Political bargains help ward off violent conflict

It is often said that Kenyans have peculiar political habits. They can look at the same event or a process but violently disagree on what they see. This is partly because many Kenyans wear “tribal lenses” to see things and partly because many Kenyans tend to have “memory jams”; they fear going back to see where they have come from.

The well-educated and the middle class who often shape opinions of the ordinary villager in the countryside are not innocent of this blame. They wear very strong “tribal lenses” and, therefore, tend to give a tribal interpretation to anything they hear or see.

This is one conclusion I have drawn in the recent past after interacting with Kenyans on different occasions during which some sought commentaries on what is happening in the country today. In one particular discussion, I attentively listened to a group of well-educated Kenyans discussing why, in their view, Jubilee Alliance is returning Kenya to the old days of a single party.

None of the people in this group of well-educated Kenyans, and quite affluent, could remember that “forming and fragmenting alliances” is part of Kenya’s political history. None of them could recall that both the Jubilee Alliance and the Coalition for Reform and Democracy (Cord) are themselves amalgamation of political parties brought together by individual leaders keen to win elections.

And when I told them that President Mwai Kibaki’s National Rainbow Coalition (Narc) was an alliance of more than 16 political parties and pressure groups, that formed in order to defeat Kanu in the 2002 elections, there was total silence. They did not want to believe that what is happening in Jubilee is not the first merger of parties. In the period preceding the 2002 General Election, Raila Odinga’s party, the National Development Party (NDP), merged with Kanu to form New Kanu.

All these events of the early 2002 period ensured a peaceful transition. There was a “political settlement” among a majority of Kenyan tribal elite. They developed a common understanding on how they wanted to share political power and benefits.

‘INCLUSIVE POLITICS’

The merger of political parties at the time created very strong conditions for “inclusive politics”. Narc’s 16 political parties and pressure groups had leaders from across the main groups in the country. It was inclusive. This created a sense of order and a belief that the new leadership was inclusive.

On the other hand, Kanu had become inconsequential because it began by excluding the same NDP that enabled it to have support even though the opposition to Moi was growing. Tribal leaders abandoned Kanu and joined Narc. A new inclusive grouping of tribal chiefs formed the “Summit”, an inclusive organ that turned to be a mirror which all Kenyan communities used to see whether the government included them or not. This led to a smooth transition.

A different political settlement emerged around the 2007 election. It was built on different principles from the 2002 common understanding among Kenya’s major ethnic leaders and their followers. Failure to respect the key principles on which the 2002 settlement was pegged led to violence. The rest is history.

Unfortunately the short memory on some of these issues prevents people from seeing how the ongoing “bargains” and “development of common understanding” among political leaders on matters such as the electoral commission can help in securing the 2017 elections. Going by our own history, it is clear that inclusive political arrangements and compromises that political elites get into are, after all, not bad for our politics. This is particularly so if the bargains they enter into are inclusive and broad based.

I must admit that I have a cynical view of politics and politicians because they are guided first by self-interest. Politicians begin to utter something that is close to public interest only when their self-interests are well addressed. And because our own electoral system undermines public interest, we have to ensure that the bargains that the elites engage in are done in an inclusive and broad based manner. This is what can prevent recurrence of violence.

ESTABLISH SUPPORT

The efforts by Jubilee to merge parties and efforts by Cord to establish cross-national and regional support, put together, need to be seen in this light. But whichever of the two parties that will emerge with an inclusive and highly representative “Summit” will have an edge over the other because this is the mirror which the ordinary Kenyan uses to see whether “they are in government or outside of government”.

A point to emphasis is that broad based political alliances or even merging of parties play an important role in establishing conditions for political stability. First, it is within these alliances where elites discuss and strike compromises about their interests. It is here where they distribute benefits to themselves and their followers. Each elite and his or her followers join one or another alliance based on considerations such as the potential to win the election or even considerations such as access to more resources for individual gain. This means, therefore, that the more inclusive and broad based an alliance, the better for stability. This ensures satisfaction of many leaders and their followers.

But this has its dangers too. It opens the doors to plunder of public resources immediately after an election. Many leaders join the alliance to get the benefits for themselves and their followers. They come in to help in winning the election and, therefore, they expect immediate pay off. The elites who bring the political numbers to win an election often turn out to be predators after the election. They begin to form “corruption” cartels in the name of seeking the government to reciprocate. If there is weak rule of law, they take over governments and its institutions. They determine how much they should get for their support.

Those excluded from the bargains or are left out unsatisfied with the terms of these negotiations are dangerous too. On the periphery they disorganise all efforts by the government. They become too costly to maintain especially if they feel the government has internal challenges. And if they are brought in, they bring their interests which tend to threaten the existing interests.

All the same, broad based agreements among political leaders are good for political stability. Even if the agreements are made in pursuit of the interests of the leaders, there is a sense in which the agreements tend to give order in the functioning of institutions. This is particularly true if the political alliances that form the government are inclusive of a broad array of interests in the society.

It is this nature of inclusive politics that explains Tanzania’s political stability over the years. Tanzania is poor and has had economic crises of far more intense magnitude compared to Kenya and Uganda. Political challenges of recent years have also not been easy. In spite of this, Tanzania quickly weathers the storm because over the years the country has established inclusive institutions. Leaders seek compromises with the government and the government respects the conditions for this agreement. Secondly, Tanzania’s political bargains among leading elites centre around “fairness” and “justice”. These two concepts are very common in political discussions among Tanzania’s elites whether in the opposition or in the government. They all attend to negotiations with one thing in mind: fair distribution of what is available; and inclusion of everyone.

Kenya’s political stability therefore will depend on the extent to which we are able to forge sustainable and inclusive political arrangements. The ongoing efforts by the parties, both the opposition and the ruling Jubilee Alliance, to bring on board different constituencies whether for political support or to form a broad-based political party, if well nurtured, can lead to stability of the political system. Of course inclusive arrangements in Kenya may not be sustainable because of our electoral system of “first past the post” and the fact that our leaders are allergic to the laws they make.

Prof Karuti Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi; [email protected].