MUGA: Myth of manifesto-driven elections

The last 10 days or so have been mostly given over to the unveiling of manifestoes by presidential candidates and their political coalitions.

In the process, we saw the further cementing of the myth that Kenyan elections are decided by the quality and relevance of the manifestoes put forward by rival groups.

But in fact, what really works in Kenya is getting together a large coalition of regional tribe-based groupings, and thereafter attending to the coordination of voter registration and voter turnout.

Thus, the likely outcome of any Kenyan general election is usually determined at the coalition building and voter registration phases of the election cycle – long before any manifestoes have been written out, let alone “launched.”

This strange hypocrisy is a relatively recent development. Go back to the first Independence era election of 1963, and you do not find any pretence that the “economic blueprints” such as were presented at the time counted for anything.

Rather you find that the in political terms the country was divided into the Kikuyu-Luo axis, then known (and dreaded) as the “Big Tribes” and the Kalenjin-Luhyia-Mijikenda axis, which defined itself as formed of “Small Tribes.”

The small tribes were not willing to listen to any claims by Kikuyu and Luo leaders of the time (most prominently Jomo Kenyatta, Jaramogi Oginga and Tom Mboya) that national unity was essential as the country moved forward. Rather they had a dread of a newly independent Kenya totally dominated by those two ethnic groups that certainly had more of the educated in their ranks, and the drive and ambition to occupy all top jobs in the country.

So, in a bid to occupy sufficient “political space” as we might say these days, the leaders of the supposedly smaller ethnic groups formed the Kenya African Democratic Union (Kadu) to rival the Kikuyu-Luo-dominated Kenya African National Union (Kanu).

Chief among the mechanisms proposed for limiting that dreaded Kikuyu-Luo political hegemony, was the proposed creation of “majimbo” regional governments – essentially a policy of devolution as we now know it.

And is it not odd that even back then we had what we now call “the handshake.”

What do I mean by this?

Well, the Kikuyu-Luo political alliance, having met with remarkable success in the early years of Independence, eventually fell apart in a process greatly accelerated by the assassination of Tom Mboya in 1969. Thereafter it was only by the eventual installation of a former top Kadu leader, Daniel Moi, as Vice President, that lasting political stability was achieved.

Such stability is, of course, what President Uhuru Kenyatta tells us was achieved by the famous “handshake” between him and his former bitter political rival, the former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, following the 2017 general election.

But back to manifestoes, I would ask: Why are we so fascinated by them, and willing to argue over their merits when we know very well that – once a winner is proclaimed in the presidential race – his supporters will forgive him any failure to fulfil his promises, while his critics will see no good in anything he does?

In my view this is partly a classic imitation of what is done in the more advanced democracies of North America and Western Europe. In many of these countries, politicians will craft elaborate “party platforms” as the manifestoes are more commonly known. But it is generally understood that of all those good things promised, only one or two are to be taken seriously.

At the moment I would say that the dominant issues in Europe are illegal immigration and environmental policy focused on fighting climate change.

In the US it is immigration, gun control and abortion rights.

And Kenya? Well, just one thing: job creation by way of economic growth.

Notice anything these things have in common?

Well, it is that none of these actually has an easy solution that can be put into effect as soon as a new president or political party takes over.

Just as no Kenyan presidential candidate really knows how to create millions of jobs within his five-year term in office, neither do any of the leaders in the West have any viable solutions to the core problems faced by their electorate.