Introduction
Since the early 1990s, a worldwide process of transformation and change in political systems has been visible.The collapse of the socialist regimes not only brought about fundamental and sweeping changes in the affected countries of central, east and southeast Europe but also affected Latin American and African countries.Likewise, it also brought existing international power hierarchies to an end.These dramatic devel- opments signified the end of the cold war and undermined a crucial basis on which many regimes in Africa rested, namely almost unconditional propping up of unrepresentative and unaccountable African govern- ments by cold war protagonists as part of their strategy for maximising global advantages.
The 1990s witnessed a series of developments in Africa that culmi- nated in the return to liberalised forms of politics.Many developments largely centred on dismantling constitutional or de facto one-party regimes, terminating a number of military-led or military-dominated governments and embracing a multiparty framework.The associated end of the cold war and subsequent spread of multiparty politics created an international climate that was far more conducive to and tolerant of internal political reforms in Africa than the previous cold war period.
When domestic pressures for change began to build up in various African countries, pressures that took the form of massive and sustained public protests, the latter dovetailed with an emerging post-cold war mood that accommodated internal political dissent and change.The collapse of socialist regimes led to victory in the ideological rivalry between
state capitalism as represented by the former socialist countries on the one hand, and market capitalism as represented by Western liberal democracies on the other hand.To this end, it is the ideas, structures, concepts and instruments of liberal democracy and market economics that triumphed as championed by the US.Thus we can argue that lib- eral democracy as a form of government was given a boost after 1989.
Structurally and institutionally, political parties are the basis of political democracy.Indeed, in a liberal democracy, the existence of political parties is indispensable.This is premised on the fact that the election of representatives of the people is best facilitated by the exis- tence of political parties, which makes elections meaningful to the electorate as they offer two or more alternative programmes from which to choose.Hence, the post-1989period received a boost with the reintroduction of multiparty politics and opening up of political space that came with the triumph of liberal democracy.This chapter broadly assesses Kenya’s experience with multiparty politics and oppo- sition political dynamics in particular.It seeks to examine the extent to which the restoration of multipartyism in Kenya has enhanced the democratisation process.The opposition has generally had an uninspir- ing experience that has been characterised by elitism, factionalism, ethnocentrism and systemic manipulation by incumbents.The focus of this chapter is on the experience of opposition politics in Kenya from 1992to 2004.Consequently, it analyses the internal dynamics of opposition parties in Kenya and the subsequent impacts on their broad goal of enhancing democracy.
Political Parties: A Conceptual Framework
The principle of representation in a democracy hinges on the existence of parties. The representation of the people, who are the source of power, can only be effected by the election of representatives.For this, political parties are inescapably necessary. The term ‘political party’
can be used to describe organisations whose aim is to exert a per- manent influence on the formation of public opinion and hence require permanent organisational structures and programmes. The main feature of political parties is their participation in elections to obtain power and influence. It is for this reason that individuals within parties must occupy positions of power in order to exert influ- ence (Dowse and Hughes 1972; Thesing and Hofmeister 1995: 13).
Historically, in liberal democracies, parties have played a pivotal role
in founding and consolidating democratic systems of governance.
Parties aggregate diverse demands into coherent political programmes and translate these programmes into effective action once they have legitimate control of political office.To be effective, political parties need parliamentary activity to fulfil their functions, irrespective of whether parties are in the government or the opposition.
Our focus in this chapter is on opposition parties.Lipset (1967: 40) defines democracy as a system of institutionalised opposition in which people choose among alternative contenders for public office.Dahl is even clearer: ‘...one is inclined to regard the existence of an opposi- tion party as very nearly the most distinctive characteristic of democ- racy itself, and we may take the absence of an opposition party as evidence, if not always conclusive proof, for the absence of democ- racy’ (Dahl 1966: xi). Genuine political opposition is a necessary attribute of democracy, tolerance and trust in the ability of citizens to resolve differences by peaceful means.As a political concept, opposi- tion refers to a conscious effort to keep those with state power from exercising it in an arbitrary way.At its broadest, it is coextensive with political conflict and dissent.At its narrowest, it is synonymous with party opposition in a legislature.In autocratic states, open, organised opposition is discouraged, if not repressed. In constitutional orders, where the government functions according to laws, opposition is accepted as a normal condition of public life and tolerated as long as it stays within legally prescribed limits.In an ideal democracy, opposi- tion is encouraged because it makes governments defend their deci- sions, assures ventilation of opinions and fosters debate.An opposition party can assume the reins of government; a citizens’ movement opposed to policy can see its views become law; and this happens within a legal framework that assures future oppositions that they too can win.
The focus on elections and legislatures is equally understandable.In liberal democracies, where parties dominate, only they can contest elec- tions effectively; so without them there is no legal, constitutional way for citizens to remove an administration that no longer enjoys their support.Legislative oppositions are also crucial to democracy because, at a minimum, they formulate critiques of government policy that enable citizens to assess an administration’s performance.
Three theories explain the emergence of political parties in the West.
The first is a set of institutional theories focusing on the interrelationship between early parliaments and the emergence of parties. Second are
the historical situation theories that focus on the historical crises or tasks which systems encountered at the moment when parties devel- oped; and third are developmental theories that relate parties to the broader process of modernisation (La Palambora and Weiner 1969: 7).
Even though all three theories have been used by scholars to explain the origin of parties globally, much of the literature traces the rise of parties to the evolution of parliament and the gradual extension of the suffrage.This rise of parties evolved through the stages of aristocratic cliques, small groups of notables and plebiscitary democracy.
In Africa, the colonial experience that introduced the Western con- cept of parliament envisioned political parties becoming major actors in African political systems.Due to the colonialists’ newfound commit- ment to leave behind a semblance of democratic political institutions, the departing powers decided to export their version of liberal demo- cracy that required the existence of several parties and an institution- alised opposition.Although the formation of parties was fast in some countries, in others it lagged behind. However, for most countries, ethnic groups were the only widespread institutional frameworks within which the majority of Africans were organised.Arising from this, most parties that would govern as well as form the opposition were formed along ethnic lines. The consequence was that conflict along ethnic lines became prevalent and most leaders, in an attempt to quell the chaos bedevilling their countries, became dictatorial and resorted to one-party states while others succumbed to military rule until the late 1980s when the move for the second liberation of the continent took root.
Although political parties and civil society groups work hand in hand, the major difference between them is that a political party’s expressed and explicit objective is to control state power, as opposed to civil society groups that do not have that as a goal.It is also important to note that political parties and civil society groups have a symbiotic relationship.Civil society groups are not alternatives to political par- ties but rather they supplement their activities in opening up the demo- cratic space (see Chapter 2 by Nasong’o in this volume). Although overlapping functions do exist between the two, political parties have the ultimate goal of attaining power and thus have more comprehen- sive programmes that cover a wide range of social, political, economic and cultural issues.Civil society groups, on the other hand, usually target certain segments of the society and address specific issues (Ouyang 2000: 6).
In Kenya, beginning in 1990, many political organisations were created to respond to the excesses of the one-party state.However, this occurred in the absence of an enabling environment conducive to the strengthening and institutionalisation of new organisations.For the most part, these organisations remained small, underfunded and often their founders also doubled up as their chief financiers and controlled them in an authoritarian way.The bottom line is that the democrati- sation process in Kenya and in Africa generally was chaperoned at a time when there was neither a democratic culture nor political actors of democratic persuasion. The Kenyan polity that had been accus- tomed to the one-party political culture found it difficult to adjust to the requirements of a multiparty political dispensation.The culture of authoritarianism reigned and still persists.This has partly contributed to Kenya’s slow democratisation process.
The return to multiparty politics in Kenya was influenced by sev- eral factors. These included, first, recalcitrant incumbents who only reluctantly conceded to a multiparty framework but went ahead to obstruct, weaken, harass and divide the opposition. Second, a weak financial base limited opposition political parties’ organisational capa- city.This stood in contrast to the ruling party’s unbridled access to state resources.Third, internal weakness as well as lack of internal democracy plagued the new parties.Fourth, the ruling party remained dominant.
With the emergence of competitive politics and the establishment of many political parties, however, there is now competition for political power, yet the much-anticipated change has barely come.Even though opposition parties emerged since the early 1990s, they have miserably failed to disengage from the anti-democratic practices associated with the one-party system. One possible explanation is that most of their leaders were once part of the same dictatorial system for many decades.
One of the greatest threats to democracy in Africa has been the intense politicisation of social life, primarily because the state has tra- ditionally dominated the distribution of national resources and every group has been seeking desperately to obtain access to or control of the national cake (Diamond 1999).Virtually all major groups, both politi- cal and civil, have been oriented to what they could get from the political system rather than to making it work fairly. This has coin- cided with ethnic cleavages.Put differently, the founders of political parties, which have ethnic bases, see their parties as instruments for group struggle at the national level, for access to scarce resources and for the struggle for control of the state itself (Oyugi 2003; Berman et al. 2004).
It is the ethnic combined with the charismatic character of the founders of political parties that has contributed to the mounting polarisation in the Kenyan body politic, even in a situation where a grand coalition has won power, as is the case today. The infighting within the ruling coalition – National Alliance Rainbow Coalition (NARC) – is testimony to this.Political parties remain very much the preserves of individual politicians who hold sway in their parties and who stand above the party’s institutional structures.In situations where intra-party competition is intense and a contender for party control loses, party break-ups have been common.Apart from periodic elec- toral manifestos (many of which are uncannily similar), parties do not have any programmatic distinctions and have only one driving inten- tion: to ‘win the presidency’.The presumption is clearly that a parti- cular party and leader hold the key to solving the country’s problems.
This is barely a step removed from the pretensions of authoritarian personal rule. Given the breakdown of inter-party and intra-party communication, relations with the incumbent party typically degener- ate into perpetual prisoner’s dilemma games in which members of the opposition make entreaties to the ruling parties to access patronage, while desperately trying to retain the respect of the masses (Ndegwa 2001: 16).The result is that the dominant mode of elite–mass relations has remained a pernicious patrimonialism and personal rule that has transcended the demise of authoritarian regimes.In essence, the nature of the political calculus has remained the same: the pursuit of personal benefit at the altar of the state.This is evident at several levels: institu- tional patterns within parties, discourses of electoral competition espe- cially with regard to the presidency and volatility of party commitments, which has seen many opposition party members cross party lines to the ruling party for the most contradictory of reasons (see Bratton and Walle 1998; Throup and Hornsby 1998).
Kenya restored political pluralism in 1991having been a de facto one-party state from 1969to 1982and a de jure one-party state from 1982to 1991(IED 1998). The history of opposition in Kenya since 1992 has been one of division, infighting and a consistent inability to co-operate to achieve common goals. Despite efforts by various individuals and pressure groups to facilitate a united opposition for the 1992and 1997elections – and in particular to promote the idea of a single opposition presidential candidate – no lasting alliance could be formed.It is important to note that regardless of how and by whom parties are formed, post-1991political parties in Kenya tend to
experience problems that explain their weaknesses. These include the hostile nature of the political environment; a lack of or weakness in parties’ visions, missions and ideological bases; weak institutional and policy bases; limited political space within virtually all parties which are dominated by their individual founders; state intelligence destabilisa- tion; and the availability of alternative ready-made political parties to which factions can move to (Wanjohi 2003: 249).
Opposition Politics Before 11999922
Kenya’s first opposition party after attaining independence, Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU), had a very short lifespan.KADU was formed from the numerically smaller ethnic groups to counter the Kenya African National Union (KANU), which comprised the num- erically larger ethnic groups.KADU was, however, heavily defeated by KANU in the 1963elections, which ushered in independence in Kenya. Through political manipulation and arm-twisting machina- tions by KANU in the process of consolidating its power position, KADU was forced to dissolve itself in November 1964(see Mutoro et al. 1999; Nasong’o 2001).In essence, KADU did not play a meaning- ful role as an opposition in terms of its performance for the brief period of its existence. The reason its leaders gave for its dissolution was less convincing – the need to foster unity in the young nation.
However, the leaders’ selfish reasons for the dissolution cannot be dis- counted as was exemplified by the ministerial posts they were rewarded with by the KANU government.
One year after the integration of KADU into KANU, a rift between the left and the right erupted into an open ideological conflict and led to a formal split that gave birth to the Kenya People’s Union (KPU).
The rift was mainly the result of an internal struggle within KANU that pitted conservatives led by Jomo Kenyatta, Tom Mboya and Charles Njonjo against progressives led by Oginga Odinga and Bildad Kaggia.The formation of KPU heralded the next phase of opposition politics that took place between 1966and 1969with KPU as the official opposition party.The KANU government’s reaction to the formation of a new opposition party was to put in place mechanisms to contain KPU. The first move was the enactment of a constitutional amend- ment that forced sitting MPs defecting from KANU to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate under the banner of their new party.
In the ensuing ‘little general election’ of 1966, there was systematic state-sponsored intimidation and massive electoral manipulation which ensured that KPU ended up with only 7seats in parliament out of the 29 that were contested. Although the country experienced another three years of multiparty politics, there was continuous harass- ment of the opposition, its membership, especially in its Nyanza stronghold (see Gertzel 1974; Ochieng 1995; Ajulu 2002).KPU intro- duced an ideological component to the otherwise ethnically based politics of the KANU regime that was content to maintain the colo- nial state it had succeeded. The KPU championed a socialist agenda that sought deconstruction of the colonial state, nationalisation of the economy and fundamental agrarian reform (see Ajulu 2002; Nasong’o 2002). Nevertheless, KPU had minimal impact in parliament due to the insufficient number of seats they had in the house.
The assassination of Tom Mboya in June 1969further worsened the relationship between the government and KPU, which was Luo- dominated. The death of Mboya, a Luo, was blamed mainly on Kenyatta’s ethnic group, the Kikuyu, who, it was claimed, wanted to stop the young and ambitious Mboya from ascending to power within KANU. His death and the clash between Odinga and Kenyatta in Kisumu, barely a few months apart, sealed the fate of KPU as an oppo- sition party.Kenyatta had gone to Kisumu, Odinga’s backyard, to offi- cially open the new Nyanza General Hospital, whose construction was funded by the Soviet Union, when chaos broke out.Odinga had led his supporters in rebuking Kenyatta.The violence that ensued led to several deaths after the presidential security reacted overzealously to the crowd’s protests. KPU was subsequently banned and its leaders detained, including Odinga, who was placed under house arrest (see Gertzel 1974; Mutoro et al. 1999).
After KPU was banned, Kenya remained a de facto one-party state until 1982 when, through a constitutional amendment, the country became a de jure one-party state.The legislation of the one-party state was in reaction to an attempt by Oginga Odinga and George Anyona to form an opposition party that was to be named the Kenya African Socialist Union.The government subsequently began cracking down on all critics in a bid to stem any challenge to KANU. Among the groups that took on championing the cause of opposition politics were both university staff and students (see Chapter 2 by Nasong’o and Chapter 7by Amutabi in this volume).Unions representing the two elite groups were all proscribed and their leaders incarcerated as others were