OF T-SHIRTS, CAPS AND THREE-PIECE VOTING.

My tailor from Nyakach tells me that I like big things. Like swimming in the lake of our politics where fishy arty aspirants swim. As he whistled the "Bado Mapambano" Ohangla, I ask him about the politics of cloth making. He then sighs with deep relief before talking about the three-piece and Kaunda suits that he has been making for years. Surprisingly he deceivingly chooses to change the wavelength to real politics. He starts by stating that the three piece voting system that is very much tailor-made is what ODM should yearn to have in as far as having numbers is concerned.

"Even if we had excellent and good individuals in a bad leadership system they would not do much to bring meaningful change to all Kenyans", he poses. He also laments that individuals do not bring leadership but good system of governance but together with other like-minded party members. On the other hand bad leaders are transformed not by others but with ethical systems tat bring change.

Certainly voters are more acutely confronted with the three-fold dilemma of how to elect their leaders in the seemingly explosive presidential, parliamentary and civic elections to be held on the 27 of this month. Can Kenyans adopt t a voting structure in our already fragmented society that relies on tribalism, political history and economic class to get representation? Certainly the way our political parties have been unscientifically structured, lack genuine systems of voting nominees for elections. Having a three-piece structure on our voting patterns is to readily impose electoral dictatorship on voters. This reverse democracy to popularize a party misses the concept of having true leadership.

First, the three-piece voting pattern lacks the basis of scientific interpretation and is prone to misuse and corruption for elite political reasons.

On the other hand the system is seen in the following broad ways. The dualistic explosion, as opposed to having a "blouse councilor", "shirt- parliamentarian" and a "tie-President" divides the voters in polar terms. Good for regions that play the tribal base "blocker-effector" and bad for those with weak ethnic blocks. ODM seems to be popular in six provinces out of eight, while PNU and ODM-K have with them two and a single province, respectively. Voters perceive that the head of the party at the regional block is readily entitled to provide a specific voting pattern to garner majority parliamentary and civic seats.

Multiplistic, in that the head of the "three-piece pattern" may give voting directives to the electorate on whom to specifically vote for as an MP and councilor.

This electoral diversity only brings unwarranted confusion to areas that have blocks but where voters are keen to elect an individual than an aspirant sponsored by the Populist Party. Unfortunately this electoral diversity with uncertainty is legitimised by the voters due to sectarian interests including tribal, though seen as a temporary political gesture for election purposes. As previously witnessed, the pattern is seen to have proved a point in some constituencies. Some leftist aspirants, as bettors are convinced that betting their energies on the unpopular PNU in his home would pay off come election time due to his development record. While our politics and parties seen to be pluralistic democratically it limits voter participation and transparency. Thus, voting at the grassroots proves to be more quantitative that otherwise quantitative.

On the relative aspect, many voters perceive the three-piece voting system as electorally disconnected from the concept of true democracy.

This "diversity of uncertainty" is a permanent societal structure due to tribal manifestation our politics carry with them, though sectarian and not inclusive and national. It is accepted in only contextual and relative ways. The stand only changes after elections or a councilor or MP is involved in some malpractice while in office. Validity is brought in when clan or community speaks on behalf of the electorate.

Voters canningly feel that no single voting style would bring them good leadership and that a varied voting pattern proves the magic. This they do by literally escaping from true democracy that they know too well about than being sectarian.

The challenge that lies in this category is that tribal communities become activists, not only voters. Seeking to match tribal or communal interests of their presidential leaders with theirs. But a problem arises when a voter in need of assistance confronts the party leader. The perception is that the voter "owns" the leader and vice versa and each "must" get what he/she wants even without true loyalty.

In an ethical aspect, the system seems to be a rather trans-political voting pattern that allows the electorate to get fair leadership that falls on first choosing a leader among aspirants from various political parties before identifying them with their political parties, be they at civic or parliamentary levels. This brings accountability and commitment from a leader without the need to have a personal approach and attachment to political leadership. With this approach, leadership and economic development are easily improved and re-evaluated with the electorate keeping close watch. Thus there is lots of sharing than giving political directives to be seen to be leading.

Though it may be appropriate to perceive that we need a three-piece system of voting what really matters most is bringing well defined changes in our leadership and political systems as opposed to having "new wine in old bottles" We need change in our systems.

Regards,
Mundia Mundia Jnr.