Political debates should focus on ‘so what’ as 2017 election looms

Kenya’s first-ever officially televised Presidential election debate in Nairobi on February 11, 2013. PHOTO | FILE 

By DENNIS KABAARA

Last Monday night’s first US Presidential debate provided welcome relief from our localised hullaballoo around Moi University, and the negotiated exit of our current IEBC commissioners.

As we prepared to watch the debate at the unearthly hour of 4 a.m, it was reported that candidate Hillary Clinton was “studiously preparing”, while candidate Donald Trump apparently planned to “wing it” (that is, speak off the cuff).

We even knew in advance that, as moderator, NBC Anchor Lester Holt had selected a line of questioning around three fine themes — “America’s Direction”, “Achieving Prosperity” and “Securing America”.

Let’s just say that’s where policy ended and politics began. In the subsequent US, international and local press avalanche of competing opinion around “who won”, little or no reference was made to how either candidate performed on these outcome-focused themes.

Indeed, the lasting impression of what was effectively an expensive exercise in mchongoano (“dissing one another” or “put downs”) is one of a parallel debate between Mrs Clinton’s prescriptions and Mr Trump’s descriptions, with few the wiser among the unusually big number of undecided voters this year.

Not to say the debate was not good fun. My favourite moment was Hillary’s lovely “smile-shrug-shuffle” “Whew, Ok!” response to The Donald’s aggressive diatribe on who among the two has the better “Presidential temperament,” as comedian Bernie Mac might exclaim, with eyes rolling, “America…”

Where am I going with this? Accepting that presidential debates, especially of US vintage, are increasingly about the sound and fury of big promises, steady and powerful body language and witty “one-liners”, where does one find an honest dialogue between electoral competitors around what I call “so what” questions — that is, questions on outcomes and impacts that affect ordinary people?

Back to “Magical Kenya”. The Eldoret and IEBC headlines I mentioned earlier are pointing us towards a 2017 election that firmly resists discourse on real issues facing Kenyans (and the progress we are making, or not), and cynically reduces us to cantankerous, and possibly violent, campaigns overseen by an unprepared elections manager susceptible to easy compromise. This is not a pretty picture.

Yet, despite this alarming perspective, we are likely to have our own presidential (and hopefully, gubernatorial) debates some time in 2017.

Presumably, these will be an improvement on the tragi-comedy that was our 2013 presidential debate season; in which Candidate Dida was the star turn.

Given the ray of sunshine that our Constitution offers in transparency, accountability and freedom of information, we could be looking at a moment in which we use our own 2017 debates to “stress-test” the claimed achievements and future promises of our President and Governor incumbents, as well as the alternatives presented by those offering a different leadership path.

If we really are at the point in our development where it is possible that an exchange of ideas “trumps” an exchange of fists, then what should we ask of our prospective candidates — incumbents and challengers?

I think it’s time to start testing our potential candidates for their “outcome visions”.

Simply, let’s question the whole list of shiny projects — which are outputs at best, but are really inputs and activities —that have littered the Kenyan landscape since 2013, and ask – “so what?” of the incumbents.

Equally, let’s interrogate the endless critiques offered by challengers, tease out their real alternative promises and ask again – “so what”?

As an aside, South Africa has tried this “so what” framework – called the “outcomes approach” – built around 12 outcomes – basic education, health, safety and security, employment, skills, economic infrastructure, food security, human settlements, local governance, the environment, a global South Africa and public service that actually works.

Of course, the jury is still out on its implementation, but it is a clever design that links political manifesto promises to policy, programmes and projects through what they refer to as the “macro-organisation of the state”.

But this is not just about big words. Let’s take a walk on the wild side, and imagine every leader has a five-level “so what” (or outcome) agenda that we should test.

Call this the “meta to nano” agenda. To begin, the leader’s “meta-agenda” revolves around delivering individual prosperity and human progress, not as “either/or” choices, but together in an environment of peace. That’s the theme for testing governors.

At national level, this agenda extends to balancing human and national security against individual and group rights, while respecting the justice system and the independence of the judiciary.

Below meta is the “macro-agenda”. “Macro” is about growing the Kenyan resource base, not simply in terms of financial and economic capital, but human, knowledge and social capital, while carefully managing our natural capital, including land.

Then there’s the “meso-agenda” around addressing four inequalities – gender, geography, inter-generational and social exclusion (including negative ethnicity).

The “micro-agenda” follows. Think the “five basics” at household level. Food; other basics (education, health, shelter, security, even a sense of community); income opportunities and access to assets; participatory governance beyond elections; and safety, security and accessible justice, or the rule of law.

What about the “nano agenda”? This is the flip-side of the meta-agenda. In other words, it’s about leaders addressing individuals’ everyday concerns – from good jobs, to living standards and costs, to safety in public places and private spaces, to rights-led access to resources such as water.

Why would this framework of interrogation be different or better? Well, it forces our candidates to think beyond input-activity type results (“I built a school/bought laptops”) to outcomes (“I improved education access/quality/throughput”).

It prompts candidates to think beyond legacy monuments, towards programmes that deliver real progress for people. Hopefully, this approach directs us away from PR events, flagship projects and the like towards pro-people policy that fixes social problems.

Is this agenda “stress-test” complicated? Yes, and it’s deliberately repetitive; we’re a developmental state. Our problems are more than a digital rendition of post-independence “poverty, ignorance and disease”.

Our solutions extend beyond money, or debt-fuelled investment that isn’t outcome-focused.

Mostly, I bet it’s time we respectfully engaged our politicians in this sort of multi-level, outcome-type thinking if we are to progress not simply from “promising” to “good”, but all the way to “great”.

After all, as the US Presidential debate tells me, isn’t it time for our own “so what” discourse as 2017 looms?