The ongoing debate regarding the identification of a single opposition flagbearer among the leading presidential contenders is a high-stakes game across the political coalitions.
According to the 2010 Constitution, a person qualifies for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person (a) is a citizen of Kenya by birth; (b) is qualified to stand for election as a member of Parliament; (c) is nominated by a political party, or is an independent candidate; and (d) is nominated by not fewer than two thousand voters from each of a majority of the counties.
A person is not qualified for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person (a) owes allegiance to a foreign state; in summary, the qualifications of a deputy president are similar to those of president.
Besides the above qualifications there are other considerations being floated among them are the potential flag bearers’ capacity to attract electors from their respective strongholds and other regions and across the country.
These, along with the Gen Z voting bloc are the emerging issues, which are key in selecting the opposition presidential flagbearer.
There are a number of contenders that have been floated by the opposition coalitions. With reference to the Kenya Kwanza coalition the die is cast that the candidate shall be the incumbent President. In the yet-to-be-branded united alternative government, there are a number of potential presidential contenders.
They include Kalonzo Musyoka, Martha Karua, Rigathi Gachagua, Fred Matiang’i, Eugene Wamalwa, James Orengo, David Maraga, Justin Muturi, George Natembeya, Edwin Sifuna, Okiya Omtatah and Boniface Mwangi. There is possibility there are others waiting to throw their hut into the ring.
The responsibility of identifying a flagbearer is in the hands of the respective coalition parties. However, with the entry of other political stakeholders, their interests have to be considered. Considering they shall have sway in the outcome of the elections. With this development, the final decision inevitably become a shared mutual responsibility.
The presidential aspirants are being watched keenly by supporters. The way they will navigate through this political journey shall ultimately determine their success or loss in the 2027 presidential and general election.
To have an inclusive process and overcome this and share the responsibility herein is a formula model to address that.
First, all parties in the coalition are stakeholders they should therefore nominate members to form a presidential aspirants’ electoral college. The conclave should then select the potential contenders based on the model discussed herein.
The alternative or preferential vote model is one that has been tried with success in several established and emerging democracies. This is an electoral process where voters must express through marking/selecting an order of ranking for each candidate listed on the ballot.
For one to be elected under the preferential voting system, the potential presidential aspirant must obtain an absolute majority (i.e 50 per cent plus one) of the total formal vote in the count.
In the event none of the aspirants attains an outright absolute majority that is 50 per cent plus one, the presidential aspirant who has the lowest ranking in the initial count at that particular stage, is excluded.
The subsequent excluded running mates’ ballots are then examined to determine, and to physically transfer, that excluded running mates’ second preferences to continuing candidates.
The process of excluding presidential aspirant continues, until one presidential aspirant attains an absolute majority.
In the event that presidential aspirants feel confident of winning the first preferential round then all aspirants could opt for the optional preferential voting.
The optional preferential voting is similar to alternative vote. However, a slight difference
In this system the electors mark the preferences for candidates of their choice, but the elector or voter need not mark/select preferences for all candidates listed on the ballot.
In an optional preferential election, a candidate still requires to attain an absolute majority (i.e. 50 per cent plus one) of the votes remaining in the count.
In the event where an elector/voter does not show contingent preferences for each and every aspirant, the vote ballot is deemed to “exhaust or deplete”. This is at the subsequent tallying there no further preferences shown/selected.
So unlike in the first the optional preferential voting system may be used to elect one or more representatives.
The question then arises what are the advantages of these model. First the winning aspirant is elected by a majority of college electors. This ensures that all stakeholders have a faith in the outcome and the coalition structures.
Secondly, the vote of every participating elector counts towards deciding the eventual winner. This adds value to the coalition selectors and supporters.
Third, the presidential aspirant and their supporters, having signed the party code of conduct and agreed to be subjected to the coalition rules, shall be obligated to support the winning presidential aspirant in the subsequent electoral contest.
The coalition, having conducted a credible running mate identification process, shall gain favour among the majority of electors, appealing even to those who are not members.
Fifth the costly dispute resolution process shall be minimised. This shall culminate in saving enormous resources in both in terms of energy and time.
This outlined model is a step towards coalition democracy, in an endeavour to treat power structures which are threatened by the political class.
The archetype presents an opportunity for coalitions to showcase their home-grown democracy. The lessons learned may eventually lead to the adoption of the model at the party primaries, trade unions, member associations, chambers of commerce, farmer organisations, clubs and associations, sports clubs, and schools.
Once the architecture of the system is well articulated, the same could be cascaded for adoption at the general and presidential elections. In particular, the model could potentially avoid a run-off which would split the country down the middle.
Globally, there is no election model in the democratic world which is perfect. The key to a democratic, free, credible, accountable and verifiable election process is confidence among all stakeholders.
The writer is a governance and election practitioner
