If Miguna Miguna is the Prime Minister's advisor on coalition affairs, then Raila Odinga is in more trouble than we thought. Writing in today's The Star, Mr Miguna attempts to equate the rebellion by William Ruto and his acolytes to a breach of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act. Though he does not refer to them by name, it is clear that Mr Miguna intended them to be sufficiently chastised and to reconsider their wayward ways. His choice of language is deplorable. In a civilised country, to which status Kenya still aspires, you do not refer Members of Parliament, no matter how much you disagree with them, as 'indisciplined brats'.
Mr Miguna glosses over the full import of Article 4. Kenya is, first and foremost, a sovereign Republic. In case Mr Miguna's time as an active advocate have severely crippled his recollection of the definition of 'Republic', here it is again from Black's Law Dictionary: "A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elects representatives who exercise that power." It is only after this declaration in Article 4.1 that the Constitution proceeds to declare Kenya a "multi-party democratic State." The classic American definition of 'democracy' is apposite: "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It is in the definition of 'multi-partyism' that Mr Miguna lets down his interlocutors - he does not define it at all! However, it is safe to assume it means a political system where more than one political party is permitted to participate in governance and government.
What Mr Miguna attempts to demonstrate is that the Ruto-led rebellion is a threat to the multi-party system in Kenya, rather than a threat to the Orange Democratic Movement Party. He is, to say the least, wrong. His allegation that "anything done by a party leader or member against the interests of his or her party is [therefore] unconstitutional" must be challenged. Mr Ruto and his acolytes are well within their rights to challenge the direction in which ODM is being led, especially in the tone that the Prime Minister has taken towards the Ruto-led rebellion. His actions do not in any way jeopardise the multi-party system; rather, they place in great jeopardy the Prime Minister as the leader of ODM and therefore, his place as the Prime Minister of Kenya. The National Accord and Reconciliation Act does not recognise Raila Odinga as the Prime Minister; it recognises the leader of the political party with the largest number of members in the National Assembly as the Prime Minister. That person, for the moment, is Raila Odinga.
Kenya, today, is undoubtedly modelled on the Westminster Model of Parliamentary Democracy. However, there are striking differences between the UK system and Kenya's current system, the most notable being that Kenya's is undoubtedly a Presidential system with Westminster-style accouterments, while the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with an elected bicameral Parliament. A major difference is between the place of the UK's Prime Minister and the Kenyan one; the Prime Minister of Great Britain is the head of government, while the Queen is the head of state. In Kenya, the Prime Minister is a 'co-principal' who is neither the head of state nor the head of government, and whose place in the constitutional line of succession is murky at best.
The issues that Mr Miguna raises as being a threat to our Constitution are figments of his peculiarly hyperactive political imagination. However, a few things that his party has done have been a threat to Constitutionalism, the rule of law and democracy. Article 91(2) prohibits political parties from engaging in or encouraging violence by, or intimidation of, its members, supporters, opponents or any other person. The manner in which the Prime Minister and his defenders in the ODM Party have treated William Ruto and his band of rebels is intimidation of the worst kind; it is apparent that the PM is incapable of countenancing opinions or views different from his own when it comes to the vision of the party.
Mr Miguna alludes to ideology, platform and programmes as the glue that holds political parties together; yet it is increasingly apparent that the only ideology that is welcome in the ODM is the one that acknowledges Raila Odinga's inalienable right to succeed President Kibaki. ODM is neither conservative, liberal, liberal democratic, Christian democratic, social democratic or socialist; in fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it is more than mildly authoritarian, especially in the manner in which internal dissent is quashed and internal elections constantly postponed to give the incumbent office-bearers time to re-strategise after suffering setbacks. If the party is unable to foster internal debate or democracy, if it will not countenance internal dissent, and if it will ignore the clear provisions of law, what is to stop it, if it comes to power, from running Kenyan as its own personal fief? Why should we trust that the party that is least democratic will increase the democratic space of ordinary Kenyans?
ODM, indeed all political parties in Kenya, has failed to inculcate democratic ideals either in its top leadership or in its rank-and-file membership. It has failed to allow the flourishing of differing and different ideas in the hopes of identifying an ideology to suit its circumstances. It has failed to identify alternative leadership models or ideas. If this were 1969, ODM would be KANU, where old and aging men (always men) decide everything, and acolytes carry out their masters' wishes. It is a caricature of the mass-movement that defeated Kibaki's demon-seed of a Draft Constitution in 2005. It is a pale shadow of itself. Raila Odinga must shoulder some of the blame for its dire state of affairs. As must William Ruto and the likes of Miguna Miguna.
No comments:
Post a Comment