Mr. Prime Minister

The clamour is on in Kenya for a shift to a parliamentary system, as if that will cure all our ills. I am no fan of this system of government especially with the inherent imperfections that exist in the Kenyan parliamentary system. None the less, Should we go this route and it is true that there are a number of successful countries like Britain and Germany, which use this system, then a couple of things will need to be addressed. The biggest issue is for us not to have two centres of power. Should we adopt the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister basically runs the show, where he/she hires, fires and drives government policy, then the presidency should be either abolished or made completely ceremonial, where the Kenyan people are not called upon to vote for the holder of that office. He/she can be suggested by the various parties in parliament and voted in by them. It would be the most pointless of exercises to elect the holder of an office who wields little or no power. In other words, lets not do things half half. If it's a prime minister we what then lets go all the way.

The other major issue is the question of representation. Not only for the premiership, must we come as close as possible to the principle of one man one vote but also in the distribution of funds like CDF. Looking at current representation per province one notices stark differences in geographical expanse and in MP per population. This two are key factors because, if we are to maintain the principle of one man one vote, then all constituencies should have an equal number of registered voters* and an equal geographical expanse, especially when we begin to distribute money in the form of CDF. Different regions show a marked difference between the number of registered voters and total population (total of registered voters and those not registered as voters). Nyanza province with less registered votes than central has a bigger total population than central. *So what do we base representation on. If based on actual population then here are the figures, calculated as population per given province divided by the number of constituencies in the province.

1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 120 545 people
2. Central 1 MP represents on average 135 307 people
3. Coast 1 MP represents on average 141 686 people
4. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 147 844 people
5. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 155 778 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 171 792 people
7. Western 1 MP represents on average 172 958 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 355 675 people

This list looks starkly different when you now consider registered voters per province and remember only these count in an election in any given democracy.

1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 28 705 people
2. Coast 1 MP represents on average 56 120 people
3. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 63 802 people
4. Western 1 MP represents on average 65 195 people
5. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 65 966 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 68 538 people
7. Central 1 MP represents on average 75 411 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 159 430 people

These differences are not insignificant. For Example in the first set of figures if The Rift Valley gets an equal representation as Nyanza then they would have 5 extra seats in parliament. Similarly in the second set of figures representing the registered voters, were Central province to have the same representation as Nyanza, 5 extra parliamentary seats would emerge. This I do by simply taking the number of persons eg. In the last example, 2 186 936 (source, ECK) divided by 63 802, which is the number that 1 MP represents in Nyanza. The result is 34, which is 5 more than the current number of seats in Central province of 29 (source, ECK). Such kind of differences will produce distorted results as compared to a direct presidential vote, where the only disadvantage is the unregistered voters. Remember though that the number of registered voters is much more reliable data. The second problem with disproportionate representation is that areas with more people will require more services. For Example more schools, more health centres, more commercial and social centres. Thus they will require in a word more money. This can of course be solved by simply calculating the amount of money to be distributed per person, then getting the total amount by multiplying with the number of people living there. This would be an open and shut case were it not for the second component of representation as we’ll see below. Geographical expanse.

The second aspect of representation in Kenyan politics has to do with geographical expanse. This is especially important when it comes to distribution of CDF money. The important thing here is that, if the CDF money will eventually be increased to cover most of the amenities (schools, health facilities, social facilities, roads and/ or rail, water and electricity) of any given community, then constituencies with huge geographical expanse will be at a disadvantage, as the costs of building roads, will be much more than in a constituency with lesser geographical expanse. The same applies with the coast of providing piped water to all constituents. Cost including the costs of laying pipes per kilometer. Again I’ll make a relative comparison at the provincial level, since going to the constituency level would be tedious.

1. Nairobi An average constituency covers 85.50 square kilometers
2. Western An average constituency covers 348.38 square kilometers
3. Nyanza An average constituency covers 392.09 square kilometers
4. Central An average constituency covers 454.86 square kilometers
5. Rift Valley An average constituency covers 3 548.04 square kilometres
6. Coast An average constituency covers 3 981.10 square kilometres
7. Eastern An average constituency covers 4 441.42 square kilometres
8. North Eastern An average constituency covers 11 536.55 square kilometers

*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.

Another factor considered in the distribution of CDF money is poverty level,. I have no clue how that one is worked out. Clearly though, the 3 sets of figures above show the complexities involved, if we are to achieve equal representation. North Eastern province, where the average constituency is bigger than western province should be receiving the most money according to list 3 but the least according to list 1 and 2. The differences of course come about as a result of the differences in population density (population divided by area) between the various provinces. The following list shows how much this varies from province to province.

1. Nairobi 4 160 people per square km
2. Western 496 people per square km
3. Nyanza 397 people per square km
4. Central 297 people per square km
5. Rift Valley 48 people per square km
6. Coast 35 people per square km
7. Eastern 33 people per square km
8. North Eastern 10 people per square km

*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.

Clearly this are issues that need to be addressed. The presidential system offers the better option as far as one man, one vote is considered (only registered voters have votes). It also gives the electorate a much higher stake in the executive as the president is directly accountable to us and not through a secondary body like the legislature. If the arguments for the direct elections for mayors are to be heard, then it is strange to revert to indirect elections for the executive, where this have failed in mayoral appointments and where people are now asking to directly elect their mayors, so that they are more accountable to them. Where CDF money ids concerned, it would be better off distributed tas per the actual population living in a given area rather than registered voters living in it. Also revisions of boundaries need to be undertaken every so often, maybe every five or ten years, in order to achieve equal representation, across the board.