IEBC's plan on tallying and transmission a recipe for chaos
What you need to know:
- The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission argues that it needs discretion to correct mistakes made on the ground.
- But why should people sitting afar in Nairobi know what is right and what is wrong?
- Why are they the “better” judge of right and wrong?
- If the commission retains its discretion to alter results, it means that only it alone, in secret, will know how it balanced the illegal over-voting and in whose favour.
Think about it. Elections in Kenya are predictably tense and difficult to manage. So much rides on them precisely because we have a winner-take-all system, in a first-past-the-post approach, bequeathed by our British colonisers. This is an outdated system that we should have eliminated during the constitutional reform process.
The winner-take-all-first-past-the-post system is especially unwieldy and dangerous in divided societies, where differences are identity-based. It is compounded by decades of historical marginalisation and a culture of thieving where access to power inevitably means more and incredible wealth for those in the inner sanctum.
Devolution has mitigated this system to some extent, but as the past four years have shown, the Presidency is still crucial. The UhuRuto administration has succeeded in neutering independent offices and commissions, ensuring that they are staffed by acolytes, as evidenced by the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission, which excels in “clearing” those with deep connections to the most powerful. And we have seen the NGO Board, staffed by someone with dubious qualifications, become a hound dog to weaken independent NGOs.
As long as Kenya is a myth as a nation-state, and as long as our ethnic identities are the most important factor in our voting habits, then it is better to have a proportional representational system where Cabinet and policymaking positions are distributed proportionately, so we all have seats at the table. For, if you are not sitting at the table, you are the menu!
PARTY LINES
Additionally, in a presidential system such as ours, it is even more important that the legislature dispenses with voting along party lines, which works for parliamentary systems. The most significant role of the legislature in presidential systems is being a check on the Executive, including by passing legislation. Like Germany after the Second World War, with the memory of Nazism, it would be great if MPs were constitutionally or otherwise required to vote with their conscience, no matter how they got elected.
Similarly, it is incomprehensible why our “parties” insist on holding party primary elections. Heck, the IEBC, whose sole purpose is to manage elections, has five years to prepare for them, and they never get it right. So expecting recently formed, structure-less outfits glued together only by the desire to hold or win power to hold credible primaries is pure fantasy!
Some years ago, Senior Counsel Paul Muite suggested that it was cheaper and more efficient to simply hire an honest and competent polling company to ascertain the more popular candidate in contested seats. It is not a perfect solution as witnessed by the recent errors in opinion polls globally, but it is better than what we do now. But, in Kenya’s case, it may need international agencies, preferably from regions with solid reputations for honesty such as Scandinavia!
FINAL RESULTS
Mitigating some of the tensions around elections is what motivated Khelef Khalifa, Tirop Kitur and I to file the constitutional case, that election results declared at the polling stations and constituency level should be final as clearly envisaged by the Constitution, but illegally amended by the IEBC in centralising the tallying and transmission of results.
The case is non-partisan and benefits all sides, so it is a bit disheartening that it has been so politicised. The case takes away the discretion of the IEBC in Nairobi, meaning the commissioners and senior staff, to alter or tamper with what has been declared on the ground.
The IEBC argues that it needs this discretion to correct mistakes made on the ground. But why should people sitting afar in Nairobi know what is right and what is wrong? Why are they the “better” judge of right and wrong?
Could it be that results from the ground may mean that we get some polling stations and constituencies registering more than 100 per cent voter turnout? Absolutely, since both sides are masters at ballot stuffing in their strongholds. But what it means now is that we will all see who is stealing where, and make it easier to challenge an unfair and non-credible election.
If IEBC Nairobi retains its discretion to alter results, it means that only it alone, in secret, will know how it balanced the illegal over-voting and in whose favour. Is this not a recipe for chaos?
