The circus that hits town on the eve of every General Election since 2013 is on again and the players are gearing up for a series of entertaining verbal acrobatics, but chances are, nothing will really change.
On December 1, 2016, the Justice and Legal Committee of Parliament tabled a Bill that required all legislative seat aspirants to be degree holders from recognised universities. Many of our lawmakers at national and county levels were not amused. They did not have the required papers and there was no way they could acquire them in time to become eligible for election the following year.
Somehow, parliamentarians convinced their colleagues who possessed proof of the necessary academic qualifications to throw away the Bill on the understanding that by the time the next elections came around, they would have, somehow, acquired the certificates. Within a week, the Bill was dead, though not quite buried. In the meantime, some played safe by purchasing clever forgeries while others managed to convince the faculties of mysterious universities in faraway lands to permit them to read for a tidy fee.
Now the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission wants to mess up the whole thing by insisting on the possession of the documents when they have been doing very well without them, even if their strong debating prowess has been more noticeable in political rallies and funerals than in Parliament. In their thinking, the IEBC wants to spill their unga for what they believe is no good reason. Let the highly educated and less-educated meet at the debe, they argue, and see who wins.
By the way, these worthies were treading on a well-beaten path. In 2012, two years after the promulgation of the new 2010 Constitution, when a similar demand was made, they successfully lobbied President Kibaki to exempt them from the requirement, arguing that many would be locked out of Parliament and county assemblies in 2013, which was too early in the new, devolved dispensation. Their pleas were deemed reasonable and the academic qualifications clause in the Elections Act postponed to the 2017 elections.
The latest brouhaha indicates that a number never had any intention of keeping their end of the bargain, which, in a way, is quite understandable. At the risk of sounding insufferably snobbish, perhaps we should stop expecting 45-year-olds to go back to class, this time at university level, where they would mix and mingle with their offspring. This kind of dedication to academic pursuit is not given to many, especially when they think they have been doing fine as legislators.
That is why some MPs and quite a bunch of MCAs through their association have resolved to seek legal redress, arguing that forcing them to follow the Elections Act to the letter is an abuse of their constitutional right to remain ignorant, especially as sovereign power rests with the people who chose to elect them without questioning their academic credentials. Such circular reasoning is, of course, not only self-serving, but also one of the many reasons why critics demand that the law be followed to the letter.
This problem is not limited to Kenya, though. Many countries in Africa have grappled with it, and always there have been ready answers derived from the philosophy of education. The main purpose of education is to equip individuals with the tools to think on their own, to observe, study, evaluate and come up with solutions to intricate problems of legislation. This is not to say that those who have not acquired university degrees cannot do such things, but when the academic bar is too low, there is a danger that service to the people will definitely be compromised.
It is not clear how, for instance, a Form II dropout can contribute to debate on budget-making unless the intricacies of how their vote is likely to impact on the welfare of their constituents are explained to them in detail. The people to do so can only be their more educated colleagues who may seek to influence the vote in a certain direction. At the same time, one should take seriously the counter-argument made by those likely to be affected: a degree certificate is not the same as intelligence, and secondly, such a law is discriminatory in a country where higher education has never been available to everyone. But however true this may be, the best way to solve such a problem is not to keep postponing it, but to enforce it.
The job of legislators at every level is to debate and make laws, and to oversight the executive. If the individuals concerned are ignorant of the pertinent facts, they cannot very well participate in any of those core functions and may be forced to rubber-stamp what the executive tells them is right. They will not have the wherewithal to question whatever is proposed to them and may resort to accepting everything at its face value. This it just makes them keep quiet during debates thus allowing a few canny individuals to call all the shots. That is not exactly the definition of democracy.
