Grassroots Democracy Under Fire: UDA Members Demand Public Officers Stay Out of Party Elections
A heated debate is brewing within Kenya’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) as party members push back against the participation of public officers in upcoming grassroots elections. This contentious issue has taken center stage during the party’s nationwide sensitisation drive, where members are voicing their concerns with growing urgency. But here’s where it gets controversial: While some see this as a fight for pure grassroots representation, others argue it’s an attempt to limit political participation. Let’s dive into the details.
During recent sensitisation meetings in Bomet and Kericho counties, UDA members passionately argued that public officers, including civil servants, should be barred from contesting party positions. Their reasoning? They fear that the involvement of government employees or elected leaders could distort the election process and drown out the voices of ordinary party members. And this is the part most people miss: It’s not just about fairness—it’s about preserving the integrity of grassroots democracy.
Patrick Langat, speaking at the Bomet session, summed it up succinctly: ‘We want our grassroots elections to authentically represent the will of our members. Public officers often have conflicting interests, and their participation could sway outcomes in ways that don’t align with the grassroots vision. Ordinary members should lead this process and decide who speaks for us.’ This sentiment reflects a broader concern about external influence in what should be a purely internal party affair.
UDA Secretary-General Hassan Omar has acknowledged these concerns, urging members to organize and reach consensus on candidates. He emphasized that while the party respects the right of every member to contest, leadership may intervene in cases where harmony and the collective will are at stake. ‘We are bound by the party’s rules and constitution,’ Omar stated, adding that community consensus remains the cornerstone of UDA’s internal democratic process.
Here’s the kicker: Omar hinted that the party might step in to resolve disputes, particularly when contestants are deemed controversial by the electorate. This raises a thought-provoking question: Should parties prioritize internal harmony over individual rights to contest? Omar’s stance is clear: ‘Everyone has the right to run, but there must be agreement. If a community decides someone shouldn’t contest, that decision must be respected.’
He cited recent examples from Mbeere North and Malava, where multiple candidates registered, leading to agreements for some to step down. ‘Where disputes arose, we intervened,’ Omar explained, underscoring the delicate balance between individual rights and collective decision-making.
Residents in the visited counties also championed the one-man-one-vote principle, insisting it’s the only way to ensure fairness. Omar assured members that the upcoming elections would be free, fair, and transparent, thanks to the adoption of an electronic voting and tallying system. He highlighted that this digital approach would eliminate manipulation and enhance accountability—a move aimed at restoring trust in the electoral process.
The sensitisation drive, which began in Kericho and Bomet, has since moved to Vihiga and Kakamega. Over the next two weeks, similar sessions will be held in Elgeyo Marakwet, Nandi, Kiambu, Laikipia, Murang’a, Nyeri, Baringo, Nakuru, Embu, Trans Nzoia, Meru, Samburu, and Nyandarua. The goal? To educate party supporters about the electoral process and familiarize them with the electronic voting system, ensuring they’re well-prepared to cast their votes for grassroots leaders.
Now, here’s a question to ponder: Is excluding public officers from party elections a necessary safeguard for grassroots democracy, or does it unfairly restrict political participation? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that matters.
