1 Masitta/Electoral
C HRIS MASITTA
PRESENTED AT THE 3RD INTERNATIONAL KABARAK CONFERENCE ON
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
ELECTORAL REFORMS: EXTINGUISHING ETHNIC HEGEMONY IN THE
KENYAN EXECUTIVE
2 Masitta/Electoral
“Friends are not permanent, but rather for use in the interest of controlling the highly
centralized executive authority.” (Holmquist,Githinji,2009:102).
Kenyas electoral system is one that has been plagued with controversy and which has
propagated ethnic conflict and therefore with the first elections under the new
constitution, Kenyans had a lot of hope of a new Kenya. What unfolded after the March
2013 General elections left many reeling at theendless tragic possibilities that the
electoral system could bring upon Kenyas political infrastructure. The new constitution
had not cured many of the demons of ethnicity that have pervaded Kenya and what
was even more apparent was the installation of an ethnic hegemony and a political
dynasty that has been predicted to last for 20 years. This discourse endures to unravel
the ethnic hegemony that the Kikuyu community has installed in Kenyas‟political
sphere and takes a peek at viable electoral systems and seeks to extinguish the ethnic
hegemony by postulating ways and means of changing the current electoral system to a
system that will ensure that inclusiveness of all the other 41 ethnic communities is
guaranteed in politics and that the system will never negate the possibility of any ethnic
group ascending to Presidency.
In his book Reilly(2001) notes that the jeopardies of “`tribalism' and ethnic division”
are the key reasons for the failure of democracies in modern Africa(1).He notes that
“there are countless electoral system variations, but essentially the majority fall into
three broad families” (Reilly et.al1999:27) plurality majority systems, semi-proportional
systems, and proportional representation (PR) systems(Reilly, 2001:14). These constitute
the major electoral systems used for national elections in the world today.The way the
electoral votes cast in a national election translate to seats won in the legislature depict
how proportional an electoral system is(Reilly et.al 1999p.27). There is no single
electoral system that is likely to be best for all divided societies(Reilly et.al1999 :1).
Designers of electoral systems shy away from the „one size fits all‟ approach of
recommending one system for all countries(Reilly et.al,1999:10).It therefore becomes
3 Masitta/Electoral
obvious that each political system offers certain benefits and disadvantages in terms of
the representation of different groups in society(Matlosa,2003:16). Variables that will be
taken into consideration in changing an electoral system in Kenya are:
1. Knowledge of the societal division,
2. Nature of the political system, and
3. The process that led to the adoption of the electoral system being practiced.
In his other book, Reilly(2001) postulates that Democracy is inherently difficult in
societies with deep ethnic cleavages that are ancient and permanent or exist as a form of
social construction always moving and always changing (Holmquist, Githinji,2009:102).
Elections in such societies can encourage extremist ethnic appeals, zero-sum political
behavior and ethnic conflict, and consequently often lead to the breakdown of
democracy(p.i).
THE ETHNIC QUESTION
Politicization of ethnicity has been a key tact that has been used in the handful of
elections that Kenya has had (Bodil: 1073).The question that Kenyans need to ask is
whether it is possible to design an electoral and political systems which avoid conflicts
but promote inter-ethnic accommodation.Jaini in his article Hierarchy, Hegemony and
Dominance: Politics of Ethnicity in Uttar Pradesh(1996) defines ethnicity as the degree of
conformity of members of a collectivity to shared norms in the course of interaction and
it is primarily the political community that inspires such „ethnic aspirations‟(p.220). A
system that “facilitates cross-communal communication, bargaining and
interdependence between rival politicians and the groups they represent”(Reilly,
2001:4) is an imperative if ethnic hegemonies are to be smothered. Political competition
propagates the politicization of ethnic demands in which winner takes-all politics
where some groups are permanently included and some are permanently excluded.
Therefore politicians in such divided societies as Kenya have immense incentives to
play the ethnic card (Reilly, 2001:4). “Ethnic identity influences political and social
4 Masitta/Electoral
behavior. It may influence who one trusts, does business with, gets married to or votes
for (Gutierrez-Romero,2013 p.291).”Obviously, the various ethnic groups occupying the
7 of the 8 provinces will not accept to be governed in perpetuity by a Kikuyu-Kalenjin
tribal cartel which has already declared that they will close roads to democratic
elections. Aggrieved communities will in turn seek for solution such as cessation. Thus
the politics of „Majimbo‟ or regionalism are born with every ethnic group wanting to
assert its destiny through self-determination . To avoid this there needs to be electoral
systems that would extinguish what could be Kikuyu-Kalenjin hegemony in Kenya‟s
politics until Kingdom comes.The Kikuyu, Luhya, Luo, Kamba and Kalenjin consitute
70 per cent of the population, leaving the other 37 communities to their mercies
(Business Daily).Reilly asserts that certain electoral systems, “will provide rational
political actors with incentives towards cooperation, moderation and accommodation
between themselves and their rivals, while others will lead to “hostile, uncooperative
and non-accommodative behavior” (Reilly, 2001:6). A core way of combating such
ethnic pedagogy is to design electoral rules and laws that make politicians reciprocally
dependent on the votes of members of other ethnic groups rather than their own. In
order to gain support from other tribes politicians must then behave to electorate in a
manner that is very appealing and that would boost accommodative behavior on both
sides of the divide (Reilly, 2001:10). Gutierrez-Romero (2013) states that the voting
choices of Kenyans is strongly influenced by ethnic origin and ethnic grievances (p.308).
Although not the only Politician who does this,the fact that Kenyas‟ current President
prolifically uses the Kikuyu language while addressing members of his tribe over
controversial issues only adds onto the theparanoia and mistrust that the Agikuyu
share with other communities(Bodil:1075). It is not contested that the Agikuyu voted
overwhelmingly for their „son‟ to ascend to the coveted seat and therefore the
continuous use of the language for the Amherst graduate during campaign periods to
bash his opponents can only be translated as a ploy to strengthen the ethnicity and
inculcate a feeling of „Us vs. Them‟. In an electoral democracy, the kikuyu –the
dejuresuperior community possesses the power to abuse its electoral strength against
5 Masitta/Electoral
the minority to elect a government that suppresses other communities. The imposition
of diversity poses serious challenges for democratic politics and places ethnic
governments like Mr. Kenyatta on their toes( Swain et.al:2009)
THE PROBLEM: Ethnic Hegemony in the Kenyan Presidency
Daniel Posner states that the one unique feature about African politics is that it is
profoundly President-centered and the culmination of battles political amongst various
communities (p.1305).The UHURUTO government a product of the 2013 Kenyan
elections has endeared to establish a political and ethnic hegemony, which means a
predominance of a cohort of politicians and citizenry associated with the Jubillee Party
agenda and the furtherance of ethnic dominance in Kenya. This cohort controls access
to political office within the territory they claim as their state to such an extent that they
can bar from office politicians who would advance alternative nation-state projects.It is
the institutionalization of dominant symbolic framework (Roeder,2011:82). A
framework that puts Kenyans in automation and believing that NO other is greater than
a Kikuyu President.The combined Kenyanpopulation is now “united by ethnicity but
divided by nationality”( Roeder,2011: 108). There can be no destructive assertion to
national cohesion than the assertion of a Kikuyu elitism in the socio-political sphere of
Kenya.Gutierrez-Romero notes that the unique ethnic diversity existing in Kenya-“a
system where the winner takes all must beprevented,”as it will propagate more
ethnicity and drive more Kenyans into their ethnic enclaves. This is what a Kikuyu
hegemony in the executive postulates as an imminent eventuality. Kenyan voters will
go to the polling stations not driven by agenda or policy, but the driving force being to
install a member of their own community into the Presidency.
Jaini(1996), points out theGramscian view that it hegemony is the supremacy of a social
group or class manifesting itself in two ways
1. Domination/ coercion
2. Intellectual/ Moral Leadership
6 Masitta/Electoral
This ethnic hegemony that is being entrenched in politics is characterized by equivocal
consent by the populace and becomes so powerful that it counteracts dissidence. It is
the consensual nature of ideological domination and is practically brainwashing. The
Kikuyu Kalenjin hegemonic assertions are plagued by contradictions of a forlorn cry
for national unity and intergration and sustained by deceptions that this Hegemony has
all Kenyans in mind(Jaini,1996:218).The Kikuyu dominance emanates from economic
and political success that was available to the Agikuyu to the exclusion of other
ethnicities and therefore the same opportunities were clearly not afforded paripasu, and
therefore this „capital accumulators‟ of Kenya have placed themselves a few light years
away from other communities (Holmquist,Githinji,2009:102).Uhuru Kenyatta Kenyas
current president has been adversely linked to a social group- the Mungiki, which
group has been a purveyor of ethnic animosities and engrains ethnic supremacy
amongst the Kikuyu. Ethnic hegemony removes legitimacy out of any presidency and
authenticity of such an office is only felt amongst a chosen few
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.
STV (IRE)
PR
List-PR
(S.A)
Plurality-
Majority Semi-PR
FPTP
(UK)
AV
(Aus.) Block
Vote
(Palest)
Two-
Round
(KEN)
Parallel
(JAP.)
SNTV
(JORD.)
MMP
(GER.)
7 Masitta/Electoral
Key: FPTP: First-past-the-post; AV: Alternative vote; SNTV: Single non-transferable vote; PR:
Proportional representation; MMP: Mixed-member proportional; STV: Single transferable vote.
(Matlosa,2003:23)
Plurality/Majority Systems
The First Past The Post (FPTP) System is the simplest of the electoral systems in the
world.(Matlosa,2003:27).It is also the most commonly used electoral model the winner
is the candidate with the most votes butnot necessarily an absolute majority of the
votes(Reilly et.al,1999 p.28). This is the system that is employed in Kenyas legislature
electoral System. It is a simple majority or winner takes all system. The candidate in an
election who wins most votes cast will fill the position regardless of how many votes
he/she got in relation to the opponents, it is hinged on plurality of the vote rather than
majority of the votes and therefore a considerable number of votes does not form part of
the final determination of the election results(Matlosa,2003:27). First Past The Post, is
defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity, and does not create quagmires and
ambiguities in elections. However FPTP has excluded smaller ethnic communities,
minorities, women and smaller political parties from the reigns of leadership. In Kenya,
this system has encouraged the development of ethnic hegemonies in political parties
which may base their campaigns and policy platforms on conceptions that are attractive
to the majority of people in their district or region but exclude or are hostile to others
and this was quite evident with the TheNational Alliance party being an exclusive
Kikuyu outfit, Orange Democratic Movement being a Nyanza party amongst many
other political parties whose names are synonymous with a particular ethnic group or
region and accentuates regional fiefdoms where these parties win most if not all the
seats in a particular region .
The majoritarian approach employs the Two Round System (TRS) in Kenyas
Presidential elections (Reilly et.al 1999p.28) that is enshrined in the Constitution of
Kenya 2010 and is geared towards ensuring that an absolute majority takes office.
Article 138 (4) of the Kenyan Constitution stipulates that a candidate shall be declared
8 Masitta/Electoral
elected as President of Kenya if the Candidate receives more than half of all the votes
cast in the election and at least twenty-five percent of the votes cast in each of more
than half of the counties and this is where this paper will determine the deep flaws
that are not inherent with the system of Majoritarian election/two-round system, but
the fact that the system cannot capture the deep ethnic cleavages that are manifest in
Kenya and the likelihood of stalemate was alive and well during Kenyas Presidential
Election of 2013. TRS is inherently costly to the Government and also to candidates in
the eventuality that the second round is activated(Wamugo:3). Reilly gives two
illustrations of African countries show how close Kenya came close to such a stalemate.
“In Angola in 1992, in what was supposed to be a peacemaking election, rebel
leader Jonas Savimbi came second in the first round of a TRS presidential
election to Jose dos Santos with 40 per cent of the vote as opposed to dos
Santos‟ 49 per cent. As it was clear that he would lose the run-off phase, he had
little incentive to play the democratic opposition game and immediately
restarted the civil war in Angola, which went on for another decade. In Congo
(Brazzaville) in 1993, prospects of a government landslide in the second round
of a TRS election prompted the opposition to boycott the second round and take
up arms. In both cases, the clear signal that one side would probably lose the
election was the trigger for violence.” (Reilly et.al,1999 p.53).
It suffices to say that “plurality elections for the presidency and simultaneous
presidential and legislative elections are often seen as helping to focus the party system
into fewer and more viable challengers for power (Reilly et.al,1999p8-9).” The dangers
inherent in vesting absolute power in a directly elected President through the use of a
plurality method in a diverse or ethnically divided country like Kenya where no single
group has an absolute majority can be devastating for legitimacy or for healing wounds
of yesteryears. (Reilly et.al,1999 p8-9).
Proportional Representation Systems
9 Masitta/Electoral
The rationale behind Proportional Representation systems is to reduce the disparity
between a party‟s share of the national vote and its share of the parliamentary seats
gained at any one election such that if a major party such as the Jubillee Coalition with
its pyrrhic victory of 50.7 per cent of the votes, it should win approximately 50.7 per
cent of the seats, and the CORD Coalition with 43 per cent of the votes should also have
acquired the same percentage of the legislative seats. Proportional representation is
hinged on party lists where political parties present a list of candidate‟s bases on
national or regional parity with the ultimate aim of them taking up the allotted
positions (Reilly et.al,1999 p.29) The PR system reduces the uncharacteristic results that
emanate from plurality/Majoritarian systems and is better placed to produce a more
representative legislature. Establishment of a Kikuyu/ Kalenjin ethnic Hegemony
further fragments the Kenyan political arena which is already deeply ethnicized and
therefore the inclusion of all ethnic groups would be paramount in furtherance of
extinguishing such hegemonies. The PR system can be lauded for translating the votes
cast in an election to the seats won by a particular party (Reilly et.al,1999 p.57) This
negates election acrimony and ensures that parties that get even 1% of the total votes
cast will get 1% of the total Number of allocated seats and encourages smaller parties to
take part in such elections and the likelihood of political parties venturing beyond their
home base and comfort zones is possible. This eventually builds ideological based
political fora as opposed to Political parties pervaded with frailty.This system is
notorious for installing coalition governments which seek to distribute and share power
have been found to reduce the likelihood of conflict (Gutierrez-Romero,2013 p.308). A
democratic legislature should be one that is representative of all and the PR system
ideally achieves this (Lijphart,p.5). The following table shows the translation of
presidential results by Matlosa as depicted in the outcome of the parliamentary
elections. It can be noted that wide gaps and disparities between the two elections are
negated.
Mozambique’s election results, 1999
10 Masitta/Electoral
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
PARTY CANDIDATE
TOTAL VOTES
% OF TOTAL
WON VOTES
WON
FRELIMO CHISSANO
2 338 333 52.3
RENAMO
DHLAKAMA
2 133 655 47.7
Total 4 471 988 100.0
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION
PARTY/
COALITION
TOTAL VOTES
WON
% OF TOTAL
VOTES
PARLIAMENTARY
SEATS
FRELIMO 2 005 703 48.53 133
RENAMO 1 603 811 38.81 117
Other 532 789
12.66 -
Total 4 132 303 100.00 250
11 Masitta/Electoral
(Matlosa,2003:28)
The List Proportional Representation System entails voters voting for a party, and
parties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the vote in the electoral
district(Reilly et.al,1999p.60). A populated list of candidates will be used to select
winning candidates in the order in which they appear on the list. The List PR considers
the whole country as one single constituency for the election, hence there is no need for
the delimitation of election boundaries. It is opinion-based electoral system and not
based on electoral units( Matlosa,2003:34). The lists populated can either be open, closed
or free, in which the open or free lists give the voter autonomy to choose between a
party and candidate(Reilly et.al,1999 p.84) however a majority of the lists in various
electoral systems are closed.
Mixed Systems.
This system has features of the FPTP/plurality/ majority system and the Proportional
Representation system but which run independently of each other and known as the
parallel system (Reilly et.al p.29). The MixedMember Proportional system(MMP) is
meant to mitigate and compensate for the disparities that may arise out of the
plurality/majoritarian system and this mixed system is now an acceptable system in
emerging democracies (Reilly et.al 1999 p.29)MMP operates when “the results of the
two types of election are linked, with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent
on what happens in the plurality/majority (or other) district seats and compensating for
any disproportionality that arises there.” For example if a party wins about 10 % of the
vote nationally in a plurality or majority vote but does attain the 10% representation in
parliament then the PR list will be used to award seats and bring it to par with the
national tally(Reilly et.al,1999 p91). “In Venezuela there are 100 FPTP seats while the
rest are National List PR seats and extra compensatory seats. In Mexico 200 List PR
seats compensate for imbalances in the results of the 300 FPTP seats, which are usually
12 Masitta/Electoral
high. Lesotho‟s post-conflict electoral system contains 80 FPTP seats and 40
compensatory ones” (Reilly et.al,1999 p91). The amalgamation of the
plurality/majoritarian systems and the PR systems in Kenya will be go a long way in
alleviating ethnic hegemony both in Kenya‟s presidential and Bicameral elections. The
ideality of a system such as MMP is phenomenal and if adopted in a country like Kenya
the likelihood of disproportionality will be reduced to almost negligible.
TOWARDS A CHANGE IN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Purpose Of An Electoral System.
1. It should translate the votes cast into seats won in a legislative chamber
2. A way by which people can be held accountable by the electorate
3. Structures boundaries of acceptable political discourse and for politicians to
structure the delivery of their discourse in a way that is appealing to the
electorate
In a deeply divided ethnic society like Kenya, there is a likelihood that an undesirable
political system may widen this divide(Reilly et.al,1999: 6) and therefore Kenyans need
to proceed with precision if the electoral reforms are to take place.
Elections are not sufficient by themselves for representative democracy, by any means,
but they are a necessary minimal condition in achieving this end.Majoritarian electoral
systems are designed to promote accountable single-party government by awarding the
greatest representation to the two leading parties with the most votes. Proportional
electoral systems aim to generate inclusive and consensual power sharing by producing
legislatures that show some semblance of vote sharing. (Pippa,2004 p.4). The electoral
system of the United Kingdom underwent radical changes during the Blair regime.
Japan has also moved from a single transferable vote to a mixed system of proportional
representation and First Past The Post system. It is apparent that various Kenyan
president have ascended to power through their ethnic groups and at the same time
13 Masitta/Electoral
give unrivaled support to their coethnics after ascension to power. This electoral system
reform was envisaged in the Constitutional review process but the aspirations never
made it into the constitution save for the ambiguous two round system that may leave
Kenya in a perpetual judicial process at the Kenyan supreme court(Business Daily).
Tensions were rife during the Supreme court hearing of RailaOdinga v. Uhuru Kenyatta,
William Ruto and the Interim Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. The
controversies that shroud the Kenyan two round system of presidential elections were
alive and well with the possibility of violence in case the Supreme court went against
the putative winner(Business Daily).An aggrieved candidate is left with alarmingly
inadequate opportunities for redress and even less time since the second round must be
held within thirty days of the first round.The Lacuna in the constitution on procedure at
presidential elections casts a shadow of doubt on the viability of the TRS(Wamugo:2)
FEASABLE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
COLLEGIATE SYSTEM
The African Policy Institute has put forth and bolstered progressive notions of electoral
reforms through introduction of an Electoral College. The electoral college will be a
system that officially elects the President of Kenya via special electors. These electors
will be equal to the number of Members of Parliament and senators that a county has
and are elected the same way the legislative representatives are elected during the party
nominations or primaries. Therefore there will be 384 electors based on the 290 elected
members of parliament, the 47 elected women representatives and the 47 elected
members of the senate. Each elector will have one vote for the presidency and one vote
for the Deputy President. Electors are pledged to presidential candidates and in the
eventuality that the presidential candidate they pledged to happens to win the county
votes, then they become the electors of that particular county. Although the names of
the presidential candidates will be listed on the ballot box, in actuality, the voters are
actually voting for the electors who will eventually vote in the President. Each county
will have a designated number of electoral votes and once the electors in a particular
14 Masitta/Electoral
county elect the Presidential candidate then the candidate automatically bags the
county electoral votes. The candidate who receives an absolute majority of 193 electoral
votes wins the presidency.The collegiate system is an indirect plurality/majority
system that ensures that not only numbers count but a broader geographical
representation and acceptance is gained. The following data from the Interim
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission exemplifies the application of the
electoral college in Kenya
IEBC DATA ON THE TOP TWO CONTENDERS
RAILA
ODINGA
COUNTIES
UHURU
KENYATTA
COUNTIES
MOMBASA
69.77
MANDERA
92.33
KWALE 80.74 ISIOLO 55.41
KILIFI
83.74
MERU
89.41
TANARIVER 61.41 THARAKA-
NITHI
92.38
LAMU
COUNTY
51.98
EMBU 89.00
TAITA
TAVETA
81.56
NYANDARUA 97.11
GARISSA
48.67
NYERI 96.33
WAJIR
49.59
KIRINYAGA 95.99
MARSABIT 48.78 MURANGA 95.92
15 Masitta/Electoral
KITUI 79.53 KIAMBU 90.21
MACHAKOS 85.89 WEST POKOT 73.33
MAKUENI 90.73 UASIN GISHU 74.26
TURKANA 67.53 ELGEYO
MARAKWET
92.07
SAMBURU 57.62 NANDI 81.52
TRANS NZOIA 46.03 BARINGO 87.93
NAROK 50.21 LAIKIPIA 85.49
KAKAMEGA 63.84 NAKURU 80.19
BUNGOMA 52.83 KERICHO 90.74
BUSIA 85.62 BOMET 92.68
SIAYA 98.47 KAJIADO 52.36
KISUMU 96.64
HOMABAY 98.93
MIGORI 86.38
KISII 67.93
NYAMIRA 66.26
NAIROBI 49.00
VIHIGA NO WIN NO WIN
TOTAL NO OF
COUNTIES
WON
26 20
(IEBC:2013)
HYPOTHESIS
COUNTY WON
BY ODINGA
ELECTORAL
VOTES
COUNTY WON
BY KENYATTA
ELECTORAL
VOTES
MOMBASA 7 MANDERA 7
16 Masitta/Electoral
KWALE 5 ISIOLO 3
KILIFI 8
MERU 10
TANARIVER 4 THARAKA-
NITHI
(130,000WIN)
4
LAMU
COUNTY
3
EMBU 5
TAITA
TAVETA
5
NYANDARUA
(232,000 WIN)
6
GARISSA
(91,000 WIN)
7
NYERI 7
WAJIR
7
KIRINYAGA 5
MARSABIT 5 MURANGA 8
KITUI 9 KIAMBU 13
MACHAKOS 9 WEST POKOT 5
MAKUENI 7 UASIN GISHU 7
TURKANA 7 ELGEYO
MARAKWET
5
SAMBURU 4 NANDI 7
17 Masitta/Electoral
TRANS NZOIA 6 BARINGO 7
NAROK 7 LAIKIPIA 4
KAKAMEGA 13 NAKURU 12
BUNGOMA 10 KERICHO 7
BUSIA 8 BOMET 6
SIAYA 7 KAJIADO 6
KISUMU 8
HOMABAY 9
MIGORI 9
KISII 10
NYAMIRA 5
NAIROBI 18
VIHIGA NO WIN (6
Electoral Votes)
NO WIN
TOTAL NO. OF
ELECTORAL
VOTES WON
223 154
Considering the Hypothesis above Raila Odinga would not have won the popular vote
but would have won the electoral vote by negating the ethnic card that was played by
the other presidential candidate to only consolidate votes from his ethnic community
and his running mates‟. The inherent nature of the Kenyan society does not allow for
18 Masitta/Electoral
the popular vote to take cognizance because this would negate the national outlook of
elections as exhibited in the march 2013 general elections. The hypothesis also shows
that very populous counties are not necessarily allocated more electorate votes than
least popular counties but the electors are based on representatives to the Parliament
from that particular county
WHY ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Electoral College system of Voting will rubbish the popular vote that has proved to be
controversial after the 2013 general elections. Uhuru Kenyatta won the election by
consolidating votes from only 2 of the most populous provinces in Kenya- The Rift
Valley and Central provinces and the very least populated North Eastern Province,
while the looser Raila Odinga won the rest of the 5 provinces. This win exemplified the
assertion of this discourse that the election of a Kenyan president could infinitely
remain in these two ethnic communities. The irrelevancy of this popular vote will be a
motivating factor for ethnic politicians to venture and broaden their scope of
inclusiveness since they will only be able to amass electoral votes from their provinces
albeit populous will never meet the threshold of the electoral college majority to win the
Presidency.
The presidential vote will also be widespread such that it is not only votes of heavily
populated areas that matter but votes of all areas even the least populated that in
totality contribute towards a presidency. Therefore the residents of Mandera will not be
intimidated by the votes of urban areas like Kisumu. Minority groups are better
represented and their presence in an electoral process becomes profoundly imminent
and a presidential candidate will have to court their support because they represent a
„swing vote‟ that they cannot afford to lose. Political parties will move away from ethnic
underpinnings and will begin to have an ideological base that becomes inculcated into
the Kenyan people. Hence one is born knowing what kind of ideological base he /she
represent. For the most part many americansknow that they are either born democrat or
19 Masitta/Electoral
republican. This epitaph of „partyism‟ is tolerable than the one of labeling oneself
black,white,Luo or Kikuyu. To exemplify the assertion of ethnicity in Politics, Mr.
Kenyatta‟s debut into politics in 1997 was in his backyard of Gatundu south. No one
was more Kikuyu than Kenyatta since he was the darling son of Kenyas‟ First president,
a Kikuyu icon. So it was shocking whenever he was rejected by the electorate because of
running on a KANU Party ticket which was synonymous with the Kalenjins. He had to
be politically and ethnically correct(Posner,2007p1316). The electoral college will
eliminate such ethnocentrism . Electoral college system discourage the formation of
briefcase political parties that sprout in Kenya every election season and designates
competition between two representative parties that have the basic requirements of
parties as envisioned at Article 91 of the Constitution of Kenya(Lijphart p.5).
Single-Transferable Vote.
This system is ideal to the Kenyan scenario and mirrors the two round system but
negates the majoritarianism that the two round system has. It is part of the PR regime
and therefore could afford the Kenyan voter peace of mind that the election will not be
pervaded by ethnicity. At a general election voters are allowed to rank in order of
preference their candidates on the ballot box. The votes are then tallied and the top two
contenders proceed if no one secures an absolute majority by having the rest of the
voters preferences of the bottom canditates shared amongst the two contenders. If one
of them secures an absolute majority from the preference voting then they are elected. A
quota for proceeding in the election is always set by considering the number of
registered voters in a constituency. In such a system a Presidential has to appeal
extensively and equally across ethnic divides and it would be impossible for a
candidate to win if he/ she does not court communities outside their comfort zone.
This negates the two round systemand the election is taken care of with the first round
vote. An appropriate example is where a quota has been set at 5000 votes for every
candidate, then the candidate who does not attain such a quota is automatically kicked
20 Masitta/Electoral
out and the votes attained are distributed evenly amongst the top contenders.(Center
for Governance and Development,p.3)
Mixed Member Proportional system
Introduction of the MMP, a member of the PR system family will go a long way in
achieving equity because every vote counts and is most appropriate for our legislature.
Because the MMP combines facets of both majoritarian and PR system it has proved in
many countries to be most effective. So for example if there are 349 seats in the national
assembly, a section of these seats will be elected by a majoritarian FPTP system while
the remainder will be elected by PR Party lists.PR systems is about ensuring the
proportionality between the votes cast at a general election and seats won to the
national assembly or senate(Center for Governance and Development,p.9) PR system
will see the elimination of such affirmative action quagmires as the one Kenyans now
face via the provisions of Article 81(b) and Article 27(6),(7),(8) because the system
allows for the inclusion of minorities into its party lists. This affirmative action quotas
will prove to make the provisions ineffective as they are hard to attain as opposed to
having parties predestined lists(Center for Governance and Development,p.9-10). This
quotas like the infamous 2/3 gender rule can be legally set threshold as an internal
mechanism for regulation of Political Parties. It‟s a simple yet effective means of killing
ethnicity and provides for inclusiveness on all fronts because legislation will provide for
certain minimums that parties have to meet. The two coalitions that massed the largest
number of votes in the 2013 general election would be required to have a certain
number of ethnic candidature that represents a national picture such that the Jubilee
coalition that has only the Kalenjin and Kikuyu communities as its representatives in
the legislature will be required to include other ethnicities into their party list, which
communities they are historically known to have excluded from their grand plan.In
May 2002, Lesotho abandoned the FPTP system in favour of the MMP system. Lesotho
thus became the first African country to test the MMP electoral model with positive
results(Matlosa,2003:33).
21 Masitta/Electoral
For LijPhart, PR systems are purely applicable in our legislature, but when it comes to
filling a single office like the presidency, majoritarian systems are to be used albeit not
pure ones (Lijphart, p.5) but the PR system is a perfect model for war-torn societies
emerging from deep-seated violent ethnic conflicts like Kenya(Matlosa,2003:45).
Conclusion
Elections are powerful levers of democratic engineering. Too often constitutional
drafters choose the electoral system they know best, often the one the colonialist left
behind (Reilly et.al,1999p57). Moderate reforms to the Kenyan electoral process would
be better than jumping into a completely new system(Reilly et.al,1999 p57). Kenyans
need to therefore scrutinize their political history, the way and degree to which
ethnicity is politicized, the intensity of conflict and the geographic and demographic
distribution of ethnic groups (Reilly et.al,1999 p57). Employing centripetal theories of
electoral system design which draw on theories of bargaining and cooperation, and
advocates institutional designs which encourage opportunities for dialogue and
negotiation between opposing political forces in the context of electoral competition. By
privileging cooperative campaign strategies between political parties with increased
prospects of electoral success, candidates representing competing interests are
presented with incentives to negotiate for communal support, thus creating a brokering
field where vote-trading arrangements can be discussed(Reilly, 2001 p.167). It is
therefore incumbent upon the Kenyan executive that has declared a Kikuyu Kalenjin
political dominance for the next 20 years to seek a higher ground of inclusion.Electoral
systems in which politicians depend on votes only from co-ethnics tend to reward
ethnic extremists who assert maximal demands. Systems in which politicians seeking
election must appeal to members of more than a single ethnic community and depend
on their electoral support generally produce more moderate politics and reward
accommodative politicians with cross-ethnic appeals (Reilly, 2001 p.168).Extinguishing
sucha hegemony must seeDemocracy deepen and inclusion must have a wide reach to
include social class, gender, and age categories, and more so
22 Masitta/Electoral
ethnicity(Holmquist,Githinji,2009 p102).Posterity demands immediate electoral and
Constitutional reforms. The drafters of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 envisioned a
robust electoral system that would meet the aspirations of all Kenyans who for the
longest time have been subjected to bogus and cosmetic electoral systems. After the
2013 general elections it has become apparent that the system enshrined therein is a
clear departure from the past but evidently does not cure the deep ethnic rifts that exist
in Kenya to date. Changes to an electoral system may not be probable any time soon,
but it is worth a try (Lijphart,p.12).The clamor for constitutional amendment must
begin.
Works Cited
Bodil Folke Frederiksen.Mungiki, Vernacular Organization and Political Society in
KenyaInstitute of Social Studies.
<http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2010/7QQ/01Nov10/55292764.pdf
?T=P&P=AN&K=55292764&S=R&D=buh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40SeprY4zdn
yOLCmr0uep7NSsKm4Ta6WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGutEu0qLZRuePf
geyx44Dt6fIA>
Centre For Governance and Development. Fairer, Friendly Electoral System for women&
minorities:Benefits of a mixed member proportional representation system
.April,2002.<http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/kenia/01362.pdf>
Daniel N. PosnerRegime Change and Ethnic Cleavages in AfricaComparative Political
Studies 2007 40: 1302 September
2007.<http://cps.sagepub.com/content/40/11/1302>
Guttierez-Romero, R.To What Extent Did Ethnicity and Economic Issues Matter in the
2007
Election2013.<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/dpr.12008/asset/dpr.
12008.pdf?v=1&t=hmekanmf&s=ae6f91abf8b0fe9b931d7599214835bfd1607149>
Holmquist, F., & MwangiWa, G. (2009). The Default Politics of Ethnicity in
Kenya.Brown Journal
OfWorldAffairs,16(1).<http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf23_24/pdf/2009/JI8/01
Sep09/47279009.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=47279009&S=R&D=buh&EbscoContent=d
GJyMNLr40SeprY4zdnyOLCmr0uep7tJSs6m4SLKWxWXS&ContentCustomer=d
GJyMPGutEu0qLZRuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA >
IEBC (2013).Summary of 2013 Presidential Results Declared on
9/3/2013.<http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/resources/downloads/category/tally-of-
presidential-results>
Khabele Matlosa. Electoral System Reform,Democracy and stability in the SADC
Region: A Comparitive Analysis.Electoral Institute Of Southern Africa Report
No.12003.<http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/30331/1/rr1.
pdf?1>
Lijphart, Arend, Grofman, Benard. Choosing and Electoral
System.<http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/R16%20Lijphart%20and%20Grof
man.%201984.%20Introduction.%20In%20Choosing%20an%20Electoral....pdf>
Pippa, N.,(2004). Electoral Engineering : Voting Rules and Political Behavior. (New
York: Cambridge University
Press)<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kabarak/Doc?id=10124680&ppg=20>
Ravindra K. Jain Hierarchy, Hegemony and Dominance: Politics of Ethnicity in Uttar
Pradesh, 1995Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jan. 27,
1996)<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4403720>
Reilly, Ben Reynolds, 1999 Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies(Washington, DC:NationalAcademiesPress<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kabarak/docDetail.action?docID=10041046&p00=ben%20reilly>
Reilly, Ben(2001). Democracy in Divided Societies : Electoral Engineering for Conflict
Management.(New York:Cambridge University
Press)<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kabarak/Doc?id=5008034&ppg=1>
Reilly,Ben (2005).Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA
Handbook<http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/loader.cfm?csmodule=security
/getfile&pageid=10445>
Roeder, Philip G (2011). Where Nation-States Come From : Institutional Change in the
Age of Nationalism.(Princeton: Princeton University Press)
<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kabarak/Doc?id=10521861&ppg=95>
Swain, A (Editor); Amer, R (Editor); Öjendal, J (Editor) (2009). Democratization Project :
Opportunities and Challenges.(London: Anthem Press.)
<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kabarak/Doc?id=10481466&ppg=23>
Think-tank proposes US-style electoral college for Kenya Business Daily. March
31 2013 <http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Think-tank-proposes-US-style-
electoral-college-for-Kenya/-/539546/1735558/-/f9af8o/-/index.html>
Wamugo, E. Ready or Not. Notes on The Forthcoming Presidential Elections. Kenyans For
Peace with Truth and Justice
http://marsgroupkenya.org/pdfs/2013/01/Ready%20or%20Not%20notes%20on%
20the%20two%20rounds%20system%20of%20elections%20Two%20Rounds%20Rep
ort%201(1).pdf