Some commentators, and perhaps even some politicians, may not have focused on a significant difference between the Constitution in 1992 and that now. And probably the public even less so.

What am I talking about? In 1992, it is often said, when it became possible for anyone other than a KANU member, in fact, anyone other than Moi, to stand for president, the chance to get rid of Moi was lost.

Moi won only 36.35 per cent of the votes, but was elected. Kenneth Matiba won 26 per cent, Mwai Kibaki 9.45 per cent, and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga 17.48 per cent. Four other candidates got less than one per cent each. If all the people who wanted to get rid of Moi had put that as their primary objective and agreed on one candidate, and encouraged their people to vote for that candidate, Moi could have been removed from power in 1992 and not 2002.

Constitutions
Under both Constitutions, a successful candidate for president needed at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in over half the country’s geographical divisions. Moi had to be an MP, too. The 2010  Constitution  adds, “A candidate shall be declared elected as President if the candidate receives more than half of all the votes cast in the election” (Article 138( 4 )).

If this had been the law in 1992, Matiba and Moi would have had to fight a second election (a second round, or “run-off  ”). Now, however many candidates stand, if one person gets more than 50 per cent, they win. If no one does, there is no winner; a runoff must be held. But the so-called “United Opposition” says it is going to put forward just one candidate.

Incumbents
I am taking as given that the main focus of elections is often getting rid of the incumbent. During the one-party state period, Kenyatta I was President until he died, so for 14 years, having been Prime Minister before that. Moi was President for 24 years.

Since then, presidents who stood for election at the end of one term have been re-elected.  Actually, only two of them. Strangely, some columnists seem to think this almost gives presidents a right to a second term. This is, of course, nonsense. A deliberate decision in drafting the Constitution was to give presidents not one long term, but two shorter terms, so that renewal would happen only if the people wanted.

It is not surprising that incumbents have a head start, even if they do not use state resources for campaigning – which of course some do – or that elections are rigged in their favour – which of course can also happen. Perhaps merely being head of state gives you legitimacy in many people’s eyes. I also have a sense that for Kenyans, they do not expect much better from a different president. So they might as well vote for the one they know.

I have seen it suggested that the current incumbent would or should welcome a lot of opposing candidates because that would enhance his chances of winning. That is true of the first round, but ignores the possibility of a second.

How will the opposition choose its one candidate? Logically, it should surely be the person expected to win the most votes. Of course, several (or all?) potential candidates will say, and some will really think, that they would be that person.

Suppose, instead, they simply agreed  that  anyone who wishes, and could raise the resources, could stand. Arguably, this would give Kenyan voters the chance to indicate which they think is the strongest candidate. That person would then fight (probably) the incumbent in the runoff. Is that a more democratic approach to identifying the strongest contender?

Is it possible that having more people to vote for in round one would mean that more people would actually turn out to vote? Might fewer feel that “I don’t want any of them, so I shall stay at home”? The opposition might respond that this would be more expensive for them instead of pooling resources to help just one candidate. Secondly, they might say,  “We believe that if we select just one candidate, we really have a chance of winning in the first round. But if we put up several, we have no chance of winning in the first round and would have to fight a second round at great expense, which we are less able to do than the incumbent.

They might also think, but not say, “A single candidate shows we are united. Having several would reveal our disunity – because basically we have no common ideology, just the desire to get rid of the incumbent”.

They might think, but not say, “Most people vote for ‘their’ ethnic leader, or for the candidate their leader urges them to support. So if we all hold together in the first round, we stand a good chance of getting more than 50 per cent. But if we have multiple candidates in the first round, and one of us gets into the second round, then the same process will happen, and the people who did not emerge second will urge their people to vote for the one who did”. Why not get it all done in the first round?”

Indeed, they might think but not say, and might be right that, “If it went to a second round, maybe the unity would break down and some co-called opposition parties might choose to support the incumbent”.

The spread of support that was seen in 1992 is not seen now. One commentator wrote recently that Kenya has a sort of two-party system. In truth, we have had a two candidate system; by the time the election happens, it has seemed really a two horse race.

Largely, I suggest, this was because of the extraordinary political persona of Raila Odinga. In 2002, he and Kibaki (“Kibaki tosha”) gained 62 per cent and Uhuru 31 per cent. In 2007, Kibaki got 44 per cent and Raila 42 per cent. In 2013, Uhuru/Ruto got 52 per cent and Raila/Musyoka 44 per cent, and in 2022, Ruto got 50.49 per cent and Raila 48.85 per cent.
Now we have no Raila. Clearly, the incumbent will be one front-runner, but is there anyone in the list of potential candidates who has or can somehow acquire – even with other leaders’ support – Raila’s breadth and depth of popular support?

Of course, if one candidate does emerge from the united opposition, almost certainly some split will occur and one or two of the rejected “united” candidates will still stand for president (with another as running mate). And there are a few non-united opposition possibles too. So, it is likely that in August next year we shall have a choice between several candidates, even if not such a star-studded field as in 1992.

The Voter
You need not feel you must vote for one of two supposed front-runners. One of the advantages of the two-round system, it is said, is that people need not feel compelled to vote tactically. Tactical voting means voting not necessarily for the person you would really like to win, but for the person who you think has the best chance of excluding someone you really don’t want.

In other words, now, in the first round, the people could vote for their real preference, thus taking part in a public decision of who are the front runners, not just leaving it to inter-party deals. You might, however, also reflect on some problems of a second round. First is the expense – not just for the IEBC and the two second-round candidates, but also maybe for voters. Some may travel to vote in their “home area”.

Would they travel a second time? Secondly, the month between the two rounds may be a tense time, and in some countries has been marked by violence.

This article was first published by The Star Newspaper.

Image: Newspaper Screenshot