Kenya’s diaspora should vote by posted ballot

What you need to know:

  • Given the size of Kenya’s economy and the share of its citizens living outside the country, there is no justification for establishing six consulates in the US.
  • It is a known finding in public choice economics that bureaucracies use the most expansive interpretation of their responsibilities in order to advance claims on their budgets.
  • Unless this policy is informed by the preposterous assumption that the Kenyan citizens who live in North America are superior, there is no justification for expanding missions just to ensure voting by a small, even if extremely vocal, diaspora.

One item featured prominently in the news yesterday, under the of facilitating political participation by Kenya’s diaspora in elections.

Specifically, it stated that the Kenyan mission in the United States had identified six cities as sites for Kenyans living in that country to participate in elections. This announcement is consistent with the constitutional right for citizens in participate in this part of public affairs.

The summary statement suggests that Kenya will establish at least six consulates in the United States, and that these consulates will find use as registration and polling centres during Kenyan elections.

One can question whether such an overtly political announcement ought to be made by the ambassador as opposed to the institution that manages elections in Kenya.

Viewing this decision from the perspective of taxes and public resources, it is unclear that it is sound. While I do not dispute that Kenyan citizens who have taken residency outside the country retain the right of electoral participation, I contend that activation of this right should be subjected to a number of tests related to pragmatism and cost-effectiveness.

First, given the size of Kenya’s economy and the share of its citizens living outside the country, there is no justification for establishing six consulates in the US.

COSTLY COMMISSIONS

Article 81 (e) of the Constitution asserts free and fair elections as a principle for the electoral system and adds that they must be administered in an impartial, neutral, accurate, efficient and accountable manner.

Establishing consulates to facilitate voting by Kenyans based outside the country does not set a precedent consistent with efficiency and reasonable application of public funds.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) may have endorsed this model, but the electoral body has not inspired confidence in dispassionate observers over the manner in which it applies public money to achieve its objectives.

There is no doubt that establishing consulates is very expensive given the staffing, security and operational costs. Facilitating voting is imperative but the insistence on consulates as polling stations is not cost-effective.

The behaviour of many of the commissions that were created by the Constitution in 2010 has been to try to use the most elaborate mechanisms to reach their goals, thereby asserting bigger claims on the public purse.

It is a known finding in public choice economics that bureaucracies use the most expansive interpretation of their responsibilities in order to advance claims on their budgets.

PREPOSTEROUS ASSUMPTION

The affordability of this model is also questionable, primarily because it means that it must be replicated in all countries where Kenyans agitate for the provision of a voting facility.

Consider that there are Kenyans based in many countries in the British Commonwealth, throughout Europe and other parts of Africa.

The tax burden on the public will quickly go out of hand if the established idea is that only a consulate qualifies as a polling centre for citizens outside Kenya.

Unless this policy is informed by the preposterous assumption that the Kenyan citizens who live in North America are superior, there is no justification for expanding missions just to ensure voting by a small, even if extremely vocal, diaspora.

It is possible to see why politicians and the IEBC would seek to ingratiate themselves with Kenyans in the diaspora regarding voter registration policy. That does not necessarily mean that resident taxpayers should countenance a poorly-designed voter registration policy that simply subsidises diaspora voting in specific places more than in others.

Because there is a fixation with a diaspora policy covering every part of Kenya’s public affairs, this important right to participate in public affairs could still be achieved through legislation that allows for postal ballots which can all be sent to existing representative offices and accounted for appropriately.

Kwame Owino is the Chief executive Officer of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi. Twitter: @IEAKwame