Connect with us

Op-Eds

Kenya and Zimbabwe: The Mirrored Histories of Settler Occupation and Autocracy That Produced Electoral Criminality

8 min read.

Consider Mama Sylvia Maphosa, 56, avoiding trouble the day after Zimbabwe’s election, shot in the back by a sniper – one more victim of a culture of electoral violence stretching from Harare to Nairobi, where Baby Pendo’s killers are still abroad. But the remarkable inability to manage democratic elections in Zimbabwe and Kenya, both former settler colonies with turbulent legacies of violence, land dispossession and its vexed post-colonial aftermaths, are only partly explained by their histories. For that, cue the role of Big Man politics and Big Power interests. By MIRIAM ABRAHAM

Published

on

Kenya and Zimbabwe: The Mirrored Histories of Settler Occupation and Autocracy That Produced Electoral Criminality
Download PDFPrint Article

Mama Sylvia Maphosa, was on her way home on 1 August, having been released early from work by her employer of over 15 years, the Zimbabwe National Water Authority in Harare. Although this was the first presidential election without Robert Mugabe on the ballot since 1980, the 56-year-old mother of two did not care much for them or for politics in general. She just wanted to get home to her husband Robert Maphosa, who she had discouraged from his routine of picking her up from work for fear that he may be caught up in protests in the city.

Little did she know that it was her own life that was at risk. The bullet that lodged in her back was administered with the accuracy of a sniper targeting a heavily armed enemy. Yet, this was a woman fleeing the violence meted by the State in its alleged bid to quell opposition protests following the announcement by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) that President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the ruling ZANU-PF party had won the July 30 election, with 50.8 percent of the vote and the Movement for Democratic Change candidate Nelson Chamisa receiving 44.3 percent.

The murder of Mama Sylvia Maphosa and those of five other Zimbabweans in the immediate aftermath of a disputed election are no different than that of Baby Samantha Pendo, Stephanie Moraa Nyarangi, Jeremiah Maranga, Thomas Odhiambo Okul, Bernard Okoth Odoyo, Raphael Ayieko, Victor Okoth Obondo, Privel Ochieng Ameso, Shady Omondi Juma to cite the most prominent victims. They, along with scores of others were murdered a year ago in Kenya’s electoral violence. The histories and trajectories of Kenya and Zimbabwe often mirror each other. As I often tease my friends from Zimbabwe, since elections in Kenya are often a year after theirs, we provide a good playbook in mediocrity for them to perfect.

The murder of Mama Sylvia Maphosa and those of five other Zimbabweans in the immediate aftermath of a disputed election are no different than that of Baby Samantha Pendo, Stephanie Moraa Nyarangi, Jeremiah Maranga, Thomas Odhiambo Okul, Bernard Okoth Odoyo, Raphael Ayieko, Victor Okoth Obondo, Privel Ochieng Ameso, Shady Omondi Juma to cite the most prominent victims. They, along with scores of others were murdered a year ago in Kenya’s electoral violence.

Kenya and Zimbabwe share a spectacular inability to conduct uncontested presidential elections. We could of course blame our common colonial masters, and this may not be far-fetched. Both countries became colonies of the British Empire after the infamous Berlin conference on the partition of Africa with colonial rule taking root in 1890 in Zimbabwe and 1895 in Kenya. The methods colonialists deployed to suppress the local communities were marked with violence, coercion, bribery and dispossession. Their priority was to take over the fertile highlands in both countries, which they dubbed the ‘white highlands’ in Kenya, and minerals especially in Zimbabwe. The divide and rule tactics used between the Shona and the Ndebele were not any different from those used in Kenya to divide its numerous communities. The enduring aftermath in both countries, however, has been the ethnicisation of politics and the land question, which both countries have managed differently in the post-colonial era.

The colonial administration in both countries instituted racial stratification through the expropriation and allocation of land to settlers. In Kenya, the 1902 Crown Lands Ordinance declared the British Crown responsible for the administration of all land in Kenya, displacing millions who were then placed in ‘reserves’ as forced labour in the farms. The still-to-be implemented Ndung’u Commission report comprehensively details this history including the post-colonial political patronage using public land. By independence in 1963 in Kenya, over eight million acres of land, representing nearly 75 per cent of Kenya’s arable land had been transferred to the settlers.

In Zimbabwe, informal alienation of land began with the arrival of the European settlers who began to claim large tracts of land. Exactly the same year that the Land Ordinance was declared in Kenya in 1902, the colonialists in Zimbabwe established ‘indigenous reserves’. In their edited book, Becoming Zimbabwe, Brian Raftopoulos and Alois Mlambo, grapple with the colonial land history and track the various political and socio-economic developments until 2009. They show how millions of Zimbabweans were rendered landless with a few white commercial farmers controlling approximately 18 million hectares (50 percent) of agricultural land.

However, unlike Kenya, post-independent Zimbabwe’s approach to land redistribution has been remarkably different. As renowned author and academic, Mahmood Mamdani, notes Zimbabwe’s fast track land reform of 2000-2003 saw “ the greatest transfer of property in southern Africa since colonization. Unlike in Kenya where former colonial families and a few political heavyweights own the majority of the fertile land, in Zimbabwe 80 percent of land owned by white farmers was expropriated and redistributed, albeit in some cases to political operatives. Nonetheless, this resulted in more than a hundred thousand smallholder owners. Despite the unacceptable violence used during the land distribution, the harsh economic sanctions from the West, the contracted economic growth, hyperinflation, unemployment, among other ills, the fast track land reform has not turned out to be as disastrous as it was prophesied.

Parallels between Zimbabwe and Kenya go beyond the shared colonial history and the attendant land issues. The political parties that ushered in both countries to independence shared a history and almost the same name – Kenya African National Union (KANU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). The tactics that President Robert Mugabe used to ensure the dominance of ZANU are not any different from those used by President Jomo Kenyatta and his successor President Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. The 1980s and 90s saw the most repressive period in the history of both countries, economic hardships partly arising from corruption and the structural adjustment programmes imposed by the international financial institutions. There was remarkable brain-drain from both countries during this period, with an educated professional elite heading mostly to South Africa, Europe and the United States.

There are striking similarities when one considers events surrounding the 2007 elections in Kenya and that of Zimbabwe in 2008. Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) gained parliamentary majorities against President Mwai Kibaki and President Robert Mugabe’s parties, respectively. Early results from polling stations pointed to the incumbents losing the presidency to the opposition. It was therefore not surprising for protests and violence to erupt in both countries once they stubbornly refused to hand over power. International mediation initiatives led to power-sharing arrangements, creating the post of prime minister under the Grand Coalition government in Kenya and the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in Zimbabwe. The power-sharing arrangements were fraught with wrangling, with ODM urging its leadership to withdraw from the power-sharing government in early 2009 due to deep perceptions of marginalization, and Tsvangirai’s MDC-T ‘disengaging’ from government. However, despite the dysfunctionality and machinations, the power-sharing arrangement in both countries remained intact until the 2013 General Elections.

There are striking similarities when one considers events surrounding the 2007 elections in Kenya and that of Zimbabwe in 2008. Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) gained parliamentary majorities…Early results from polling stations pointed to the incumbents losing the presidency to the opposition. It was therefore not surprising for protests and violence to erupt in both countries once the incumbents refused to hand over power. International mediation initiatives led to power-sharing arrangements, creating the post of prime minister under the Grand Coalition government in Kenya and the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in Zimbabwe.

Despite the reforms that took place in both countries following the signing of the internationally-mediated agreements in 2008, Zimbabwe and Kenya did not seem to have changed much on the electoral front. The same scenario of contested elections was repeated in 2013 albeit with ingenuity. This time, parliamentary seats were also targeted to maintain the popularity or “tyranny of numbers” narrative. They had learned from the fiasco of 2007/8 where the opposition had more parliamentary seats than the ruling party.

There is ample evidence that the stunning margin of 61.09% victory for President Mugabe against Morgan Tsvangirai’s 33.94% was anything but a free, fair and credible election. Two Commissioners of ZEC resigned with one saying, “I do not wish to enumerate the many reasons for my resignation, but they all have to do with the manner the Zimbabwe 2013 Harmonized Elections were proclaimed and conducted”. Numerous other anomalies were noted including the existence of 65 non-gazetted polling stations, astronomically high numbers of ‘assisted voters’ despite the fact that Zimbabwe ranks first in Africa with its 90 percent literacy rate. Thousands of persons were turned away from voting in opposition strongholds, among other irregularities.

Meanwhile in Kenya, the General Election in 2013 suffered the same fate. Although conducted in a peaceful manner, there were complaints raised regarding the register of voters, intimidation of voters, technological failure among others. According to Kenyan Election Observation Group (ELOG), the process was marked by “botched procurement process that was dogged by allegations of impropriety, delays in timelines for voter registration, and widespread failure of biometric verification kits on Election Day. Indeed, the failure of the biometric voter registration system ranked amongst the most serious threats to the integrity of the 2013 elections, and contributed to public perceptions of incompetence, corruption and electoral fraud”.

In both cases, the 2013 presidential election was subjected to legal petitions with the Courts upholding the results as announced by the respective election management bodies. Curiously, the response in both countries was again stunningly similar. Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court and “moved on”. Rt. Hon. Morgan Tsvangirai had withdrawn his case from the Constitutional Court shortly before its verdict was rendered noting that the Court was biased. He nevertheless did not appeal to his supporters to protest. These unsuccessful legal bids paved the way for Robert Mugabe to be sworn in for his 33rd year in office and for Uhuru Kenyatta to begin his first term as president of Kenya.

Given the trajectory of electoral processes in Kenya and Zimbabwe as noted above, it is unsurprising to see the parallels between the electoral process in Kenya in 2017 and that of Zimbabwe this year. Not to be outdone, Zimbabwe’s security apparatus has mounted a violent crackdown against the opposition, just as their counterparts in Kenya did in the aftermath of the 2017 election. In its conduct, ZEC has not acted any differently from the IEBC, making one wonder if they are cut from the same cloth. It is unsurprising that the opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa has done exactly what Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga did last year when faced with elections that he considered altered in favor of the incumbent. The MDC-T has filed a petition in the Constitutional Court.

In both cases, the 2013 presidential election was subjected to legal petitions with the Courts upholding the results as announced by the respective election management bodies. Curiously, the response in both countries was again stunningly similar. Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court and “moved on”. Rt. Hon. Morgan Tsvangirai had withdrawn his case from the Constitutional Court shortly before its verdict was rendered noting that the Court was biased…These unsuccessful legal bids paved the way for Robert Mugabe to be sworn in for his 33rd year in office and for Uhuru Kenyatta to begin his first term as president of Kenya.

It is barely conceivable that Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court will take the bold step that Kenya’s Supreme Court took last year of annulling the presidential vote, but the end result of the political game appears to be headed down the same path. The region and the international community, as it did in Kenya, has decided to cast it lot with the ZANU-PF. They have concluded that stability trumps electoral justice. Emerson Mnangagwa’s human rights record – he is commonly referred to as The Crocodile, and for good reason – is an open book, but he has recalibrated his approach to the West claiming that his country is “open for business” . The West is eager too. The international financial institutions are itching to return to Zimbabwe with the World Bank already having conducted a scoping mission to Harare in February, without waiting for the electoral process to play out.

It is barely conceivable that Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court will take the bold step that Kenya’s Supreme Court took last year of annulling the presidential vote… The region and the international community, as it did in Kenya, has decided to cast it lot with the ZANU-PF. They have concluded that stability trumps electoral justice.

As was the case with Raila Odinga, it is expected that Nelson Chamisa will receive pressure from the US, the UK, the UN and neighboring countries and receive reminders that the unity and peace of the country would serve the country better than a long season of dispute and protest. He will be told that that is the way statesmen act: in the interest of the nation. He will be reminded that he is young and would not want to be sanctioned. He will be reminded of his legacy and how much political capital he still has ahead of him. Promises will be made to him and his party.

As was the case with Raila Odinga, it is expected that Nelson Chamisa will receive pressure from the US, the UK, the UN and neighboring countries and receive reminders that the unity and peace of the country would serve the country better than a long season of dispute and protest. He will be told that that is the way statesmen act: in the interest of the nation. He will be reminded that he is young and would not want to be sanctioned. He will be reminded of his legacy and how much political capital he still has ahead of him. Promises will be made to him and his party.

And at the appropriate time, Nelson Chamisa will have his handshake with the Crocodile, unless the powerful vice-president and minister of defence, Constantino Chiwenga, torpedoes it. We will then forget and move on until 2022/23. Sadly, the memories of 2018 will remain in the hearts of Sylvia Maphosa’s family and of those whose loved ones have been sacrificed in the pursuit of power.

Avatar
By

Ms. Abraham is a governance and institutional development expert.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Published

on

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive
Download PDFPrint Article

The tyranny of numbers, a phrase first applied to Kenyan politics by one of Kenya’s most well-known political commentators, Mutahi Ngunyi, was repeated ad nauseum during the week of waiting that followed Kenya’s 2013 general elections.

In ads published in the run-up to the 2013 elections by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), people were told to vote, go home and accept the results. Encouraged by a state that had since the 2007 post-electoral violence dominated public discourse and means of coercion, the military pitched camp in polling stations. Many streets in Kenya’s cities and towns remained deserted for days after the polls closed.

According to Ngunyi, the winner of the 2013 elections had been known four months earlier, that is, when the electoral commission stopped registering voters.

In a country whose politics feature a dominant discourse that links political party and ethnicity, the outcome of voter registration that year meant that the Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto-led coalition, the Jubilee Alliance, would start the electoral contest with 47 per cent of the vote assured. With these statistics, their ticket appeared almost impossible to beat. For ethnic constituencies that did not eventually vote for Uhuru Kenyatta – the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate in 2013 – a sense of hopelessness was widespread.

For them, a bureaucratic, professionalised, dispassionate (even boring) discourse became the main underpinning of the 2013 elections.

This was not the case in 2017.

Uhuru Kenyatta, pressured by opposition protests and a Supreme Court ruling that challenged his victory and ordered a re-run, met with Raila Odinga – his challenger for the presidency in the 2013 and 2017 elections – and offered a settlement. It became known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

In his 2020 Jamhuri Day speech, Uhuru reiterated that the purpose of the BBI process is to abolish the winner-takes-all system by expanding the executive branch of government.

As he explained it, the challenge to Kenya’s politics is the politicisation of ethnicity coupled with a lack of the requisite number of political offices within the executive branch that would satisfy all ethnic constituencies – Kenya has 42 enumerated ethnic groups.

The revised BBI report that was released on 21 October 2020 (the first was published in November 2019) has now retained the position of president, who, if the recommendations are voted for in a referendum, will also get to appoint a prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and a cabinet.

Amid heckles and jeers during the launch of the revised BBI report, Deputy President William Ruto asked whether the establishment of the positions of prime minister and two deputy prime ministers would create the much sought-after inclusivity. In his Jamhuri Day speech, the president conceded that they wouldn’t, but that the BBI-proposed position of Leader of Official Opposition – with a shadow cabinet, technical support and a budget – would mean that the loser of the presidential election would still have a role to play in governance.

One could not help but think that the president’s statement was informed by the fact that Odinga lost to him in both the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections –  this despite Odinga’s considerable political influence over vast areas of the country.

The 2010 constitution’s pure presidential system doesn’t anticipate any formal political role for the loser(s) of a presidential election. Raila held no public office between 2013 and 2017, when he lost to Uhuru. This did not help to address the perception amongst his supporters that they had been excluded from the political process for many years. In fact, Raila’s party had won more gubernatorial posts across the country’s 47 counties than the ruling Jubilee Alliance had during the 2013 elections.

While Raila’s attempts to remain politically relevant in the five years between 2013 and 2017 were largely ignored by Uhuru, the resistance against Uhuru’s victory in 2017 wasn’t.

The anger felt by Raila’s supporters in 2017 following the announcement that Uhuru had won the elections – again – could not be separated from the deeply-entrenched feelings of exclusion and marginalisation that were at the centre of the violence that followed the protracted and disputed elections.

The reading of Kenyan politics that is currently being rendered by the BBI process is that all ethnic constituencies must feel that they (essentially, their co-ethnic leaders) are playing a role in what is an otherwise overly centralised, executive-bureaucratic state. This is despite the fact that previous attempts to limit the powers of the executive branch by spreading them across other levels of government have often invited a backlash from the political class.

Kenya’s independence constitution had provided for a Westminster-style, parliamentary system of government, and took power and significant functions of government away from the centralised government in Nairobi, placing significant responsibility (over land, security and education, for instance) in the hands of eight regional governments of equal status known in Swahili as majimbo. The majimbo system was abolished and, between 1964 to 1992, the government was headed by an executive president and the constitution amended over twenty times – largely empowering the executive branch at the expense of parliament and the judiciary. The powers of the president were exercised for the benefit of the president’s cronies and co-ethnics.

By 2010 there was not a meaningful decentralised system of government. The executive, and the presidency at its head, continued to survive attempts at limiting their powers. This has continued since 2010.

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Beyond the minimum of 35 per cent of national revenue that the BBI report proposes should be allocated to county governments, it is less clear whether the country’s leaders are prepared to decentralise significant powers and resources away from the executive, and away from Nairobi.

Perhaps the real solution to the challenges of governance the BBI process purports to address is to follow the prescriptions of the defunct Yash Pal Ghai team – it went around the country collecting views for constitutional change in 2003-2004.

According to a paper written by Ghai himself, the Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) had no doubt that, consistent with the goals of the review and the people’s views, there had to be a transfer of very substantial powers and functions of government to local levels.

The CKRC noted – much like Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga now have – that the centralised presidential system tends to ethnicise politics, which threatens national unity.

Kenyans told the CKRC that decisions were made at places far away from them; that their problems arose from government policies over which they had no control; that they wanted greater control over their own destiny and to be free to determine their lifestyle choices and their affairs; and not to be told that they are not patriotic enough!

Yes, the BBI report has proposed that 5 per cent of county revenue be allocated to Members of County Assemblies for a newly-created Ward Development Fund, and that businesses set up by young Kenyans be exempted from taxation for the first seven years of operation. However, this doesn’t amount to any meaningful surrender of power and resources by the executive.

In emphasising the importance of exercising control at the local level, Kenyans told the CKRC that they wanted more communal forms of organisation and a replacement of the infamous Administration Police with a form of community policing. They considered that more powers and resources at the local level would give them greater influence over their parliamentary and local representatives, including greater control over jobs, land and land-based resources.  In short, Kenyans have always yearned for a dispersion of power away from the presidency, and away from the executive and Nairobi. They have asked for the placing of responsibility for public affairs in the hands of additional and more localised levels of government.

This is what would perhaps create the much sought-after inclusivity.

But as the BBI debate rages on, the attention of the political class is now on the proposed new positions within the executive branch. And as the debate becomes inexorably linked to the 2022 Kenyatta-succession race, questions centring on political positions will likely become personalised, especially after the political class cobbles together coalitions to contest the 2022 general elections.

Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans will be left battling the aftermath of a pandemic, and having to deal with the usual stresses brought on by a political class seeking their votes for another round of five years of exclusion.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others

The coming election in Uganda is significant because if there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment.

Published

on

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others
Download PDFPrint Article

Western powers slowly tied a noose round their own necks by first installing Uganda’s National Resistance Movement regime, and then supporting it uncritically as it embarked on its adventures in militarism, plunder and human rights violations inside and outside Uganda’s borders.

They are now faced with a common boss problem: what to do with an employee of very long standing (possibly even inherited from a predecessor) who may now know more about his department than the new bosses, and who now carries so many of the company’s secrets that summary dismissal would be a risky undertaking?

The elections taking place in Uganda this week have brought that dilemma into sharp relief.

An initial response would be to simply allow this sometimes rude employee to carry on. The problem is time. In both directions. The employee is very old, and those he seeks to manage are very young, and also very poor and very aspirational because of being very young. And also therefore very angry.

Having a president who looks and speaks like them, and whose own personal life journey symbolises their own ambitions, would go a very long way to placating them. This, if for no other reason, is why the West must seriously consider finding a way to induce the good and faithful servant to give way. Nobody lives forever. And so replacement is inevitable one way or another.

But this is clearly not a unified position. The United Kingdom, whose intelligence services were at the forefront of installing the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) in power nearly forty years ago, remains quietly determined to stand by President Yoweri Museveni’s side.

On the other hand, opinion in America’s corridors of power seems divided. With standing operations in Somalia, and a history of western-friendly interventions in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and even Kenya, the Ugandan military is perceived as a huge (and cut-price) asset to the West’s regional security concerns.

The DRC, in particular, with its increasing significance as the source of much of the raw materials that will form the basis of the coming electric engine revolution, has been held firmly in the orbit of Western corporations through the exertions of the regime oligarchs controlling Uganda’s security establishment. To this, one may add the growing global agribusiness revolution in which the fertile lands of the Great Lakes Region are targeted for clearing and exploitation, and for which the regime offers facilitation.

Such human resource is hard to replace and therefore not casually disposed of.

These critical resource questions are backstopped by unjust politics themselves held in place by military means. The entire project therefore hinges ultimately on who has the means to physically enforce their exploitation. In our case, those military means have been personalised to one individual and a small circle of co-conspirators, often related by blood and ethnicity.

However, time presses. Apart from the ageing autocrat at the centre, there is also a time bomb in the form of an impoverished and anxious population of unskilled, under-employed (if at all) and propertyless young people. Change beckons for all sides, whether planned for or not.

This is why this coming election is significant. If there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment. Even if President Museveni is once again declared winner, there will still remain enough political momentum and pressure that could be harnessed by his one-time Western friends to cause him to look for the exit. It boils down to whether the American security establishment could be made to believe that the things that made President Museveni valuable to them, are transferable elsewhere into the Uganda security establishment. In short, that his sub-imperial footprint can be divorced from his person and entrusted, if not to someone like candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, then at least to security types already embedded within the state structure working under a new, youthful president.

Three possible outcomes then: Kyagulanyi carrying the vote and being declared the winner; Kyagulanyi carrying the vote but President Museveni being declared the winner; or failure to have a winner declared. In all cases, there will be trouble. In the first, a Trump-like resistance from the incumbent. In the second and the third, the usual mass disturbances that have followed each announcement of the winner of the presidential election since the 1990s.

Once the Ugandan political crisis — a story going back to the 1960s — is reduced to a security or “law and order” problem, the West usually sides with whichever force can quickest restore the order they (not we) need.

And this is how the NRM tail seeks to still wag the Western dog: the run-up to voting day has been characterised by heavy emphasis on the risk of alleged “hooligans” out to cause mayhem (“burning down the city” being a popular bogeyman). The NRM’s post-election challenge will be to quickly strip the crisis of all political considerations and make it a discussion about security.

But it would be strategically very risky to try to get Uganda’s current young electorate — and the even younger citizens in general — to accept that whatever social and economic conditions they have lived through in the last few decades (which for most means all of their lives given how young they are) are going to remain in place for even just the next five years. They will not buy into the promises they have seen broken in the past. Their numbers, their living conditions, their economic prospects and their very youth would then point to a situation of permanent unrest.

However, it can be safely assumed that the NRM regime will, to paraphrase US President Donald Trump, not accept any election result that does not declare it the winner.

Leave things as they are and deal with the inevitable degeneration of politics beyond its current state, or enforce a switch now under the cover of an election, or attempt to enforce a switch in the aftermath of the election by harnessing the inevitable discontent.

Those are the boss’ options.

In the meantime, there is food to be grown and work to be done.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

Published

on

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll
Download PDFPrint Article

Dear Readers/Viewers,

For four years now, The Elephant has been one of the premier online sources of news analysis in the East African region with a fast-growing readership across the African continent and beyond.

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

We have further ascertained that the directive to do so came from the Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) and was implemented beginning 12 December 2020, when we noticed a sudden traffic drop coming from several providers in Uganda, including Africell and Airtel. A forensics report, which provides technical details on the blocking, is available here.

We have written to the UCC requesting a reason for the blocking but are yet to receive a response.

The Elephant wholeheartedly condemns this assault on free speech and on freedom of the press and calls on the Ugandan government to respect the rights of Ugandans to access information.

We would like to assure all our readers that we are doing everything in our power to get the restrictions removed and hope normal access can be restored expeditiously.

As we do this, to circumvent the block, a Bifrost mirror has been deployed. Readers in Uganda can once again access The Elephant on this link.

Thank you.

Best Regards

John Githongo
Publisher

Continue Reading

Trending