The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act, 2011

In the Matter of the Approval, by the National Assembly, of the Persons Nominated to
Serve as Members of the Selection Panel Section 1(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the First Schedule to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act, 2011

SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDA

The following persons have been nominated to serve on the Selection Panel in terms of section 1(1) and (2) of the First Schedule to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act, 2011-

1. Nominations made by His Excellency, the President

• Prof. Marion Wanjiku Mutugi
• Ambassador Mwanyengela Ngali.

• Dr. Ekout Ekuru
• Ms. Rosa Akinyi Buyu.

• Hon. Mr. Justice Isaac Lenaola
• Hon. Ms. Emily Ominde.

• Ms. Irene Cheptoo Keino
• Mr. Charles Kariuki Wambugu.

• Dr. William Okello Ogara
• Ms. Sophie Njeri Moturi.

Hearing the noises coming out of our MPs now, it is apparent that they all live in a time warp.

Representatives from Central Kenya seem to be deluded that President Kibaki will either rule for life, or ensure his successor is from their region. Hence the obsession with retention of an all-powerful presidency and centralised rule.

Conversely, MPs from other regions are imbued with a Central-phobia, and they see the antidote as a neutered presidency, coupled with transferring executive power to a Prime Minister; as if the new constitution will provide that the job is reserved for Mr Raila Odinga or whoever else comes to head ODM.

Welcome back to the 2005 referendum politics of Oranges and Bananas. The new rift on constituency boundaries that has erupted and threatens the reform agenda is not merely about delineation of constituencies, but advance skirmishing on formation of the next government — the assumption being that a new constitution will transfer executive power to a premier elected by Parliament.

Under any measure, it should be a no-brainer that one-man, one-vote should represent the highest ideal of a democratic system. But then this is Kenya, the land of Byzantine ethnic intrigues.

A little background is in order. MPs from Central Kenya have launched a public campaign for the one-man, one-vote principal in the redrawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

The MPs took the cue from President Kibaki’s Kenyatta Day address, as summarised here: “…the need to apply the principle of one person, one vote led to the establishment of the Interim Independent Boundaries Commission in accordance with the Kriegler Report.

At the end of its work, the Boundaries Commission will hopefully give the country … approximately equal size constituencies demographically. This will give the country the fair representation our forefathers fought for.”

The Independent Review Commission (Irec) into the botched 2007 elections chaired by South African Judge Johann Kriegler had expressed amazement that Kenya had departed so substantiality from a universal tenet of democracy — equality of the vote.

That principle is recognised even by the Constitution of Kenya, which states that “All constituencies shall contain as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants as …reasonably practicable.”

Kriegler conceded that there would always be variations to take into account densely populated urban areas and thinly populated rural areas; means of communication; geographical features; community of interest; and administrative boundaries.

“THE PROBLEM IN KENYA IS THAT the maximum permitted departure is not fixed and has been seen to allow extreme differences in size: Embakasi is 351 per cent greater than the average while Lamu East is only 18 percent of the average. As a consequence, the weight of the vote cast by a Lamu East voter is nineteen times greater than that of one in Embakasi. In no other country in the world is there difference of such magnitude,” Kriegler wrote.

Kriegler, therefore, recommended that “the basic principle for the delimitation of constituencies should be the equality of the vote, and the maximum departure from that principle should be clearly defined in the law.”

There was no immediate reaction when the President spoke; but once the Central Kenya MPs took the proposal to the political soapbox, the s**t hit the fan.

MPs from Coast, North Eastern, parts of Eastern and Rift Valley went on the counter–offensive. They were breathing fireworks, seeing an ethnic agenda to increase the number of parliamentary seats in Central Kenya.

Some even threatened to lead their regions into secession if such proposals were carried through. They came up with their own riposte to the one-man one vote mantra — one kilometre, one vote.

And of course they promised to reject the proposed Constitution if it even imagined strengthening the one-man, one-vote principle. That was a threat the central Kenya MPs welcomed with gusto, for they in turn said they would reject the new law if it did not satisfy their demands.

And that might be the crux of the matter. The Central MPs provoked the debate very deliberately knowing the storm it would cause and the resultant threat to conclusion of the constitution review process.

What they are saying can be translated thus: “You can try and take away ‘our president’s’ executive power, but only if we get the strength to influence who becomes the next PM”.

Do we really need these sterile skirmishes at this stage? Can we carry out reforms without forever trying to win selfish gains or to cut others down? Can we debate policy without forever playing cheap ethnic politics?

Some MPs have called for a review of constituency boundaries, particularly in Central Province, as they believe their region is under represented in the House. They believe that North Eastern Province, for example, is “over-represented”.

Yet it is the possibility that a parliamentary system may be adopted soon, coupled with the exigencies of the CDF funds that has, by and large, informed their enthusiasm.

In a participatory democracy such as ours, inclusiveness is through the electoral process in which political power is apportioned among constituencies to ensure free and fair elections.

According to the current Constitution, the size of population cannot be the sole determinant for creating constituencies.

POPULATION DENSITY, GEOGRAPHICAL features and communication network, among others, count in delimitation. This happens in Australia, Japan, UK and India, resulting in sparsely populated rural areas and towns having more MPs.

Yet, even on the basis of population, Central Kenya does not merit additional constituencies. Population density is to a large extent determined by the level of economic opportunities, which in turn is predicated on socio-economic development.

If, for instance, North Eastern had tarmac roads, electricity, piped water, quality schools, irrigated farms, modern livestock industries, mines and more public funds voted for it, half the Kenyan population would move there.

It is opportunities that attract people, not just the environment. That’s why places such as Dubai and other desert countries attract large investments and settlement. As it is, many residents of northern Kenya migrate to other parts because of poor livelihood.

Mandera Central constituency in North Eastern Province is 11,600 square kilometres, roughly the size of Central Province which is 13,000. It is divided into seven divisions with 32 locations and 46 sub-locations. The population is 147,000 whilst registered voters are 41,000. Poverty index is 70 per cent and communication is Stone Age.

Wajir South has 127,000 people in a vast area of 21,000 square kilometres, nearly twice that of Central Kenya. Compare this to Kipipri with 98,000 people in 544 square kilometres, or Kangema with 81,000 people living on 260 square kilometres.

Most constituencies in Central have similar statistics based on 2005 population projections by the ECK.

Indeed, Central Kenya has relatively lower average population per constituency/MP at 139,000 than all the other provinces except North Eastern. Coast ties with Central. Even the average population per MP in North Eastern is only a little lower at 131,000.

The rest of the regions range between 142,000 and 344,000 people.

When we look at the average geographical size of constituencies, Central’s is only 456 square kilometres, compared to 11,700 for North Eastern, 4,000 for Coast and 3,700 for Rift Valley.

Thus an MP in Central Kenya does only 456 square kilometres to meet 139,000 constituents while his counterpart in Rift Valley covers 3,700 to meet 171,000 constituents.

Indeed, people in North Eastern, Rift Valley, Coast, and Eastern may as well demand a ceiling on the geographical size of their constituencies. The level of political representation has a direct correlation to the allocation of resources, and consequently the level of poverty.

CLEARLY, CENTRAL KENYA DID benefit from the adequate representation it had over the years, compared to other regions. The appalling inequality is testimony enough.

Poverty index in North Eastern averages 70 per cent, Coast 61 and Eastern 58 as compared to Central’s 31 per cent. We cannot marginalise parts of our country and claim they do not deserve representation because they are depopulated.

For arid areas, an MP struggles more to seek development of roads, schools, health centres, water and food, in addition to dealing with mundane issues of impoverished constituents.

When the MP travels home, residents line up with more demands. In Central Kenya, residents do not even bother to meet their MP as they are often busy on their farms and businesses. Central is more represented in Parliament, the pitched voices of its leaders not withstanding.

Mr Kerrow is a former MP for Mandera Central.