The party primaries offer an opportunity for political formations to identify the aspirants who will be flag bearers in the August 9 General Election.
The independent and Electoral Boundaries Commission has cleared 82 political parties to field candidates for the various elective posts ranging from President, MPs, senators, governors to MCAs in this year’s election
The 82 parties, as per the law submitted to the IEBC and the Registrar of Political Parties, conduct their nominations in accordance with their constitutions.
In the rules, the parties outlined the several methods of nomination, among them direct tickets where there is only one competitor for a seat, direct nominations where party members elect the aspirants through universal member suffrage, indirect nominations through election of aspirants by party delegates and consensus where aspirants agree on one among them as the flag bearer.
All the major parties among them ODM, Jubilee Party, UDA, Wiper, Kanu, ANC and PNU, to mention but a few have resorted to consensus apparently to avoid acrimonious a fall out among aspirants’ supporters.
However the consensus route is a negation of a democratic process expected of political parties for the following reasons.
First, the select aspirants for the various seats always happen to close advisers, allies or relatives of the party leaders. In other instances, they may be bankrollers of the party expecting payback irrespective of the popularity on the ground.
The process has been fraught with breach of trust among aspirants after the announcements by the party leadership. In most instances, aspirants claim they were never consulted prior to the decision. This negates the purpose of consensus.
Second, the process does not involve supporters of the aspirants. This fuels speculation that the non-selected aspirants may have been compromised to step aside.
Third, contrary to the rules of natural justice, there is no redress mechanism for non-selected aspirants to resort to. In other words, there is no recourse available through established channels such as the internal party dispute resolution, Office of Registrar of Political Parties or the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal and or the courts.
Fourth, consensus promotes sycophancy among party members because the closer one is to the party leadership, the higher the chance of being nominated. Hard work and merit no longer count.
Fifth, there is the likelihood that the decision to award the aspirant tickets is arrived at long before the negotiations are set in motion. This lends credence to the fact that party leaders are the sole decision makers and this creates a clear pathway to party dictatorship.
The sixth implication is that there is likelihood that the highest financial contributor to the party is likely to win the ticket. This is despite the popularity on the ground of the candidate notwithstanding. This essentially leads to monetisation of politics where the highest bidder ultimately becomes the party flagbearer.
Going forward, in an effort to nurture party democracy, consensus should be avoided as a method of identifying aspirants for nomination to elective seats.
Based on the pitfalls identified with consensus, party members should be the ones bestowed with ultimate authority, responsibility and mandate of electing flag bearers for all elective seats.
Dr Njau Gitu is an educator who also practices as a governance, policy and strategy adviser
@GNjauGitu
