History Is Written By Victors

There’s an African fable that goes:

In the jungle when  the lion wakes up early in the morning, its prayer is for God to make an appointment between itself and a deer – and that He does not assist either of them after that.     

               

You can bet that this one was narrated by a lioness seated somewhere under a tree, leisurely picking its tooth with a hare’s rib. Anyway, doesn't it kind of explain what ascending to power is like?

History has shown, time and again, that only those who leave the battleground alive get to determine how the events of a war will be recollected.

While the latter might receive mentions as worthy adversaries and heroes (by their own folks), generally the victor, now  the people’s champion ,remains etched firmly in the minds of the populace as their strong protector who can be relied upon to lead by averting any internal or external aggression and ultimately spearhead future conquests.

It is a win-lose game where the victor has to return home with the head of the adversary pinned on his spear as proof of victory.King David, while courting Saul’s daughter exceeded his future father-in-law’s wishes by bringing to him 200 Philistines’ penises instead of only their foreskins as commissioned.

Of course the challenge was not a vain bet, but a diabolical ploy by the King hell-bent  on placing him in grave danger and have him perish together with his anointing. 

In present-day democracies,however,  power is acquired through the same formula. Though the head of the loser is more often than not left intact on his shoulders, the outcome is nonetheless the same: a win – lose game.

In a general election, for instance, the loser might have had excellent and practical alternatives to tackle some societal need but due to a poor organisation and campaign strategy, he fails to leverage his weaknesses with others’ strengths.

It is noteworthy that leaders who premise their campaigns on their personality usually suffer their followers the most when they lose because the latter vote with their hearts and not with their mind.This is a dangerous trend because a mindless person can be manipulated to perform remorseless acts of violence that cause harm against those whom he or she  now perceives as the enemy.

A winner’s magnanimity may  allow some room for the opponent,especially where their skill or expertise in a particular field is undisputed, to come on board for the good of the nation.Notables like Senator John McCain, Secretaries Clinton and John Kerry in America as well as our very own, indefatigable Maj.General John Nkaiserry (The late) are a good example.  

However, this is the exception rather than the norm, because the winner-takes-it-all in a democracy, or as it is often inferred, ‘Majority have their way while minority have their say’.

Nations that have outgrown a long history of power wrangles and matured enough in terms democracy seem to have a solemn appreciation that if power is meant to improve peoples’ lives, it should not be bestowed upon any person who falls short of that noble goal, and neither should such a person find the process of ascending to it easy or enticing.

This is achieved by drawing the line in sand through socialization, whereby selfish leaders are used as a bad example and are not to be martyred as soon as they breathe their last, as often is the case.

The objective is also achieved by carving out the rules in stone through legislation and regulations and prescribing strict eligibility criteria for those aspiring for public office. This is meant to attract men and women of integrity who have made peace with their history and have no skeletons in their closet.

No one remembers Number 2

Can you recall who was the second man to reach the summit of Mt.Kenya?Or who won the silver medal when Usain Bolt broke the 100 metres World record in Berlin in 2009?For Hollywood enthusiasts, who were the other Best actor nominees when Denzel Washington bagged the Oscar for Training Day?

You would be hard-pressed to remember any of the runners up unless you’re an ardent enthusiast of the mentioned fields, or any other for that matter.

This is because progress is borne of excellence in any facet of life, and as a means of self-preservation, society has conditioned us from an early age to reserve the limelight for the winner. This has the effect of enriching life by enticing meritorious performance only, right from the home to the classroom and finally to the world stage.

Basically, the winner takes it all.

In a political context, where does that leave the rest of the competitors; licking wounds or busy soul-searching for their real purpose in life? Or are they too bitter to accept defeat and would do anything to appeal the results including circumventing the election laws and regulations as is often witnessed.

The question is: does it have to be always that way?

Alternative to the current election system in Kenya

To ensure that there is pragmatic inclusiveness in government amongst a people, nations with a diverse heritage and an array of vibrant cultures have adopted unique electoral systems over time meant to ensure that there is real representation for all citizens.

Let’s pick Belgium and Switzerland,for instance.

The former’s system is structured in such a way that no single political party can form the government alone despite a win, thereby necessitating formation of a coalition government.The winning party therefore has to reach out to other like-minded parties with similar values and manifesto and thereby foster nationhood rather than polarizing the country in every election cycle.

The Swiss, on the other hand have a very interesting system where the seven member council representing their various interests forms the Executive, and the President (presiding member of the council) is appointed for a period of one year on a rotational basis, not immediately renewable. The entire council is thus the head of state thereby relegating the position of the President to something akin to ceremonial.

It is also noteworthy that Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes during last year's US presidential elections, but ended up losing the presidency to Mr.Trump.The collegiate system knocked her out and the incumbent, in his trademark bravado, asserts that the popular vote was not part of his campaign strategy and that is why he won!

All politics is local, and therefore the noble intention in the aforementioned instances is to magnify the impact of devolution in people’s lives in such that they expect, nay, demand, a higher level of accountability right from the grassroots to the national level.

Someone wisely pointed out that writing about politics is far too important a matter to be left to politicians.

Having said that, the drafters of our quite progressive Constitution of Kenya, 2010, probably as a result of political expedience and arm-twisting from some quarters, went for the familiar first-past-the-post presidential system which as it is apparent now, is not fully representative.

We are,however, still within time to revisit the relevant offensive laws and have them amended in order to reflect the realities of our society as it is.

Being an amalgamation of 44 sub-nations that are, in one way or the other, distinct in tongue,race,religion,culture and origin with a clear majority of them feeling sidelined, is a problem that the current wielders of power cannot run away from.

This will be vital if we are to propagate the nationhood that our founding fathers envisioned when they fought for independence, as well as our National Values as envisaged in Article 10 of our Constitution.

With political will, this malady can be cured through a sober national dialogue and a possible referendum revolving around dropping of the presidential system for the collegial system of election. 

Voters patiently awaiting their turn to elect their leaders.

At the least, it would ensure that the tyranny of numbers doctrine (Ngunyi) does not forever condemn the leadership of our country  to only the two most populous tribes irrespective of the excellence of the leader elected.This will go a long way in accommodating every Kenyan’s right to self-determination and thereby curb the feeling of being disadvantaged right from birth as currently is the case.

The effect will be the strengthening of our nationhood as the very much needed patriotism is re-injected in to our institutions including our very own way of life which will, hopefully, vitiate the appalling notion that there can be another country out there that is more homely than the motherland.

That way, everyone wins by participating in the making of their own history.

So, when do we begin?