Why Kenya should be turned into a monarchy

Kenya’s democracy has come a long way since its revival in 1992. The imperfections it suffered between 1992 and 2008 led Kenyans to enact the 2010 Constitution, which sought to forestall any repeat of these imperfections and safeguard the country from backsliding.

Since then, democracy has become the country’s constitutionally mandated system of government, outside of which no government can be legally constituted. This is a truly commendable achievement, especially when one considers the region we live in, surrounded by one-party autocracies, military dictatorships and collapsed states.

Yet commendable as this may be, there are problems with our democratic system. The one consistent thing our democracy is producing is a predatory elite. Every five years, we keep replacing one set of predatory elite with another. Once in power, the predatory elite sets up dishonest governments that are incapable of meeting the vast expectations of Kenyans.

Consistent production of a predatory elite and its dishonest governments cast doubts on the ability of our democratic system to develop the country. In the scholarly world, Tim Kelsall has addressed this dilemma. He categorised governments which run sub- Saharan Africa into four, consisting of non-developmental kleptocracies, ineffective developmental states, developmental patrimonial states and competitive clientelist states.

Kenya has encountered at least three of these four typologies at different times in its history. Under Jomo Kenyatta, we were a developmental patrimonial state, where although the country made advances in development, it was thoroughly corrupt, with much of the benefits accruing to Jomo and his cronies. Under Moi, we were a non-developmental kleptocracy, with little growth. With the reversion back to democratic rule in 1992, the country transited to a competitive clientelist typology. What this means is that the government lost monopoly over corruption. This opened corruption to all.

In governance, competitive clientelism has translated into having the most corrupt rise into the country’s leadership. This pattern seems to entrench itself every election cycle. With our elections producing these type of predatory elite, it is unlikely that the country can truly develop.

With democracy thus mostly producing a destructive predatory elite, it would make sense to consider alternatives. Indeed, we have often heard people yearn for ‘benevolent’ dictatorship as a cure for the problems facing Africa. Rwanda under Paul Kagame and Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi are often cited as examples of progressing countries despite not being exact democracies by most indices. Yet ‘benevolent’ dictatorships are usually highly unstable, and collapse once the ‘benevolent’ dictator is out of the picture. As such, it is not a very attractive replacement for our democracy, its frailties notwithstanding.

This is where a constitutional monarchy could come in. In practical terms, constitutional monarchy would mean replacing presidents with a king. We may still have elections, but this would be in the context of a king, which could bring about a range of benefits, three of which stand out. First, election under a king could mean a higher threshold for leadership. The king could provide an impeccable standard for acceptable conduct for leadership, hence putting it above the reach of rogues who sneak into power under the current arrangement.

Secondly, a king could create a dynasty, which should not only offer stability beyond the incumbent king, but also a route to nurturing future leaders for the country. Future kings would be taught about the country’s most entrenched problems of tribalism, corruption and inequality.

This would undercut the many rogues who rise to power through manipulating these problems. Third, the king would take over the management of state institutions fighting high-profile elite corruption, human rights violations and ethnic chauvinism. With the king responsible for these institutions, they would stand up against the predatory elite that use corruption, extrajudicial killings and tribalism to gain and retain power.

Yet monarchies also come with own problems. They are just as prone to abuse as the other two systems of government – rule by a few (aristocracy) and rule by many (democracy), as Aristotle categorises them. As the example of Ethiopia under Haile Selassie demonstrated, monarchies can refuse to move with the times. Monarchical dynasties may also produce spoilt brats and entitled playboys rather than enlightened rulers keen on making the world better for their subjects.

Perhaps we just need to heed Aristotle, who advises that a system of government matters little, with much depending on the type of leader inside a system. Still, given that our democracy is constantly supplying us with an endless stream of a predatory elite that cannot develop the country, we must think of all alternatives that will stem this tide. It is time to consider a constitutional, enlightened monarchy.