“The winner takes it all. The loser standing small. Beside the victory. That’s her destiny,” Abba.
Those readers who have not listened to much 1980s Scandinavian pop music may be unfamiliar with the sentence above, the chorus of one of Swedish pop group Abba’s most famous tracks.
Yet any observer of Kenyan politics cannot help but notice its relevance. After all, this seemingly harmless line encapsulates the bitter reality of Kenyan elections.
In Kenyan elections, the winner really does take it all, the loser really does stand small, and the consequences are devastating.
In 2013, over five million Kenyans, translating to 44 per cent of the vote, voted for ODM leader Raila Odinga.
This meant absolutely nothing. Mr Odinga lost by a small but significant margin and he spent the next four years licking his wounds and preparing for 2017.
His considerable talents were lost from our public life. His supporters were left devastated as their efforts were for nothing. Jubilee party’s Uhuru Kenyatta had the presidency and the power.
Four years later it was the same story. This time Mr Odinga got 45 per cent of the vote. But again he fell short and again his supporters were left with nothing.
It is not hard to see how such a situation leads to high tensions, and ultimately, to violence.
We all know that ours is a tribal country with a tribal political system. Kenyans do not avidly support their leaders because of ideological beliefs, but rather because we think that having one of our own as president. We think that if our candidate wins, our area will get preferential treatment in the form of more jobs and better infrastructure.
So when “our” candidate loses, we see the spoils of power going to other communities at our expense, and frustrations boil over.
There are finite resources and a perception that they will go to the winning side, at the loser’s expense.
This is the definition of zero-sum, winner takes all politics. Yet in the aftermath of the 2017 election, something changed.
Uhuru Kenyatta and his erstwhile rival Raila Odinga realised that our winner takes all system had run its course, and that for as long as elections resulted in tension, violence and economic paralysis, Kenya could never realise its potential.
The much discussed ‘handshake’ should be seen within this context – an acknowledgment that for Kenya to progress, zero-sum politics must be replaced by a more equitable distribution of power.
The informal partnership between the two men over the past 18 months, and the peace and stability it has brought to our country, is an example of what can be achieved when there is not just one centre of power.
The BBI report contains a series of concrete recommendations to turn this vision of power sharing into a reality.
The most significant is the establishment of two new positions: An executive prime minister and an official leader of the opposition.
The former will take on many of the roles of the president, meaning that the presidency would no longer be the sole centre of power.
This system is used by countries such as France and has proven extremely successful at dispersing power, reducing the stakes in presidential elections.
The latter role, again common in many countries, such as the UK, means that the second place candidate in the presidential election is recognised as a key player, and brought into the system, not left outside to fester and rile up his supporters.
There has been much written about the BBI over the past few weeks. Many have made complex theoretical and constitutional arguments about why it may be a good or bad thing.
Our current winner takes all system is capping our potential. Every five years the country is paralysed, costing both money and human lives in the inevitable violence.
The BBI, though not flawless, directly addresses this problem. It will mean that power is dispersed and more communities have a share in it, lowering the tensions in our elections.
By ending winner takes all politics, the BBI will save both lives and money.
