Political parties and the challenge for democracy in Kenya

By: Mwandawiro Mghanga, MP for Wundanyi, Kenya

It is now about fourteen years since a multiparty system of political governance was established in Kenya. This came about after a long, hard and protracted struggle during which democracy advocates and heroes were arrested, tortured, imprisoned, detained without trial and forced into exile. Many died in police custody, torture chambers and prisons during mass demonstrations and actions demanding the end of the Kenya African National Union’s (KANU) one party dictatorship that was notorious for the violation of citizens’ and human rights.

Not surprisingly therefore, the coming of multipartism in 1992 was akin to political revolution as it started the liberation of the society from the regime that was one of the most brutal dictatorships in Africa. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of press, civil and political liberties, recognition of the right of political parties to exist and operate and the growth and strengthening of the civil society are some of the concrete democratic gains that Kenyans have achieved hitherto and that are the envy of citizens of many African countries. However, it took another ten years before opposition parties were able to remove KANU, the party that had ruled the country since independence, from power. The defeat of KANU meant also the defeat of the reactionary forces, led by then President Daniel Moi, that were certainly a stumbling block to the entrenchment and development of the culture of democracy and human rights in the country. That is why Kenyans likened the defeat of KANU in the 2002 national elections by the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) to the second liberation.

As soon as multipartism started becoming a reality in the country, Kenyans realised that it was necessary to change the national constitution that had steered the country since independence from British colonialism in 1963, to reflect and conserve the new system of democratic governance. But just like it did to multipartism, the then Moi–KANU regime vehemently resisted constitutional reform. Once again many Kenyans were arrested, tortured, imprisoned, detained without trial and killed before the government acceded to the people’s popular demand for a new constitution by forming the Kenya Constitutional Review Commission (KCRC). The task of KCRC chaired by professor of constitutional law, Yash Pal Ghai, was to move around the country to collect and collate views about the constitution from the people of the country that are composed of over fifty ethnic groups with distinct languages, cultures and geographic locations. The views would then be presented to a Constitution Conference that would in turn discuss and draft them into a constitution to be presented to Kenyans for adoption through a national referendum.

In fact, the NARC government came to power by an overwhelming majority of votes from all over the country not only because it was a united front of several opposition parties led by popular leaders but also because it promised to deliver a new constitution Kenyans desired within 100 days after it had come to power. All the opposition parties that were struggling against the Moi–KANU regime promised a new constitution that would put the country on the path of democracy, human rights, devolution of national governance to ensure regional and inter-ethnic equality in terms of accessing and controlling political and economic power and sharing of national resources, gender equality, and among many other things, the principles of the rule of law, justice, transparency and accountability in all the affairs of the country.
During the campaign, political leaders including the current president Mwai Kibaki, would inform the public that dictatorship existed because the constitution invested too many powers in one individual, the president, and that these powers would be devolved in a parliamentary system that would be created by the new constitution. Again, it was said that the process of arriving at the new constitution would be people-driven, from below and not from above. Actually these were popular views of people throughout the country that are reflected in the contents of the reports of KCRC and the draft constitution, popularly known as Boma’s Constitution, that resulted from them.

However, it is now over 52 months since the KCRC started its work and the new constitution has not appeared. To begin with, no sooner had the NARC coalition come to power than it began falling apart, with the largest coalition partner, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), accusing Kibaki’s Democratic Party (DP) of violating and disowning the memorandum of understanding the two had signed concerning power sharing after the elections. This controversy in the ruling coalition that constrains the operation of the government found its way into the Constitutional Conference that was convened by the KCRC at Bomas of Kenya in Nairobi as soon as the new government came to power in 2003. LDP supported popular views at the Constitution Conference while Kibaki’s DP and other coalition partners including the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD – Kenya) and National Party of Kenya (NPK) now controlling state power ended up fighting at the Conference, walking out of it and going against the spirit of the people-driven process of arriving at the constitution. Not only did the government declare a cold war upon the draft constitution adopted by the Boma’s Conference but it in fact reneged on the position it had held before about proposing a parliamentary system of government. However, when it attempted to impose its version of a new constitution that sought to increase the powers of the president, among other mischiefs, upon the people of Kenya through a national referendum held in November 2005, it suffered humiliating defeat in all the seven provinces of the country apart from Central Province where the President comes from.

The demand for the new constitution continues but does not appear to be a priority of political parties that today seem more concerned about how to retain political power or capture it in the next elections that will be held at the end of 2007. The government realises that it will be judged very harshly by Kenyans should it go for elections without the new constitution, and has created another Commission headed by Bethuel Kiplagat to purportedly come up with yet another report on the way forward towards the new constitution. But Kiplagat’s commission is regarded by most Kenyans, including major opposition parties such as KANU and LDP and the civil society, as a waste of time and money. Many Kenyans are beginning to become resigned to the fact that Kibaki’s government is not committed to delivering a new constitution and believe that it should be removed in next year’s elections to give way to further democratic reforms, including adopting a new constitutional order.

In any case, Kenya’s growing democracy faces many challenges that include corruption, poverty and all the manifestations of underdevelopment. Further, Kenya is one of the most unequal societies in the world and with the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies the gap between the few rich and the poor majority is expanding.

Political parties are necessary for the process of institutionalising and sustaining democracy. In fact, developing political parties is one of the basic challenges facing Kenya’s multiparty democracy. There are 54 registered political parties in the country with seven of them represented in parliament. But they are more conglomerates of individuals seeking presidential or parliamentary positions than political parties.

There is a need, therefore, for members of political parties in Kenya, starting from the leadership, to come to an understanding of the meaning of a party. Many of the problems within political parties seem to arise because individuals who form them have not sat down to discuss and come to a consensus on the meaning of a party in general and their individual parties in particular.

To be a party people must sit down and tell one another why they are a party. And a party is at the very least a group of people who are united by a common ideology, common vision, common discipline, common moral values and common tactics and strategies for their common struggle and vision. The ideology of the party is summarised in the party manifesto while the party discipline and system of governance is defined in the constitution. The code of conduct summarises the moral values that help to bind party members together in their common struggle to change society for the better and in line with their philosophy as a party.

Consequently, a political party cannot be a political party without a manifesto. It will remain a party without its own stand and direction, a party that reacts to events initiated by others without being able to set its own agenda. Yet, many registered political parties in Kenya remain without manifestos. And those who have them, they are really not party manifestos because they were written by a few individuals – and sometimes even foreigners or donors – and are never studied, discussed, comprehended and imbued by the vast majority of the members, including the majority of the leadership. The basic elements that define political parties are lacking in Kenyan political parties that tend to be created, dominated and sustained by powerful personalities rather than informed and convinced members and become alive only when national elections are announced. Although the leadership of all political parties is composed of members from the diverse ethnic groups of the country, they are still distinguished not by ideologies but by personalities who lead them and their ethnic base. Hitherto, political parties in Kenya hardly distinguish between their members and their voters, between the party and the masses who identify with it, between holders of party cards and actual members of the party.

Lack of appreciation of the meaning of the party and commitment to the party produces lack of party spirit among political parties in the country. This has caused despondency, inertia, anarchy, opportunism and retrogressive tendencies identified with the political parties that include tribalism and even nepotism. Egoism, especially among the leaders, is one of the greatest problems that hinder the progress of political parties in the country. Party leaders or members address meetings, hold press conferences and generally do things for self-aggrandisement rather than for promoting their parties. Many of the leaders of political parties are insecure in their relationship to one another because they are motivated by intrigues, narrow and parochial interests. They feel that if other people in the party rise in the public’s esteem in one way or the other then their future party and public positions will be undermined. So they resort to tribal allegiances, undermine and isolate others while creating sycophants and the culture of sycophancy.

Many times, party leaders readily contribute thousands or even hundreds of thousands of shillings at harambees (popular fundraisings) where people can notice them doing so. But they hardly donate anything to help run their party secretariats that more often than not are crippled by lack of funds. This is because to them the party is nothing other than a vehicle for pursuing the road to a parliamentary seat or the presidency. In fact, many leaders of political parties in Kenya would have nothing to do with their parties if they could not use them for personal gain. That is why political leaders, parliamentarians included, keep on changing parties and they can be in the opposition one day and join the government the next day and leave it when it is not convenient to remain there anymore. With lack of ideological beliefs, opportunism is the order of the day among the political class in Kenya.

With lack of principled and dependable leadership anarchy is part and parcel of the life of political parties in the country. In turn, it is one of the problems that hinder the growth of the political parties. Many cases are reported where members refuse to respect or recognise their leaders or party organs, particularly when these are against their tribal chiefs or the personalities they follow. At other times, members of the party choose the press to abuse or communicate with their party organs or leadership. In-fighting, intrigues, chaos at party meetings, opportunism and betrayal are all manifestations of anarchy that are reported every day. Anarchy is encouraged by the situation where the party is inactive, alienated from its members, the masses and reality on the ground as Kenyan political parties tend to be. Lack of comprehensive policies, effective leadership, internal democracy and a forum that can be utilised by members to convey their views or criticisms to higher party organs breeds anarchy. Under such circumstances, individual members try to take individual initiatives unknown to the party organs albeit, many times, with good intentions of building up the party.

In short, for further development of democracy in the country real political parties based on defined ideologies and that expound internal democracy are as necessary as the new constitution that has yet to be realised. Furthermore, the current political parties will transform themselves into real political parties if they address, among others, the problems analysed in this article. Yet amidst all this democracy is becoming a culture. Kenyans have also realised that they have to be vigilant and struggle to defend their democratic gains while striving for a better society.