When the Parliamentary Committee on the Implementation of the Constitution declared that it would take over the process of shepherding delayed Bills through the National Assembly despite the clear provisions of the Constitution allowing the extension of time by one year (Art 261.2), the stridency of the declaration by, among others, Millie Odhiambo-Mabona (ODM, Nominated) should have raised alarm bells among the commentariat. When one sees the manner in which a critical Bill has been mangled and bastardised by the National Assembly, one should be aware that the 2012 elections have superseded the national interest. An example, of course, is the Political Parties (Amendment) Bill, 2011, which has been sent to the 3rd Reading this week: the amendments made to the Bill to permit the formation of pre-election coalitions and alliances is a betrayal of the ideals, such as they were, that led to the adoption of the presidential system of government.
Under the presidential system, the President is no longer a member of the legislature while no member of the legislature shall serve in the executive branch. It is possible to have a divided government: one party dominates the legislature while another party heads the executive branch. In Parliamentary democracies, it is possible to form a coalition government as the leader of the largest party in the legislature gets to form the executive, or, as in the case of Britain, the leader of the largest coalition in parliament gets to form the executive. In the United States, in contrast, there is no record of a coalition government having ever been formed since the War of Independence. Abraham Lincoln famously had a Cabinet made up of a team of rivals, that is, members of his Cabinet were drawn from both parties, but it was never considered a coalition government; the legislative branch was still divided along party lines, and members of each party looked out for the interests of their party.
The members of the Gang of Seven who have sponsored this demon-seed of an amendment will come to regret it. If their intention is that they will balance the presidential ticket between two of their members, it is important that they remember that the Constitution creates a system of checks and balances between the three branches, each with their own unique and largely autonomous functions. The possibility of a divided government still looms large, especially in 2012. Opinion polls continue to show that no single presidential contender will garner the required 50+1% votes cast in the first round and there is a very large possibility that the 2012 presidential election will go to a second round of voting. More importantly, given the divided nature of our existing political parties, no party will dominate Parliament. Therefore, there exists the possibility that not only will the winning presidential ticket not do so in the first round, but that the party (or parties) of the President and Deputy President will not command a majority in Parliament, thereby negating the formation of the coalition in the first place. If the formation of the coalition is only meant as a cynical ploy to win power, rather than ensure stability, then it will fail at its objective.
The MPs who sponsored the amendment have not thought through on the implications of their decision. How they hope to benefit from the formation of a coalition remains a mystery; the Executive branch will not accommodate them or their allies while the President and Deputy President will have no say on the legislative agenda of the Legislative Branch. Given the character and nature of our politicians it is possible that the coalition partners will have a great falling out before their term has ended which will bring into crisis the governance of this nation. If the members of the two branches have a falling out, either can sabotage the operations of the other: Parliament may stymie the passage of Bills that are important to the Executive while the latter may veto any Bills it is unhappy with.
It seems that the further we go along the implementation of the Constitution, the clearer it becomes that our politicians should not be in the driving seat when it comes to implementation. This time we cannot claim that we were not informed or that we were not aware of the naked maneuvering of the political class; they have not been shy of their intentions and their motives. It is time we took back the process and ensured that only laws that benefit us get enacted.
No comments:
Post a Comment