Want to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact UsWant to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact Us
Read this story on Esheria.
Introduction
On June 25, 2024, the National Assembly voted to pass the Finance Bill 2024. Kenyans watched as their leaders seemingly ignored their voices. Public participation, enshrined in Articles 1 and 10(2) of the Constitution, appeared meaningless. Senator Ledama Ole Kina’s claim that Parliament always ignores public opinion seemed validated. Professor Migai Akech has stressed that public participation is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that lawmakers respect the people's wishes. Article 10(2) of the Kenyan Constitution highlights public participation as a core value in governance, requiring substantial public input in legislative processes.
This year, opposition to the Finance Bill was strong. Associations, religious groups, and citizens voiced their discontent. Social media buzzed with #RejectFinanceBill, and citizens shared parliamentarians' contacts, urging them to vote against the Bill. Millennials and Gen Z, using Article 37, demonstrated and picketed against it. Yet, Parliament dismissed these efforts as mere noise. This raised fundamental questions: Are Members of Parliament accountable to the people they represent or to their political parties? This article explores how political parties often overshadow the people's voice, despite constitutional guarantees.
Popular Sovereignty and Parliamentary Accountability
Popular sovereignty holds that political power resides with the people. Scholars like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized that governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Rousseau introduced the concept of the general will, representing the collective interests of the population. Edward Burke, in his speech before the electors of Bristol, argued that Parliament should serve the general good, not local prejudices. He emphasized that once elected, MPs should act for the whole nation, not just their constituencies.
The Kenyan Constitution enshrines popular sovereignty in Article 1, stating that "all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya." Article 94(1) clarifies that Parliament derives its legislative authority from the people, establishing it as the supreme law-making body accountable to the electorate. The South African case of Doctors for Life International v. Speaker of the National Assembly affirmed that public participation must be genuine and substantive, not a procedural formality. The constitutional provisions aim to ensure that governance power remains with the people, fostering a government responsive to citizens' needs and aspirations.
Despite robust constitutional provisions, party politics often undermine popular sovereignty. This discrepancy raises a critical question: Do parliamentarians believe they are better equipped to make decisions than the citizens they represent? Condorcet, a French philosopher from the 1789 Revolution, argued that representatives should use their judgment and expertise for the people's best interests, not merely echo public opinion. If Kenyan political parties adopt this stance, they defile the Constitution.
Political Party Line: The Monster in the Room
Kenya's political structure, in theory, anchors on popular sovereignty, as outlined in Articles 1 and 94(1). These provisions oblige MPs to represent their constituents' will. However, in practice, party loyalty and discipline often overshadow this democratic ideal. Party discipline is crucial in Kenya, ensuring alignment in public positions. Article 103(1)(e)(ii) of the Constitution allows for an MP's tenure termination if expelled from their party. The Political Parties Act further enforces discipline, requiring parties to establish internal mechanisms to ensure adherence to their policies and interests. This ties MPs' political survival to party lines, often trumping constituents' wishes.
Voting along party lines is common. In the US, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 was voted on party lines. In Kenya, the Security Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2014, also demonstrated party power. The Finance Bill 2024 was no different, with Kenya Kwanza expected to vote for it and Azimio against it. MPs often face a choice between party directives and constituents' interests.
Political Patronage
Political patronage in Kenya skews development projects to benefit the President's supporters, undermining democratic principles. Political parties often revolve around individuals rather than institutions. Loyalty to the party leader is crucial for political survival and career progression. MPs who deviate from the party line risk losing their positions or facing disciplinary actions. During contentious bills, the President’s stance heavily influences ruling party MPs' voting behavior. This dynamic forces MPs to choose between party directives and constituents' interests, often choosing the former.
Conclusion
In an unexpected turn of events, popular sovereignty triumphed over party politics. The President refused to assent to the Finance Bill 2024, calling for its withdrawal. This decision underscored the power of the people's voice over political party influence. Despite the constitutional mandate for MPs to act according to their constituents' will, party loyalty and discipline often overshadow this principle. However, the President's decision to reject the Finance Bill 2024 demonstrated a commitment to the people’s will, highlighting the complex interplay between party loyalty and parliamentary accountability in Kenya. This victory for popular sovereignty serves as a reminder that, ultimately, the power of governance rests with the people.
