Parliament Should Set a Threshold for Representation of Runner-up Presidential Candidates in Parliament

By Crispy Kaheru

Coordinator – Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU)

It is a given, that democracy runs along the principle of inclusivity as opposed to one of exclusivity. For this reason, our democratic engagements as defined by our electoral laws should accommodate and enhance the tenets of this logic.

The need to refresh this logic is highlighted by the unveiling situation in neighboring Kenya, where efforts are currently in top gear to get two former Presidential candidates, Raila Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi into parliament, a circumstance that is causing an unwanted draft of political speculation and hysteria.

Uganda too is no stranger to this situation as the case of former FDC leader, Kiiza Besigye clearly illustrates. With over two million votes in his favor, he has consistently found his political options permanently restricted to politically effective but at times socio-economically disruptive agitation.

You will recall that although Raila Odinga fell short of the required simple majority vote mark (50 +1%) - he garnered 43.7% of the vote – which translates into over five million votes.  But due to the rigors of the self imposed – winner takes all system, Raila like Besigye finds himself constitutionally bastardized with five million votes to boot. 

In the current Kenyan scenario, the political response has been to find a quick fix answer – ‘sweet talking’ some MPs to step down to allow former Presidential candidates contest and enter Parliament as MPs or Senators. 
While this might achieve the intended goal of having one or two presidential candidates in the house, it is a one off, ‘quick fix’ solution that does not address the real representational problem facing the Kenyan people.  It also means that as more and more countries seek to entrench democratic values, reliance on home grown representational structures takes precedence in view of history, context, culture and other inherent interests. 

The Kenyan impasse summarizes the representational dilemma we face especially in the world of ‘winner takes all’ systems.  Because we dwell so much on the conventions, there doesn’t seem to be a democratic principle for the basis on which voters who choose a candidate other than the winner can adequately find much needed post election solace after a government has been formed. The result has been ‘representational displeasure’. 

Experience in Uganda also confirms that the aftermath of elections is but a mere recital of frustration and civil discontent (by those whose candidates have genuinely or disputably lost the election).   This dissatisfaction is dispensed in many forms.  The 2011 post-election street riots were merely a replay of what happened in 2001 and 2006.  The major point of controversy is always – the election result. 

The unattractive truth that one’s presidential candidate will not have any public/government platform to take forward ideas represented in his or her manifesto despite his or her large share of the vote only serves to disenchant their voters more.  Expectedly, in Kenya, crime rates are soaring post the disputed elections of March 2013.

Even where some may carry the consolation that the candidate’s party agenda will be advanced by his counterparts who win the election at different political levels – the actual presence of the person is always hardly replaceable. 

More so, cognizant of the leaky electoral systems that we collectively have in place; which frequently run on and result in controversy; a review of the electoral system is necessary to increase the electorate’s confidence in both process and outcome.

In this regard, a proposed remedy is to establish a framework that embraces runners-up presidential candidates’ in parliament. However, the candidate must first attain a pre-set percentage threshold of the national vote in the election.

Some people have questioned which constituency would be represented under such an order. The answer lies in acknowledging embryonic changes in electoral systems world over, marked by the growing use of e-voting systems as well as the realization that representation is principally shifting beyond the conventional geographical based constituency towards interest-based constituencies.

Lessons from other nations, as well as realities within our nation, likewise teach us that the future of democracy will dwell so much on adoption of innovative approaches that broaden representation horizons while also fortifying distinct national identities. 

Consequently, I urge Members of Parliament to review Article 78 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, which defines the composition of parliament with a view of creating a provision for runners-up presidential candidates as ex-officio members of parliament.

Many minds may ask where else has this been tried out before.  My quick answer would be: If Uganda is the first; then why not? Others will surely follow our best practice!

What say you?