Forget prime minister and bring back leader of opposition

I do not agree with the suggestion of returning the position of Prime Minister as a way of quelling the political tension that consumes this nation after each general election. I think that the strain stems from the fact that there is a blind spot in our constitution. The people who lose in the presidential election are left out in the cold – ours is a “winner takes all” electoral system.

The old constitution provided a safety net for presidential election losers: the candidate coming second in the race would (most likely) win their parliamentary seat and become the leader of the official opposition in parliament. They would then form a shadow cabinet whose dockets mirrored those of the Executive.

MINORITY

This system provided for a power balancing arrangement in both the Executive and in Parliament. The 2010 constitution, however, made two fundamental changes. First; presidential candidates are barred from running for parliamentary seats. Secondly; cabinet secretaries (ministers) cannot be members of parliament.

Unfortunately, these changes removed the power balancing arrangement in the Executive and virtually killed the voice of the minority in national affairs. Presidential election losers no longer have an official platform on which to air their opinions on matters of public interest. Considering that these are candidates with significantly large followings, this is unfair to the millions of citizens who support them.

It is not good for the nation and I believe it is part of the reason why we have such wide divisions in our country today. It is not right that those who lose elections begin to talk about seceding from the republic – whether the loss was fair or not!

FRUSTRATING

In all honesty, no one wants to stay in a union where they have no say. It is frustrating to watch a government make (what in your view) is one major mistake after another and you have no official channel to air your objections.

Democracy works on the understanding that “the majority will have their way while the minority have their say”. Consequently, there should be a formal constitutional channel for the minority to engage the executive. I think this can be achieved by creating the office of Leader of the Opposition in the constitution.

The role of this office will be to propose alternative ideas and suggestions to the government during the policy-making process. The Leader of the Opposition will get priority to present views during the public consultations on government policies.

PROPOSALS

The office will not take the usual passive (and often confrontational) approach of waiting for policy to be published and then criticizing it. On the contrary, the Leader of the Opposition will be expected and, indeed required, to make proposals to government at the policy preparation stage.

Equally important, however; the proposals from the Leader of the Opposition will not be binding on the government – it may adopt them or reject them partially or in full. This is important because “the majority must have their way while the minority have their say”.

In addition, it is necessary to put limits on the level of popularity of the person holding this important office. In my view, it should be the candidate who comes second in the presidential race and also garners more than 25 per cent of the total votes cast.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Moreover, this should a person with significant nationwide following – not just a “village kingpin” with followers in one corner of the country! Thus, one must also garner at least 10 per cent of the votes in at least ten counties.

If no one meets these qualifications, then the office of Leader of the Opposition should remain vacant for that electoral term. For example, none of the losing candidates in the fresh election held on October 26 meets the above qualifications.

I believe this arrangement can go a long way in dissipating the deep emotions that usually remain unresolved after presidential elections in Kenya. More importantly, it opens an avenue for presenting opposing views to government. This will not only enrich our democracy but also improve the management of our public affairs. It is wrong to assume that the majority is always right – quite often, they are wrong!

www.MungaiKihanya.com; @MungaiKihanya