The
story that we keep reminding ourselves - and keep being reminded of -
is that five years ago Kenyans went to the polls and then tried to
destroy the country because the polls were neither free nor fair. None
seems to think that the narrative, five years down the line, has changed
much. The received wisdom is that Kenya is in a 'fragile' state and if
the general election results, especially those of the presidential
contest, are doubted by any of the leading candidates, the crisis may be
beyond the efforts of Kenya's development partners, the African Union
or the sainted Kofi Annan. Much has been predicted about these
elections. Much may be wrong about those predictions.
The elephant in the room is that these elections, at least from the politicians' calculations, has been fought on the basis of the strength in numbers one tribe has against another. The coalitions and alliances that were crafted as winning strategies by the leading lights of presidential politics have been with an eye to shoring up what is perceived as limited tribal arithmetic. Fevered reporting by legions of Kenyan pressmen has revolved around a pernicious theory: that of the Tyranny of Numbers that posits that the election was won when the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission closed the voters' register. According to Mutahi Ngunyi, a respected political commentator, the Jubilee Alliance that brings together Uhuru Kenyatta's The National Alliance and William Ruto's United Democratic Front on the presidential ballot will defeat the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) because the union between Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement and Kalonzo Musyoka's Wiper Democratic Movement does not command the same tribal numbers that the Jubilee Alliance does. Much newsprint ink has been spilled trying to argue one way or the other that the Tyranny of Numbers theory is flawed or accurate, depending on your political predilections. Those who pooh-pooh the theory do so based on opinion polls, published regularly over the past year.
Opinion polling in Kenya is slowly coming of age. Many 'sophisticated' Kenyans treat them like the Oracles of Delphi, bestowing upon the statistics a mythical power to define the political landscape of the nation. Opinion pollsters have argued that they rely on statistical models that have been proven time and again in proving one thing or the other, or as they like to declaim, to show how the trends are trending. Still, there is much to doubt in the numbers, not least because no one seems to know who has commissioned the polls or what methodologies have been relied on to arrive at the statistical conclusions being published in the press. Because of these and other doubts surrounding the numbers, Kenyans are divided down the middle on whether to place their trust in the numbers or to trust the Tyranny of Numbers theory. Alternative predictions from the statistics are based on whether one has faith in the institutions that will oversee the elections or not.
The IEBC has been lauded, despite much misgiving in some quarters as to its integrity, for the manner in which it has prepared for the elections and the processes and systems it has established to pull off a successful elections. Ahmed Isaack Hassan and his fellow commissioners have worked very hard to portray and image of a united front in their preparations for the elections. But one should not be blinded by the apparent bonhomie by the commissioners; the teething problems the commission endured during the procurement of the Biometric Voter Register paint a frightening picture of an agency that continues to emulate some of the worst habits of the mainstream public service that had brought it low in the peoples' estimations. The public service too has come in for some flak. Accusations that senior members of the public service have been co-opted into the campaigns of this or that coalition have refused to die down despite the emphatic protestations of the Head of the Public Service. Many still remember the damning findings of the Kriegler Commission of the role that the public service played in the conflagration of 2007 and 2008.
The Judiciary, however, under the rather unsettling leadership of Dr Willy Mutunga, the Chief Justice, has somehow managed to redeem itself in the eyes of many Kenyans. Despite some of the missteps of the Chief Justice, the Judiciary has managed to stay above the political fray for the most part. Many Kenyans, and foreigners, are convinced that the Judiciary will play a mediating role if and when electoral disputes arise. In a series of judgments and rulings, the Judiciary has refused to pick favourites in the general election; it has argued, persuasively, that it is up to the peoples of Kenya to make the ultimate choice on The Fourth.
When the Judiciary refused to bar Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto from the ballot, it must have known that the decision would not sit well with some of the more vocal members of the 'human rights' section of civil society. Their demands, regardless of their passion on the subject, were without legal merit. One suspects that they know this but are simply unwilling to admit in in public lest their benefactors think they have gone soft. But the matter of the International Criminal Court indictments of the Jubilee Alliance's ticket is not a conviction. They are accused of heinous crimes. They are yet to stand trial and from the looks f things, Uhuru Kenyatta may yet be tried if the numbers of witnesses recanting rises or the proof relied upon by the Office of the Prosecutor keeps getting successfully challenged by his very able, and expensive, defense team. But make no mistake: in the minds of many Kenyans, the results of the presidential contest are also a referendum on the ICC Question. If the Jubilee ticket wins the contest, it will be seen by many as a vindication of their claims to innocence. If they lose, their political careers may be sunk, never to rise again.
What is notable about these elections has been the almost total absence of politically-motivated violence. Even in the run up to the 2007 general election, Kenyans were engaged in low-level violence that found an outlet in the disputed results. So far, none has argued that continuing clashes in the Tana Delta or the sporadic cattle-rustling incidents that have caused so much death and destruction in parts of the Rift Valley and northern Kenya have had anything to do with the elections. It seems that it is only the wanton destruction of Kenya's wildlife is linked to the general election; it is alleged that the continuing poaching of elephants, lions and rhinos in Kenya's national parks and game reserves is linked to the financing of what is bound t be the most expensive election in Kenya's fifty year history.
Those in the civil society not obsessed with the ICC Question have done a stellar job in "peace-building." Their efforts have not gone unnoticed. Many Kenyans, as indeed their candidates, have pledged to respect the verdict of the people on The Fourth. After all is said and done, Kenyans have the opportunity to prove to the world and to the Western media that continues to scaremonger with wild abandon, the we are a peaceable and peaceful peoples. We have claimed that 2007/08 will never again be our postcard to the world. It is time to put our money where our mouths are.
The elephant in the room is that these elections, at least from the politicians' calculations, has been fought on the basis of the strength in numbers one tribe has against another. The coalitions and alliances that were crafted as winning strategies by the leading lights of presidential politics have been with an eye to shoring up what is perceived as limited tribal arithmetic. Fevered reporting by legions of Kenyan pressmen has revolved around a pernicious theory: that of the Tyranny of Numbers that posits that the election was won when the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission closed the voters' register. According to Mutahi Ngunyi, a respected political commentator, the Jubilee Alliance that brings together Uhuru Kenyatta's The National Alliance and William Ruto's United Democratic Front on the presidential ballot will defeat the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) because the union between Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement and Kalonzo Musyoka's Wiper Democratic Movement does not command the same tribal numbers that the Jubilee Alliance does. Much newsprint ink has been spilled trying to argue one way or the other that the Tyranny of Numbers theory is flawed or accurate, depending on your political predilections. Those who pooh-pooh the theory do so based on opinion polls, published regularly over the past year.
Opinion polling in Kenya is slowly coming of age. Many 'sophisticated' Kenyans treat them like the Oracles of Delphi, bestowing upon the statistics a mythical power to define the political landscape of the nation. Opinion pollsters have argued that they rely on statistical models that have been proven time and again in proving one thing or the other, or as they like to declaim, to show how the trends are trending. Still, there is much to doubt in the numbers, not least because no one seems to know who has commissioned the polls or what methodologies have been relied on to arrive at the statistical conclusions being published in the press. Because of these and other doubts surrounding the numbers, Kenyans are divided down the middle on whether to place their trust in the numbers or to trust the Tyranny of Numbers theory. Alternative predictions from the statistics are based on whether one has faith in the institutions that will oversee the elections or not.
The IEBC has been lauded, despite much misgiving in some quarters as to its integrity, for the manner in which it has prepared for the elections and the processes and systems it has established to pull off a successful elections. Ahmed Isaack Hassan and his fellow commissioners have worked very hard to portray and image of a united front in their preparations for the elections. But one should not be blinded by the apparent bonhomie by the commissioners; the teething problems the commission endured during the procurement of the Biometric Voter Register paint a frightening picture of an agency that continues to emulate some of the worst habits of the mainstream public service that had brought it low in the peoples' estimations. The public service too has come in for some flak. Accusations that senior members of the public service have been co-opted into the campaigns of this or that coalition have refused to die down despite the emphatic protestations of the Head of the Public Service. Many still remember the damning findings of the Kriegler Commission of the role that the public service played in the conflagration of 2007 and 2008.
The Judiciary, however, under the rather unsettling leadership of Dr Willy Mutunga, the Chief Justice, has somehow managed to redeem itself in the eyes of many Kenyans. Despite some of the missteps of the Chief Justice, the Judiciary has managed to stay above the political fray for the most part. Many Kenyans, and foreigners, are convinced that the Judiciary will play a mediating role if and when electoral disputes arise. In a series of judgments and rulings, the Judiciary has refused to pick favourites in the general election; it has argued, persuasively, that it is up to the peoples of Kenya to make the ultimate choice on The Fourth.
When the Judiciary refused to bar Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto from the ballot, it must have known that the decision would not sit well with some of the more vocal members of the 'human rights' section of civil society. Their demands, regardless of their passion on the subject, were without legal merit. One suspects that they know this but are simply unwilling to admit in in public lest their benefactors think they have gone soft. But the matter of the International Criminal Court indictments of the Jubilee Alliance's ticket is not a conviction. They are accused of heinous crimes. They are yet to stand trial and from the looks f things, Uhuru Kenyatta may yet be tried if the numbers of witnesses recanting rises or the proof relied upon by the Office of the Prosecutor keeps getting successfully challenged by his very able, and expensive, defense team. But make no mistake: in the minds of many Kenyans, the results of the presidential contest are also a referendum on the ICC Question. If the Jubilee ticket wins the contest, it will be seen by many as a vindication of their claims to innocence. If they lose, their political careers may be sunk, never to rise again.
What is notable about these elections has been the almost total absence of politically-motivated violence. Even in the run up to the 2007 general election, Kenyans were engaged in low-level violence that found an outlet in the disputed results. So far, none has argued that continuing clashes in the Tana Delta or the sporadic cattle-rustling incidents that have caused so much death and destruction in parts of the Rift Valley and northern Kenya have had anything to do with the elections. It seems that it is only the wanton destruction of Kenya's wildlife is linked to the general election; it is alleged that the continuing poaching of elephants, lions and rhinos in Kenya's national parks and game reserves is linked to the financing of what is bound t be the most expensive election in Kenya's fifty year history.
Those in the civil society not obsessed with the ICC Question have done a stellar job in "peace-building." Their efforts have not gone unnoticed. Many Kenyans, as indeed their candidates, have pledged to respect the verdict of the people on The Fourth. After all is said and done, Kenyans have the opportunity to prove to the world and to the Western media that continues to scaremonger with wild abandon, the we are a peaceable and peaceful peoples. We have claimed that 2007/08 will never again be our postcard to the world. It is time to put our money where our mouths are.
No comments:
Post a Comment