Chadema, Kenyatta and democracy

An analyst of regional affairs penned a piece in a regional magazine, explaining the puzzle that is democracy. He wondered how Kenya was perceived to be a democracy and Uganda a dictatorship despite the same rot in the ‘democratic” processes in both countries: poor quality of democratic processes in political parties, stolen/rigged elections (intra-party and national elections), politics turning into a source of livelihood and not service to the masses, omitted voter names during party primaries, pre-ticked ballot papers, few ballot papers than the actual number of voters, some voters names missing from the official register, lack of voters’ trust in their leaders to be fair with their votes, the list was long.

All these things are common in Tanzania as well. The level of chaos and intra-party feuds go hand in hand with the stature of a political party and the chances of the would-be candidates to win the post they are vying for should they win their party primaries.

Chadema’s support for Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta in the upcoming polls in August, because of they claimed he “expanded democratic space during his time in office” and that “opposition politicians are not jailed in Kenya”, reminded me of that analysis. They also said, they chose to support President Kenyatta instead of his main political rival Raila Odinga who they supported in the previous general election but this time around called him a ‘traitor” because he supported Dr John Magufuli of CCM in the 2015 general election.

The decision was reached in Dodoma during the party’s council meeting.

I don’t see any political dividends on Chadema’s support to President Kenyatta.

How does this decision help Chadema, as a political party? Or was it more of a political payback with no substance to it? Perhaps all this is beside the point.

The picture that one gets is that some things are common in these countries, of them being the varied criteria used to judge whether a country is democratic or not.

Those in power do not complain of anything in the national processes but within intra-party processes as they know their chances of making it big are near certain if they pass the hurdles within their political parties.

Those in the political wilderness always complain about what they see as “democracy deficit”. And in Rwanda where the powerful ruling party has co-opted smaller political parties to the government, the judgment is harsher: there is no opposition. It has been silenced.

So how is it that we look at the same things but arrive at different conclusions?

It all goes back to the beginning. Even though democracy is always associated with people’s participation in deciding how best they can govern themselves; the very concept of who are the people is contentious. In its earliest forms, it was a prerogative of only free adult males.

This is the part of what can be termed as “liberal democracy”, which is a set of ideas based on the notion of people’s participation in civic matters.

Chadema made their case in claiming this country to be a dictatorship compared with Kenya based on this notion.

Post-colonial Africa has struggled with this idea which is complicated by the legacy of colonialism and how best people were prepared to take power after the departure of the colonialists.

However, the other side to understanding what democracy is translating democracy from merely being ideas into the livelihoods of people. That the decisions taken by those in power have effects on people’s livelihoods way beyond their political inclinations. That democracy is more than just ideas.

This is rarely mentioned.

That corrupt political processes end up with different verdicts is just as baffling as democracy itself.

That political parties which are not tolerant themselves of different opinions insist that they will be champions of democracy (the idea) once elected to power is equally cryptic.

Most East African Community partner states (with the exception of the new entrant, South Sudan) have periodic elections, all have undergone power handover in the last two decades (except Uganda), and have allowed political pluralism to varying degrees.

Their verdict on democracy-whether an idea or related to material things? And you struggle to find model students.