7 January 2008
editorial
Lagos — The anger, violence and consequent killings which have characterised the disputed Kenyan elections constitute an anticlimax. This is because, commentaries during the run-up to the elections indicated that Kenya, and by extension Africa, was on the verge of a new governance dawn. It was a new dawn in which Kenya was being touted as the latest icon of governance in a continent that is essentially littered with authoritarianism and various forms of pseudo- democracies. The sad turn-around has been ensured, essentially by a situation in which there are clear indications that the incumbent 76-year-old President, Mwai Kibaki, has played a fast one on Kenya and Kenyans. He has done this by thwarting the legitimate aspirations of the Kenyan populace.
Initially, there were reports to the effect that his challenger, Raila Odinga, was coasting home to victory. All of a sudden however, the outlook was reported to have changed. The independent media was kept out in the dark, and security was tightened around Samuel Kiviuti, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission who, after a suspicious lull, proceeded to announce that President Mwai Kibaki had won the elections, by a narrow margin of 200,000 votes.
In response to this announcement, and under normal circumstances, there would have been a spontaneous eruption of joy and celebrations. This has not been the case however. Rather what the continent and the rest of the world have witnessed are visceral anger and passions on the part of Kenyans who, understandably are of the view that their legitimate aspirations have been negated by a self serving Kenyan leadership embodied in Kibaki. In the process, the cost has been rather high in the form of lost lives and destroyed property.
The ensuing mayhem and confusion are very unfortunate. This is more so, when it is appreciated that, in the East African sub-region, Kenya constitutes something of an exception. The country is an oasis of stability which differs markedly from tumultuous, neighbouring countries like Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia. If care is not taken however, this roseate exceptionalism is about to be overtaken by a horrendous situation in which the plurality of the Kenyan society will undergo an implosion of severe proportions.
Matters have certainly not been helped by the fact that the constitutional provisions for redress are as thorny as they are tardy. This is evident from the fact that, even disputes arising from elections in previous years are yet to be satisfactorily resolved. And this may well explain the anger and violence, which have greeted the elections. Sensing that legitimate avenues may have been closed for protest and consequent redress, recourse to the streets became something of an inevitability. This is more so in view of the fact that Kenyans appeared to have been confronted with a fait accompli. For barely thirty minutes after the announcement of the disputed results, President Kibaki was sworn in for a second term. It was as if, the deed had been done; and it could not be undone!
Not quite however. This is because the traditional sources of support and succour for a winner in such an election are not in place. The western countries, notably, Britain and the United States of America have refused to congratulate the presumed winner. These two powers were probably responding to the damning verdict of the election observers. Most of these observers have said in clear and unambiguous terms that the elections were severely flawed. For instance, observers of the European Union contended that the Kenya elections fell short of international standards.
They deposed further that the elections were marred by a lack of transparency in the processing and tallying of the presidential results which, according to them, raises concerns about the accuracy of the final results. Meanwhile, this sceptical perspective has been complemented by some of the electoral commissioners. These commissioners have expressed doubts about the veracity of the figures which handed over victory to President Kibaki.
As for Kibaki himself, we believe that this is the time for him to indulge in some introspection. A few years ago, he was in the vanguard of an opposition which ultimately forced Arap Moi, to give up power in a keenly contested election. Today, the shoe is clearly on the other foot. The Kenyans have spoken by giving their mandate to Raila Odinga. What he has done, via his instantaneous swearing in process, is to obstruct this process. At 76, he is nudging 80, and to this extent, the higher and larger interest of Kenya should be uppermost in his mind. If the pilot demonstrations of the last few days are anything to go by, it is evident that Kenya is set for a ghastly future.
We believe, however, that as dire as it seems, the situation can still be salvaged. This can be done by a speedy hearing of the petitions by the appropriate Election Petition Tribunals. And unless this is done in such a way as to restore the mandate of the Kenyan electorate; then we can only echo here that: it is not yet uhuru for Kenya - a country that ought to be in the vanguard of the search for a better governance climate in the African continent.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
