How BBI seeks to end the culture of violent, divisive elections in Kenya

BBI lawyers

Lawyers in the BBI case, (from left) Prof Githu Muigai, Mr Mohammed Nyaoga, Ms Esther Ang’awa, Mr Nelson Havi and Mr Elias Mutuma at the Court of Appeal, Nairobi, on June 02, 2021.

Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group

The courts have put a pause on the Building Bridges Initiative reggae. As we await the composition, hearing and determination of the Appellate Bench later this month, we can only hope that whatever happens the dream of a new constitutional order for the country will not be shattered. The stakes are so high.

Proponents of the BBI reggae have made various solid arguments for its case. But one stands out like a sore thumb, especially as we move into an electoral period:  Election related violence and its cyclic nature.

Just a few weeks ago, the country experienced such a tumultuous moment as it sought to fill various electoral seats in by-elections. Just by-elections.

Kenya has always struggled with the decades-old problem of divisive elections. So bad is the situation that presidential polls are now synonymous with violence, with the 1992, 1997, 2007 and 2017 polls sticking out like a sore thumb.

Lasting solution

Notably, it was the violence during the 2017 elections that triggered the handshake between President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and inevitably, finding a lasting solution to this ugly state of affairs topped the nine-point agenda that guided the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

Every five years, during which the country holds a general election, there is a conflict that threatens to destroy the lives of Kenyans, when the country titters on the edge. This problem has been consistent for at least three decades, leading to deep economic and political instability. It is the reason investors have not been committing themselves to long-term projects in the country, causing slow economic growth and job losses.

Under the current system, electioneering periods are defined by strong ethnic divisions and related violence.

Kenyans from all walks of life who shared their views with the BBI task-force made it clear that the violence is caused by the desire for inclusion in the governance of the country. There was a strong feeling that some communities were left salivating as others partook in the feast of the national cake.

Despite the 2010 Constitution introducing devolution, which led to decentralization of resources and power, many still believe the presidency can lead to unequal distribution of public resources and service delivery - with the winning ethnic group(s) taking the lion’s share.

And even when the President appoints members of a community that did not vote for him/her to the Cabinet, this is still not seen as being inclusive. People view these as inconsequential tokens. It is the reason why Kenyans now want an end to the winner-take-all system, a western model.

The model raises the stakes during elections, leading to extreme mistrust in the electoral process and triggering a temptation to rig or reject election results. This results in tension and inter-ethnic conflicts.

Since independence, Kenya has been experimenting with different political models, all of which have not worked.

Between 1963 and 1964, we had a pure parliamentary system. It failed. Between 1964 and 2007, we had a hybrid semi-presidential system while we adopted a hybrid cohabitation system under the National Accord between 2008 and 2013. We have had a pure presidential system since 2013; but none of these has seemed to work.

Peace and stability

Going forward, Kenyans want predictable peace and stability during elections. They are tired of having their lives completely disrupted by hurtful political campaigns.

To achieve this, they told the BBI taskforce they want the President to lead an Executive that enjoys overwhelming support from across the country and drawn from across the ethnic divide. The President will be elected through a popular vote and serve for a maximum of two five-year terms.

The head of state will be deputized by his running mate, who will serve as the deputy president.

After the election, the president will appoint a prime minister, who will be an MP and from a party having majority members in the National Assembly. The PM will be confirmed by MPs. He/she will be the leader of Government business and will supervise the running of Government affairs among other duties. To reduce the wage bill, the Prime Minister will only earn his MP’s salary.

The people also want a strong opposition that will hold the Executive accountable through checks and balances. That is why the BBI provides for the loser of a presidential election to become the Leader of the Official Opposition and an automatic member of the National Assembly if his/her party is not represented in government. The other parties that are not in government will form part of the official opposition.

To challenge the Government’s positions in Parliament, the Leader of Official Opposition shall be facilitated to form a shadow cabinet.

In choosing members of the Cabinet, who will now be called cabinet ministers not cabinet secretaries, the President shall consult the Prime Minister. The ministers will be drawn from among MPs and technocrats.

 That is unlike in the current system where the Cabinet is dominated by technocrats who are not directly accountable to the people.

These BBI recommendations, if adopted, are likely to go a long way in ending divisive elections in Kenya.