Proposals to replace Kenya's current winner-take-all electoral system with one based on proportional representation were set to be one of the most contentious issues at the National Constitutional Conference that was to kick off this Monday before dissolution of parliament last Friday cast doubts over whether it would go on or not.

Controversy has been brewing following recommendations by the Prof Yash Pal Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) that Kenya adopt the mixed member proportional (MMP) system, instead of the current first-past-the-post regime (FPTP).

Fiercely opposed to the proposal is Kanu, whose majority in parliament has been thinning progressively since 1992, but which is often accused of regularly changing electoral boundaries to boost its tally in the house. 

President Moi recently took exception to the proposal, questioning whether Prof Ghai consulted widely on the issue. Speaker of the National Assembly Francis ole Kaparo similarly expressed strong reservations about the proposal, but noted that the current nomination provision had been misused "to reward friends and relatives." 

Under the proposed system, the 210 elected members will be supplemented by 90 additional members drawn from the party lists presented by political parties contesting the elections, but which must garner at least five per cent of the national vote to qualify. 

The system is meant to cancel out the effects of gerrymandering arising out of complaints that constituencies of unequal size are deliberately created to favour the ruling party or individuals, as well as to correct the persistent imbalance in gender representation. This is particularly so given that 50 per cent of the additional seats will be reserved for women. 

Thus the proposal, if implemented, would effectively increase the total number of MPs from the current 210 to 300 without necessarily increasing the number of constituencies as was proposed in June by the MP for Rongo, Ochilo Ayacko. 

Despite claims by CKRC that the system was favoured by all political parties in their recommendations to the constitutional review commission, Kanu operatives have realised that it could scuttle the advantage the party enjoys by virtue of having more constituencies in its strongholds. 

Signs that Kanu is uncomfortable with the proposed system emerged soon after the draft was released early last month when three Cabinet ministers – Isaac Ruto, Julius Sunkuli and William Ruto – known to echo the sentiments of the Kanu power barons, dismissed the draft constitution in general as "unworkable" and one that "can only work in utopia."

Some opposition members such as Nyeri Town MP Wanyiri Kihoro are also apprehensive of the move, saying that "it is likely to defeat the purpose of a sovereign parliament and downgrade the power of the elected representatives." He alleged that such MPs would strive to please their masters rather than attend to national matters. 

Yet, unlike the FPTP system – also referred to as majoritarian or plurality-majority–where the candidate who garners the most votes wins irrespective of the significant votes against the winner, the MMP system will allocate additional seats in direct proportion to the overall share of votes received. 

Hailed by its proponents as a more responsive system that ensures that a government mirrors the various interests in the body politic as closely as possible, the system works under the premise that every vote is an expression of a distinct political preference. Thus, the proportion of votes is the true measure of proportionality, not the proportion of seats.

While the FPTP system is attractive to some countries for its simplicity in design and operation, its critics argue that it falls far short of reflecting the voters' true wishes. For instance, a party can receive 10 per cent of the total votes but end up with 30 per cent of the seats in parliament. 

Thus, the bulk of the votes that do not go towards determining the winner are "wasted" and the specific will which they sought to express through the ballot is essentially "gagged." Besides Kenya, FPTP is used in Britain, India, Uganda and Canada, among other countries.

In 1992, Kanu had 98 seats (52 per cent) while the opposition had 90 seats (48 per cent) of the 188 elective seats. Yet, Kanu obtained 35 per cent of the popular vote vis-a-vis the 65 per cent of the combined opposition. 

The same trend was repeated in 1997, where Kanu had 107 (51 per cent) of the 210 elective seats with a popular vote of 39 per cent, compared with the combined opposition's 103 (39 per cent) of the seats with 61 per cent of the popular vote. 

Had the MMP system been used, the party strengths in the past two elections would have been significantly different, in that Kanu would not have been entitled to any more seats, let alone the six it took through the nomination rule, since the FPTP seats were already in excess of its percentage votes. The other parties would have shared the 12 seats in proportion to their percentage votes. 

The MMP system is credited with incorporating disadvantaged minorities into mainstream politics, which is otherwise impossible under the FPTP system. A case in point is New Zealand, where the Maori people for years did not get an opportunity for representation under the FPTP system.

It had to take a change to an MMP system to enable the Maori to secure substantial representation in the country’s legislature, among other benefits. The Maori example, according to MMP proponents, is also a fitting counter against the usual argument that a more complicated electoral system would put a relatively less literate population at a disadvantage. 

According to the Ford-K MP for Kimilili, Mukhisa Kituyi, those opposed to the new system either lack understanding of how it works, or are simply protecting their narrow interests. "We are in the Stone Age in terms of gender representation. This a good opportunity to improve the situation, since the quota system has not worked," he noted. 

Notably, MMP differs from the current constitutional provision that allows political parties to nominate an additional 12 MPs according to their parliamentary strengths, but which experts say has failed to serve its original purpose of bringing expertise to the House and balancing special interests. 

First, the 12 MPs are too few to make a difference in rectifying the disparity, and secondly, they serve to enhance the disportionality rather than reduce it, since the allocations of seats is based on the number of seats won rather than the proportion of votes.

Since 1963, women, being the most notable minorities in Kenya’s political arena, have encountered a myriad obstacles that militate against their ascending to political leadership and other decision-making positions, mainly due to ingrained negative stereotypes.