Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Raila Odinga has once again stuck a stick into the beehive. The reactions are raw, outrageous, and deafening. The sensitive have elevated corruption to a subculture that must be protected – at any cost.
Curators of the subculture are always defensive when punishing corruption suspects is anticipated. Self-interest is as debilitating as civic illiteracy.
The debate on whether the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission will allow or disallow aspirants without degrees to run for elective public offices is superfluous.
The other side of this question is: will the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission allow suspects to contest? That, again, is a question that should not engage right-thinking people a decade after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
It is not the business of the IEBC or EACC to allow or disallow suspects and non-graduates to vie for elective public offices. The two vetting agencies should recognise, respect, and enforce the law.
Section 22 of the Election Act, which was deferred in 2017 to allow the ambitious time to go to school, is effective for the 2022 general election.
It says: "A person may be nominated as a candidate for an election under this Act only if that person – is qualified to be elected to that office under the Constitution and this Act, and holds – in the case of a Member of Parliament, a degree from a university recognized in Kenya or in case of a Member of County Assembly, a degree from a university recognized in Kenya."
It adds: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), this section shall come into force and shall apply to qualifications for candidates in the General Election to be held after the 2017 General Election."
Chapter Six of the Constitution gives an integrity benchmark for election and appointment to public office. The threshold should not be lowered. Anything less glorifies impunity.
The two agencies have always blundered. They cannot afford further compromises. The IEBC, EACC, and other vetting agencies allowed aspirants with questionable integrity to run for public office in 2017. Voters are paying the price for compromised electoral choices. Bad choices have devastating consequences.
The presumption of innocence, or lowering qualifications in the name of fairness, should not undermine integrity in public office. The masses should not suffer the adverse effects of self-interest. Such interests distort moral imperatives. They subvert the classic thinking around democracy and elections.
Pushers of this unnecessary row are either suspects, aspirants without degrees, or their lackeys. They usually have a particular suspect or non-degree holder in mind. In some cases it not merely a suspicion based on perception. Sometimes it is about the eligibility of people who have been accused, investigated, arrested, and charged in court.
Why would the conscientious promote suspects who have been charged in court? It is a breach of civic duty to market a thief with a practising licence, under the guise of presumption of innocence.
People of principle don't run for public office, or stay a day longer when they face allegations of corruption. Leave alone perception – moreover, suspicions are not entirely baseless.
Sponsored rage should not be disguised as advocacy for fair play.
The excuses are steak-driven. They claim cases of some suspects are politically motivated. Some say the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted their studies. The ambition-smitten claim they could not graduate in time because of changes in the calendars of universities.
Really? Why lower standards to accommodate superfluous excuses? HL Mencken's 'Notes on Democracy' tells us "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
The country will realise its potential when it's rescued from the curators of corruption.
