Hybrid system will be a
recipe for disaster
Those who wrote the draft constitution appear to have opted for a hybrid system of government, akin to that of France.
The key question delegates in Bomas III will have to address is this: What are the merits and demerits of the presidential system, the parliamentary system, and the hybrid system of government?
Political developments in France between 1997-2002 should shed some light on the weaknesses of this system, and should steer us from making such a costly mistake.
When President Jacques Chirac called an election in 1997, the leftists (socialists and communists) won 318 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly. With only 259 seats, the conservatives, led by Mr Chirac, became a minority.
President Chirac had no choice but to name Lionel Jospin, head of the Socialist Party, as prime minister.
As a result, the President spent the next five years playing second fiddle to the leftist coalition government, especially as the two leaders differed on almost every issue. The upshot was the leadership achieved little during the period. France suffered from a stymied, slow, ineffectual governance.
In Kenya, the incessant bickering in the ruling party has been having the same effect.
The drafters of the French constitution never envisaged such a situation. Therefore France paid dearly for having a divided government two thirds of the time.
Only during the 2002 legislative elections did France free itself from this quagmire known as cohabitation. But not without a scare, when a neo-fascist, Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen, came second to Mr Chirac in the first round of the presidential elections.
The leftist flag-bearer, Jospin, was beaten to third place. In the second round, Mr Chirac won resoundingly won, while his conservative allies took control of the National Assembly.
The hybrid system is also likely to create polarised ethnic and political considerations at the expense of the national good.
Indeed, a political environment full of mistrust and political mischief, intrigue, ethnic grandstanding and a government at cross-purposes with itself, make the country a "no-go zone" for foreign investors. The international credibility we have painstakingly cultivated is, as a result, being eroded considerably.
The major advantage of a presidential system of government is that an elected president becomes the symbol of national unity. This is a necessary condition for the creation of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial nation. To this end, the hybrid system is a recipe for disaster.
Studies have in the past subjected the presidential and parliamentary systems to scientific research. Two eminent economists have shown that countries with presidential regimes have smaller governments than parliamentary ones.
Torsten Persson (Stockholm University), and Guido Tobellini (Bocconi University-Milan), say that presidential systems produce stiffer competition among politicians, which in turn induces them to spend less on every budget item and results in a smaller government. Thus there is less public spending than in a parliamentary system.
A hybrid system would score less than a parliamentary system if subjected to the same scrutiny.
Moreover, the creation of an office of prime minister and two deputies does not only constitute an unnecessary expenditure, it will make the leadership structure "top heavy".
Such a structure breeds duplication of duties, bureaucracy and inefficiency. It cannot pass rigorous analysis under the organisational theory.
The proposal contained in the draft, chapter eight, 175, 3(a) that MPs cannot be appointed ministers or deputy ministers is not only preposterous, it makes nonsense of the concept of elective democracy.
Lastly, where the president and the prime minister belong to the same camp and command a sizeable majority in the National Assembly, there are greater opportunities for collusion among politicians to increase the benefits that accrue to them. In this case, the hybrid system of government would negate the principle of "checks and balances".
In conclusion, a constitution which bequeaths posterity with a unitary presidential system of government with clipped powers coupled with adequate institutional checks and balances, and also fosters a new paradigm in our approach to national politics, is what our country needs in the 21st century.
Comments\Views about this article
Mr Gichuru is the manager, International Division, of the Kenya Commercial Bank
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
