In every country where there is some semblance of democracy, party affiliation and popularity is paramount. So much that there are areas or regions only a candidate from the most popular party in the area or region has a chance of being elected.
In the US, for example, the country is almost evenly divided between “blue” states, which the Democrats easily win presidential elections and “red” states, where the Republicans easily win the elections.
In between those two groups of states are “battleground states”, whose voters swing from election to election as to who they prefer between Democrat and Republican candidates.
These battleground states almost always determine who wins the presidency so the presidential candidates from these two rival parties spend inordinate amount of money and resources to woo voters in those states.
This phenomenon is not unique or confined to the US as it is the norm in all countries that at least try and have some semblance of democratic elections. In Kenya, we have areas where candidates are advised not to waste time campaigning unless they are the nominees of the dominant party in the area.
In fact, this is the norm in presidential elections all the way down to MCA.
Is this a good thing?
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with a party being dominant in an area or region. It is consistent with democratic ideals because it shows that the party’s ideas and leadership has won the hearts of the vast majority of the people living in the areas or regions where the party is popular or dominant.
However, on closer examination, there are some aspects of party dominance and control that are downright undemocratic and therefore undesirable.
This is more so in the current political dispensation where formation of coalitions win presidential elections is a do-or-die thing. No presidential candidate can see the inside of State House as president solely relying on the strength or popularity of his or her party. This is because much as we would wish and hope otherwise, we remain a country divided along tribal lines.
BBI is supposed to address this problem, but it is in limbo right now. As a stop-gap measure, Parliament passed and the president assented to a new election law that makes formation of these coalitions more firmly grounded.
The problem arises as to what happens when these coalitions form, if the individual parties within the coalition wish to field candidates thus turning the parties in the coalition opponents at the same time.
Normally, parties within the coalition negotiate and agree as to which party should field which candidates where and that has generally worked well.
However, there are those who are making the case within at least one of these coalitions that the dominant party in an area or region must be the only one to field a candidate for any election, effectively locking out all prospective candidates from other parties in the coalition.
This is simply undemocratic and should be rejected. If the parties within the coalition cannot mutually agree the party to field which candidate, then the candidates must be selected through a fair, open and transparent nomination process within the alliance.
A candidate who is not nominated in this process but feels strongly that they can win the election should and must have the opportunity to vie as an independent candidate.
This is what is fair and consistent with democratic ideals. Doing otherwise is antithetical to both notions and must not be stopped.
On the other hand, if the individual parties wish to give direct nominations to some of their candidates, that is their prerogative.
On its face that is undemocratic but there are times when doing so makes sense from the party’s perspective.
Samuel Omwenga is a legal analyst and political commentator
WATCH: The latest videos from the Star
