SOVEREIGN POWER: PEOPLE OR PARTIES?

The Constitution of Kenya 2010 article 1(1): All sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in accordance with this Constitution and 1(2): The people may exercise their sovereign power either directly or through their democratically elected representatives.
 These two clauses of our law define the general political governance structures of our country. But what is this thing called ‘sovereignty’? Sovereignty refers to the supreme and ultimate source of authority that exists within any political unit or association. By inference, therefore, the people are the supreme authority of any political structure within the territorial bounds of Kenya. They are at liberty to choose the form in which they will exercise their sovereign power; either directly or indirectly, through democratically elected representatives.

The CoK 2010 is inherently inclined towards describing the structures of indirect exercise of that sovereign power, at the expense of direct exercise. Clause (3) of article one states that sovereign powers are delegated to the three state organs; parliament, executive, and judiciary. Further, sovereign power as delegated to state authorities, can not be exercised except as stated under the constitution.
 It leaves one to wonder then, how will people exercise their sovereign powers directly? Is that a lacuna in law? Or is it a deliberate act by the drafters to make sure that the state powers remain as status quo?

The existing means through which people can exercise their powers directly are aligned to the defined structures of indirect democratic representation. All routes of direct exercise ultimately lead to indirect exercise and representation. The few stipulated avenues for direct exercise including powers to recall members of parliament, powers to initiate a referendum, and public participation of government bills serve more as a checks and balance tool rather than a defined structure of governance. Nonetheless, I’d want to interrogate the basic structure of a multiparty democracy such as ours. What defines it, what roles the political parties have to play in democratic governance and how the legislature interacts with the executive.

In an ideal democratic space, political parties are founded on clearly defined ideologies. Take for instance in the USA where they have the GOP-Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Republicans are generally known to be conservatives, in the context that the party advocates for minimalistic approaches to government involvement in economy and business. They also prefer private sector-based solutions to economic problems, with the government and general public sector taking a back seat. They believe in traditional morality, advocating for stringent restrictions on matters such as contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Democrats on the other hand are predominantly considered to be more liberal and progressive. They believe in broader government involvement in the economy for equality across the society. They also believe that the government should not interfere or put restrictions on matters of private sexual relations or even social beliefs. And much as the political spectrum in such democracies is not always a straight “left-or-right” dimension, it still speaks to some form of structure or ideology that guides party members when coming up with manifestos and decisions.

Now, I invite you to draw a parallel with the multiparty democracy we have in Kenya today. What is the general ideology or principle of your party? Do elected members of that party ascribe to the ideology-assuming there’s one, or to a personality? When you answer these questions, you begin to understand that the political and hitherto economic turmoil that our country is currently bedevilled in, is epi-centered from the core of the political party principles. Maybe even, lack of it.

While acknowledging and respecting all the inherent party structures in our country, where do we draw the line between public interest and party position? And which should take precedence for an elected representative when making decisions? It is my well thought out opinion that in any instance, public opinion and/or interest should always come first because all sovereign powers vested in the state belongs to them, and is supreme to any other factor of consideration. And this brings me to invite you into an urgent dissection of our voting patterns going into the future. Do we elect a person or a party? And what role does the head of the executive play in coordinating government affairs with the legislature? Where is the line drawn between being tyrannical and advancing government agenda?

Take a case study of the Finance Bill 2024 that was passed by a near absolute majority in the National Assembly just the other day. It’s safe to say that the ‘yes’ voters were whipped to tow party position by the executive, albeit at the expense of highly dissenting public opinion regarding the bill. Note that nearly all of the very ardent supporters of the ill-fated bill are now very silent about the president’s directive to withdraw the bill. Some have even come out to publicly apologize for voting in its favor.

Would the tone have been the same without the president's directive?
 Your guess is as good as mine.

Does being elected on a political party then mean you have sold your soul and mind to the party? That in my opinion is not the true spirit of political freedom and independence! Precedence needs to be set for the future generations of leaders that over and above everything else, as a public officer and representative of the people, public opinion should forever be the north star and focal point of reference in the execution of all public mandates.

                      

 

____________________________

 Oira Caleb N.