Debate plan should include more stakeholders

This year’s presidential debates hang in the balance, with both President Uhuru Kenyatta and his main challenger, Raila Odinga of the opposition National Super Alliance, giving initial indications that they will skip the events.

Having held two successful debates ahead of the 2013 elections, plans to hold similar debates before the forthcoming elections have been under way, with two such debates planned, the first of them next week.

US DEBATES
Before the media fraternity established the current system over the ownership and management of presidential debates in Kenya, I had been part of the civil society representatives involved in planning the 2013 debates.

Prior to the Kenyan debates, I had gone on a learning tour in the United States, which included attending the second debate at Hofstra University in New York, between President Barack Obama and his challenger, Governor Mitt Romney.

KTN JITTERY
Previously, as secretary to the Law Society of Kenya, I had spearheaded, in 1997, the staging of the first presidential debate in the country’s electoral history.

To hold the debate, we had to negotiate with a nervous KTN, at that time the only television network in the country besides the state-owned KBC, to accept to air the debate.

The station was worried about the political risk of airing the debate, and thus giving publicity to President Daniel Moi’s competitors.

MOI SNUBS DEBATE

The station was also concerned about being seen to be associating with civil society in organising the debate.

As a compromise, it was agreed that credit to the sponsors of the debate would be minimised.

Although invited, President Moi skipped the debate.

However, his closest competitor and future president, Mwai Kibaki, attended the event, moderated by lawyer Joe Okwach, rather than a media personality. Okwach passed away last week.

VIEWERSHIP
The debate also attracted a number of fringe candidates, including John Harun Mwau, running on a PICK ticket, Katama Mkangi and Koigi Wamwere.

Because KTN enjoyed a small viewership at the time, the debate did little to change the dynamics of the elections.

However, it represented an attempt at creating an issue-based election, and presented Moi in bad light for staying away.

KIBAKI INJURED
The Nairobi Central Business District Association was the face of attempts to hold presidential debates during the next elections in 2002.

Together with the leadership of the media, we held many planning meetings.

In the end, no debates took place, partly because Kibaki, who would go on to win the election, was reluctant to debate with Uhuru Kenyatta.

Later, Kibaki was badly injured after a horrible accident in the course of the campaigns, and was no longer available to debate.

SHAPING AGENDA
The successful debates in 2013 created the impression of a breakthrough towards the institutionalisation of presidential debating as a feature of the country’s electoral experiences.

If, as now threatened, Kenyatta and Odinga stay away, this will be a reversal of the expectation that the 2013 debates had created and a worrying indication about their commitment to accountability.

In a sense, a debate between Kenyatta and Odinga is unlikely to change much in the way the election has shaped.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Neither of them is new to the media or to the public, as both have been in public life for a long time.

However, debating is seen as an important accountability mechanism, and in the case of these two candidates, coming together, especially if they remain cordial about it, can indicate strong support for peaceful elections.

PARTNERSHIP
Jamaica, a country that used to face electoral violence more serious than Kenya’s, was able to do away with the culture of violence by bringing together their presidential candidates in debates.

However, there is something wrong with the model that Kenya has adopted in the management of presidential debates which, it is to be hoped, there will be occasion for reassessing after this election.

Although it was a humble effort, the 1997 debate represented a partnership between civil society and the media.

CIVIL SOCIETY

While unsuccessful in the end, plans for staging a presidential debate in 2002 were also based on a partnership between media and civil society working together.

Initially, this same model was explored for the 2013 debates, but things changed midway when the media fraternity took complete control over the management of the debates.

STAKEHOLDERS
In the United States, the Commission on Presidential Elections, a non-profit organisation, is the owner of the country’s presidential debates.

During the 2012 debate, the commission had only one fulltime employee.

The US model is based on voluntarism on the part of all the players, including the media.

COVERAGE

US media organisations pool resources to provide free access to the debate to all media organisations that are interested in providing coverage.

In the debate I attended, Fox News provided, free of charge, all the personnel and equipment required for the production of the debate.

The other media houses were given the right to broadcast the debate without charge on condition that they carried the broadcast simultaneously.

REVENUE

As this meant foregoing advertising revenue, the cost for the media houses was high.

An army of students and faculty from Hofstra University volunteered time to the commission, to pull off the debates whose logistics were meticulously managed.

In organising the Kenyan debates, media owns the idea of the debates and is also the transmitter of the content.

OWNERSHIP

Even where media invites input, this is an act of tokenism with no real chance of affecting the substance of their plans.

While attending presidential debates remains optional in the US, candidates feel compelled to attend because broad-based pressure makes such attendance seem inevitable. In Kenya, the risks are narrowly shared.

Because presidential debates form part of a wider accountability endeavour, the concentration of ownership means that there is perhaps minimal wider public demand for the success of the debate.

REASSESS
The momentum that would have resulted from debates between top presidential candidates in successive elections is now in some danger, and there is a need to review things.

There is need to invite other actors to play a role in the managing of presidential debates.

[email protected]