What matters is not the number of parties, but what they stand for

Concerns about party-hopping that are now closely linked with the formation of larger and stronger political parties boil down to the question of what these entities stand for.

Some people have argued that folding up political parties in order to form one big one, as the Jubilee party is now doing, amounts to curtailing people’s freedom to join parties of their choice.

Some MPs have said they will challenge the new law restricting party-hopping. Others say stopping party-hopping limits one’s freedom to join a party of one’s choice because once a member is locked in, he cannot leave.

On the surface, party-hopping provides a way out for less popular or less preferred candidates to seek nomination elsewhere. It is an alternative for members who might fall out with party leaders who want to keep their political careers alive.

Winding up small parties to form larger, stronger, inclusive, and national outfits is obviously a good cause. This is where any developing country that wants to strengthen its democratic ideals should head.

This would be ideal for countries such as Kenya that are assailed by tribal politics. One or two strong parties will, in this sense, end our agony of political balkanisation.

However, good intentions, just like zeal without knowledge, need introspection. Our capitalistic transactional political system does not favour weak competitors. Just as market forces are often determined by supply and demand in a free market environment, so are political transactions.

The measure is what one brings to the table. Smaller political parties or interested candidates may not have the numbers to trade.

Far from being vehicles to power, political parties have a fundamental value of representing the people. They carry the aspirations of their constituencies, push for the agenda of the members, and promote nationhood.

In other words, the conditions under which large parties are formed determine the value of inclusivity (and exclusivity) of who gets to trade for political relevance.

PARTY TURNOVER

The political party turnover in this country, including changing the ruling party almost every other election, shows that the conditions necessary to form strong entities have yet to be cultivated. This is unfortunate as parties with a national appeal can significantly reduce tribalism.

For this reason, political party competition should allow room for spillovers, dissenters, and the principled to disembark when they want. After all, human nature has the propensity to dominate and subdue.

Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) of Tanzania, because of its national outlook, grip on power, the process of nomination, and extended structures at the grassroots, had over the years had an easy ride electing its preferred leaders.

However, in the 2015 election, although it won, it had real competition from the opposition, narrowly winning the presidency. This is because many Tanzanians seem to be tired of a strong national party whose developmental value they can neither meaningfully quantify nor qualify.

One lesson we learn from Tanzania is that a strong party is a contributory, but not significant, means of developing a country. The new “bulldozer” president in Tanzania does not appear to be obsessed with any overt party politics.

He is focused on ridding the country of corruption and re-energising the Nyerere spirit of simplicity and service to the citizens.

The grassroots admiration and support for Mr John Pombe Magufuli is immeasurable. The point is that he was elected because he is a performer and, indeed, he is largely living up to that public expectation.

To avoid mistakes large parties make in Africa such as colonising members, exploiting smaller tribes, creating unquestionable kings at the apex of their structures, and coercing loyalty during critical moments, the push for fewer but strong parties should be based on election “issuefication”.

When political parties rally around specific issues, there are less tribal sentimental attachments. This way, there is a high likelihood that corruption can be reduced.

The distrust of party-hopping and one-party type of political systems signify deep-seated public misgivings about elected leadership. As political trading and campaigning take shape, it is our hope, as citizens, that each political bloc will give us one agenda to influence the choices we make at the ballot in 2017.

Dr Mokua is the executive director, Jesuit Hakimani Centre. [email protected].