venue for the launch, also appeared to validate claims by the Opposition that Jubilee is seeking to conflate party and state.

And critics disagree it can unite Kenyans; the point of contention here being the party’s demographic profile.

In a multiparty context, they argue, the right to belong to a political party of choice hasn’t been taken away. To suggest, therefore, that the party is all-uniting, all-encompassing is preposterous, they say.

But there is no doubt Jubilee Party will keep a tight leash on its membership— a key sticking point even as affiliates fold up, and a possible future nightmare for rank and file. This isn’t a bad thing, though. Our politicians are too wayward.

The uncertainty brought about by the transient nature of our political parties can be quite destabilising. It breeds political indiscipline.

Perhaps the answer lies in a hegemon within a multiparty context such as in neighbouring Tanzania (CCM), Uganda (NRM), Rwanda (RPF) and Ethiopia (EPRDF).

Fourteen other countries across Africa, including South Africa (ANC), have dominant parties, existing side by side with the opposition, which is either vibrant or subdued.

Diversity will be Jubilee party’s strength. But it could also be its Achilles heel.

It’s inevitable that differences will arise and factions could emerge. These are particularly likely as Uhuru enters the lame duck season of his presidency, assuming he’ll clinch a second term.

If they do emerge, these factions are likely to take a regional profile, and coalesce around certain polarising individuals.

Signs of what Uhuru’s succession battles could throw up are already evident, and have drawn in Deputy President William Ruto, the de facto successor in the Jubilee scheme of things.

In the worst case scenario, these could lead to internal party haemorrhaging and even splintering. Our short history of electoral democracy, particularly after the African version of the global “third wave” of democratisation, between the early 1990s up until the run up to the 2013 General Election, is replete with examples of internal party bickering, trickery and dishonesty that has led to the splintering of parties and major political realignments.

Critics argue that a dominant party system prevents democratic consolidation. Analysing data from 18 African countries with dominant party systems using the Freedom House Civil Liberties index as a measure of the quality of democracy researcher Jonathan van Eerd shows that dominant party systems with strong and institutionalised opposition parties have more comprehensive civil liberties.

In his study; The Importance of Competitive Opposition Parties for Democratic Consolidation in Africa prepared for the 2014 European Political Science Association (EPSA) Annual Conference in Edinburgh, Eerd argues that to improve the quality of democracy it is enough when competitive opposition parties challenge the dominant party and force its rulers to be more accountable to the citizenry.

The bad news, according to Eerd, is that in dominant-party systems other political parties do not have a realistic chance of capturing power; the dominant party genuinely wins the votes of the vast majority of voters every time.

Researchers at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA) are quite blunt in their assessment of dominant party systems in Africa.

First, they cite previous elections in South Africa, Mozambique, Mali and Senegal, which they use as the basis to make the argument that dominant-party systems impede competitive politics, which in turn, contributes to political apathy and low voter turnout;

Secondly, dominant parties dominate the legislature and are likely to monopolise the lawmaking process to promote the predominant party’s economic and social interests;

Thirdly, governments formed under the system are less accountable to the legislature, which they dominate, and the opposition, which is too small to be effective; and

Finally, dominant-party systems, according to the researchers, encourage government to develop the arrogance of power and become irresponsive to citizen demands. In our own parlance it’s called uta do?