BBI reforms will mitigate conflicts over governance

In recent weeks, some have questioned the plans to restructure our system of government. A coalition of decision makers from the ranks of the Amani National Congress (ANC) party expressed their concerns about the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) report’s proposals, fearing that, if implemented, they would worsen our quality of governance.

Such criticisms are welcome. They signal that as a nation, Kenyans are able to openly discuss, and hopefully reconcile divergent political views.

It is in this spirit that we should consider an alternative and confidently optimistic argument. Rather than increasing divisions between our citizens and statesmen, the BBI’s provisions are in fact well-suited to tame conflict by encouraging democratic debate.

In a recent statement, ANC politicians took issue with the proposal to create a position of prime minister. Their claim was that the decentralisation of executive power could lead to potential deadlocks in government. Re-introducing the role, however, would not result in the splitting of the executive branch between the Prime Minister and the President.

The president would remain the head of state and government, and commander-in-chief of Kenya’s armed forces. According to the recommendations of the BBI Taskforce, executive power would remain under the authority of the President in its entirety. He or she would retain the power to guide the policy of our government.

The prime minister, on the other hand, would serve at the president’s behest and supervise the day-to-day execution of the affairs of government. The PM would fulfil this task as both a member of the Cabinet and as leader of government in the National Assembly.

In this framework, the purpose of the PM is to facilitate streamlined policy coordination between the executive and the legislative branches of our government. Such configuration is actually in line with the demands of the ANC party.

Another suggestion coming from ANC circles is that we change our electoral system. Many of their politicians would rather see a revised method that indirectly elects the president, through parliamentary means. Simply put, it would be a simple majority of MPs and senators that would choose our president as opposed to the majority of citizens. There are multiple issues with this proposal that make it unfit for our particular political culture.

ELECTIONS
The argument has been that since presidential elections were the source of violence between our communities, we should do away with the practice. Ethnic violence in the past stemmed from the fact that, as citizens, many of us felt that when our preferred candidate lost the presidential elections, our political views would not be represented. It was this winner-takes-all approach that damaged the quality of representation and caused problems.

If Parliament were to indirectly elect the president, we would effectively merge parliamentary elections with presidential elections. This would further concentrate the already high-stakes vote in our political system on one popular vote. Simultaneously, it carries the possibility that the result of parliamentary elections would be challenged, should a faction of our society be unhappy with the Parliament’s choice of president.

This could bring about a scenario even worse than what we have today. It is likely that we would not even be able to agree on the composition of our Parliament, let alone our executive branch of government.

Our focus in moving forward with the BBI should be on improving the quality of our representation rather than the methods of how we cast our votes. Luckily, the BBI report already contains provisions that can achieve this.

By creating a Shadow Cabinet under the Leader of the Official Opposition, we could ensure that the presidential runner-up and his/her party would have an institutionalised role in law-making, regardless of a potential electoral loss. The idea is that this cabinet would continuously challenge the policy proposals of government, thereby communicating the preferences of their support base towards the executive.

The role of the Prime Minister would be integral in this process. With this pressure, the government would need to consider the policy proposals of the opposition to a much greater extent than before.
Considering the above-detailed effects, it easy to see how the BBI will contribute to our system of governance being more peaceful in periods of transition as well as more effective in periods of governance. Consultations taking place as part of the BBI initiative have been integral to coming up with proposals such as these that would undoubtedly benefit us all.