By Umaru Fofana
On Monday 11 February 2013 Kenya’s presidential candidates for the March election held for the first time a live public debate that has been hailed worldwide. It is one step in strengthening democracy in a country whose last polls left its image battered and its democratic credentials pulverised.
But the aftermath of those polls which left thousands killed and thousands of others maimed has served as a lesson which Kenyans, especially the politicians, seem to have learned from. Since those ugly events the country has written one of the best constitutions in Africa, perhaps in the world, through a very representative and open process. The instrument of government has a lot of detail. With its highly educated public and vibrant civil society and media, Kenya can only move forward and it is attracting huge investments. Investors that are not mining companies for they are not sustainable and are suspect. To this new vogue of a leadership debate it has shown its intent to almost certainly put its dark past behind it.
The debate itself had an audience of over forty million people in the country with all local radio and TV stations broadcasting it live. And it has to be said that Kenya’s media is anything but homogeneous. I have worked there as a journalist. I have been trained there and I have also trained media people there. So I know what I am talking about. Yet the polarised media in that polarised country came together to pull this off.
Even though the debate coincided with a very significant event namely the announcement by Pope Benedict that he was abdicating later this month, the leadership debate in the East African country got a huge media coverage even on mainstream foreign satellite TV channels all around the world. Aljazeera even screened it live while the BBC interrupted normal programming to bring the highlights and issues arising from it. Such is the significance attached to such civil aspect of modern day democratic practice that those countries that opt out of it, never mind on what grounds, opt out of decency and are often mocked in civilised quarters.
It is interesting that Kenya was holding this debate for the first time, the first of three before the electorate vote. In Sierra Leone we have had it twice – in 2002 and more recently and more eventfully in 2007. Not well organised but good to have started somewhere. In 2012 the plan was to improve on it. But it was scuppered largely by excuses given by the governing All People’s Congress party.
Like here in 2007 the Kenya debate was organised by the Kenyan media. Like here in 2007, all candidates running for the election got invited to take part in the debate even if in the case of Sierra Leone the ruling party refused to take part. The number of panellists is something that has been criticised by some analysts who say it was a crowded podium in Nairobi with a candidate hardly having time to speak for more than five minutes in total. But it is a trial run by Kenya and there will be two more before millions of Kenyans turn out to cast their ballot.
Two candidates who were not part of the initial list went to court for an injunction to stop the debate from happening. The organisers had not disqualified them, it must be said. Rather, the two candidates had failed to reply in good time to express their intention to take part hence had not been listed. Eventually they were incorporated.
Kenyan politicians have been hailed for cooperating with the debate organisers and taking part in it. But it has to be said that it is often easy in these situations when there is no incumbent as they often seek to scupper any such civil encounter to share platform and exchange ideas rather than violence. In Kenya even though Raila Odinga is the incumbent Prime Minister he is running for president, with the President Mwai Kibaki not running again.
Time was not enough for the candidates to discuss, in detail, their manifestoes, or for the co-moderators to ask follow-up questions. Only Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga stand any realistic chance of winning the election. But the others were allowed, to repeat myself, because it was a test. In as much the same way as we did, or sought to do, in 2007. Besides, in Kenya there are no two parties that are as dominant as we have the APC and SLPP in Sierra Leone. Coalitions and alliances are mainly what form their political candidacies. It then becomes easier to defeat tribalism if they press on as well as they seem to have taken off.
In 2012 the pattern was to have been different in Sierra Leone with the two main candidates sharing platform to have adequate time and space to debate the issues and enable the electorate make informed decisions. It was not to be. The good thing, though, was that none of the political parties questioned the need for a leadership debate. They all agreed it was necessary. That could form the bedrock for the setting-up of a commission that will be organising future leadership debates. Such is a culture that has to be imbibed in us all especially the upcoming and future generations because among other things it takes away or at least minimises the culture of violence and replaces it with the culture of a healthy debate.
Since one of the reasons given by the APC for not attending the botched debate last year was trust, or the lack of it, in the lead organisers, a commission could be set up by government. All registered and active political parties, civil society groups, the media and the election management bodies could come together to add flesh to this idea. Eventually an independent body made up of civil society and the media, with cooperation from the National Electoral Commission and the Political Parties Registration Commission, can be appointed by the president in consultation with the parties represented in Parliament and approved by the House. They can swear an oath. I know how some people treat oaths but it is better to swear by it than not.
Such an arrangement, which could be passed into law, will make it obligatory for candidates to take part in the debate. Yes at the presidential level – for both presidential candidates and their running-mates – but also at the level of mayoral candidates. The organisation of such should be funded by the government as it happens in the United States. It does not have to be a permanent working commission with an annual budget and an ostentatious life for commissioners. We already have too much of that. What a way to go!
