Everyone and his uncle is looking at the 2012 general elections through spectacles of the past, making ethnic calculations about the chances of this or the other presidential candidate. The expectations are that the 'major' ethnic communities are set to ensure that one of their own will be the next occupant of the house on the hill. In this context, the presidency is seen as the exclusive preserve of either the Kikuyu, the Luo or the Kamba, with the Luhya being taken as the perennial bridesmaids, never the brides. As it is, Prime Minister Odinga is seen as the 'Luo' candidate, deputy Prime Minister Kenyatta as the 'Kikuyu' candidate, Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, the 'Kamba' candidate, and Deputy Prime Minister Kenyatta, the 'Kikuyu' candidate.
If this were 2007, then the calculations of how the respective ethnic communities would vote would have been more than valid. However, perhaps it is time to re-think the vote-bank theory. It is possible that the changed constitutional landscape may require a re-examination of the vote-bank politics of the past two decades, and instead, focus on the manner in which a winning presidential candidate needs to act to secure victory. For one, the existence of the Political Parties Act, flawed as it may be, is a crucial factor in determining victory. So is the requirement that the Executive be divorced from the Legislature entirely. The creation of the Senate also changes the manner in which parties and their nominees operate, especially in cosmopolitan areas.
The Political Parties Act requires that all registered political parties have a national, as opposed to regional, footprint. In 2007, only ODM demonstrated that it was a truly national party, only being locked out of Central Kenya. ODM-K and PNU, rightly or wrongly, were seen as "Ukambani' and Mount Kenya parties respectively. They have done precious little to change this perception. Neither have FORD-K and New FORD-K done much to change the perception that they are Luhya parties. Martha Karua's Narc-K, on the other hand, is trying its hardest to distance itself from even a whiff of ethnicisation. Looking at its office bearers, one can see that it is as cosmopolitan as it gets. However, given the animus with which Martha Karua and Danson Mungatana are regarded with by the main backers of PNU, it is hard to see how she will turn her cosmopolitan party into a contender in 2012. The Political Parties Act takes its cue from the Constitution, which not only makes it very difficult for a presidential candidate to hunt for votes only in his ethnic backyard. It also makes it hard to strike alliances of convenience because he cannot promise jobs for his backers in his administration. Therefore, the winning candidate must have broad national appeal if he is to head the next government. Further, his appeal must be strong enough to ensure the election of a majority of his supporters in the National assembly and the Senate as well as taking control of a majority of the County Governments. If one is hoping to rely on the arithmetics of 2007, they should give up now and bow out of the contest.
The people who are still obsessed with the numbers need a new calculus. Whether Uhuru Kenyatta and Martha Karua split the Kikuyu vote, or whether Kalonzo Musyoka can count on the Kalenjin and Kikuyu votes should Uhuru and William Ruto find themselves in The Hague for an extended period, is immaterial at this stage. This is true also of whether Raila Odinga can count on the votes of the Luo and the Luhya at the hustings. Those numbers are meaningless. The winning candidate must take at least half the votes cast in at least 24 of the Counties to secure victory. In order for his agenda to be implemented, he must control half of the 290 elected MPs and his people must take the governors' mansions in at least 24 of the 47 counties and at least 24 of the 47 contested Senate seats. Harping on whether the kikuyu, or the Kamba, or the Luo, or the Luhya will vote en bloc, misses the point by a mile.
No comments:
Post a Comment