Democracy doesn’t end with election to public office

Almost everyone agrees that the recently impeached governor of Nairobi County Mike Sonko was a disaster for the city.

Equally, almost everyone blames not the governor, but rather the voters who put a man of such leadership frailties in a position of such tremendous responsibility.

In some quarters, though, puritans of democracy still insist that being democratically elected, it was wrong to intervene and have the governor removed from office. The argument seems to be that, in spite of the negative consequences for the city, democracy should be allowed to run its full course.

Yet democracy itself is a very loaded term. Invoking it to describe what has happened to Sonko’s Nairobi is to mix up numerous things. Every time the term ‘democracy’ is invoked, three distinct ideas are put into instant circulation.

First, the idea of liberty. Under this, democracy implies that we have reached an arrangement where both the powerful and powerless have agreed to a relationship of equality, rather than that of patron and client, in which the client depends on the patron for their survival.

Secondly, the idea of participation. Under this, democracy implies that decisions will only be binding if everyone participates, with the majority having their way as the minority have their say.

Thirdly, the idea of accountability. Under this, democracy implies evaluating the performance of those entities we gave the responsibility for ensuring our collective survival. 

In short, when we say a country is democratic, we simply mean that these three ideas are beyond question. Both governors and the governed respect and uphold them. For instance, since it is held that Kenya is a democratic country, it means that all the three ideas of liberty, participation and accountability are routine in our public affairs.

Liberty means that we have no patrons and clients and that every adult is free to make choices in their lives without coercion from or dependence on others. Participation means that decisions affecting our lives are debated by a wide section of Kenyans either directly or through their representatives and only those which have the approval of the majority are taken to the next level. Accountability means that those with public responsibility are evaluated on the performance they put in.

Yet the reality could never have been starker. Starting with liberty, the country is teeming with patrons and clients. The dependency syndrome, in which a patron loaded with cash and goodies arrives to the jubilation of expectant clients, has become more conspicuous than actual official government policy. Our politics of patronage in which the so-called ‘Sonko Rescue Teams’ feature prominently are a sign of how far our democracy is from the ideals of liberty. In other words, claiming we are democratic in the face of massive patronage is a serious misuse of the concept. There is hardly any democracy in a system where patrons use their Sonko rescue teams to reduce voters into dependent clients. 

Turning to participation, granted, this is perhaps one area where we have made some encouraging strides. Not only have we guaranteed participation in many official decisions including choice of those who govern us, but we are also among the countries with the highest number of representatives in public decision-making organs.

There are, however, a number of drawbacks against this vital element of our democratic evolution. The quality of our participation is questionable, while the outcomes, especially with regard to choice of those who govern us is often mediocre, hampered by such considerations as tribe, gender and other identities. In addition, our representation in decision-making organs is among the world’s most expensive, given that those who represent us are on hefty remuneration. 

It is perhaps in accountability where our claim to democracy fails spectacularly. In ideal democracies, those to whom we surrender our taxes and freedoms in exchange for items necessary for our collective survival must be evaluated regularly.

The evaluation comes in the form of elections, but also in other forms such as parliamentary and judicial scrutiny as well as monitoring processes internal to government departments. The election component is often the means through which the masses join in this evaluation.

Interestingly, it is the election component which, because of its visibility, is often conflated with democracy, although it is actually a tiny sub-idea straddling liberty, participation and accountability.

Yet even tiny as it is within democracy, elections hardly deliver accountability. The patron-client relationship hinted to above precludes the possibility of clients holding their patrons to account. In addition, manipulation of electoral management systems by those in power, as well as use of essential identities such as tribe, gender and religion all serve to make accountability impossible to establish through elections. 

Democracy is thus more than electing someone into public office. The election of Sonko as Nairobi governor was not the end of democracy. Elevation into public office requires a constant commitment to the ideals of liberty, participation and accountability. Sonko’s manifest failure to observe these ideals was enough reason to send him home without bringing any harm to democracy. 

-Mr Muyumbu is a governance and accountability adviser at a non-governmental organisation. [email protected]