When my friends in the opposing political formation want to chide me, they ask, if they could steal, why did we not? Although said in jest, this mind-set, that it is okay to steal, be it an election, public land, or other resources, is the reason our democratic growth is slow and painful. Let us peel the onion.
First, the moral argument. Two wrongs can never make a right. That others are stealing cannot be a justification for us to do the same. Indeed, the reason we have law and law enforcement is to stop and punish the theft in the first place. Ethics and integrity apply to all, but are also personal. This is the same both in the private and the public sectors.
Consider a deceptively simple question. Why are agents necessary in elections? If the electoral system is working, if there is a high level of integrity and trust, why are agents necessary?
Presiding officers, polling clerks and returning officers are paid from our taxes. If they always did their job to the highest level of integrity, we would trust the results. We would not need to “guard the votes”. But history has shown otherwise, making agents necessary.
Consider the technology question. We trust mobile phones to move billions of shillings every day, but not to vote. Why? One answer is the breakdown in trust, itself a casualty of the mind-set that stealing is okay.
Just about everyone uses mobile money. Even those who cannot read or write are helped by relatives or friends to use it to pay for goods and services.
Many nations marvel at this innovation. It has created unparalleled financial inclusion and turned all business models on their heads. Using it, we could vote in a matter of minutes, eliminating the costly, time-consuming, manual processes. What stops us?
The framers of the Constitution wanted a speedy, fair and just resolution to disputes arising from presidential elections. They sought to cure the wrongs of our system then. Many a petition before the creation of the Supreme Court did not see the light of day for a variety of reasons, including a ridiculous requirement that you had to serve the President in person.
The cases would go on for years. The next election would find many cases not yet determined. After 2010, speedy determination was in fact extended to all election petitions – a step forward for democracy.
A presidential election petition is a case like no other. The presidency drives the nation. Unlike in all other elective positions where handover continues whether there is petition or not, all issues must be concluded before the President-elect assumes office.
Presidential election petitions are good for the growth of democracy. That is because they are the principal audit of our system. And just like we perform financial and legal audits of all public institutions, we must never tire until we have free and fair elections.
Our democracy, as elsewhere, is a work in progress. Our never-ending effort must be to build a better republic. A republic that delivers a higher quality of life for all. That calls for fidelity to the Constitution.
