Connect with us

Op-Eds

The Will of the People: Further Reflections on the Post 2017 Election Evaluation Report and a New Electoral Management Culture

8 min read.

The reason our ballot papers have security features that are equal to, if not more than, our currency is because of the trust deficit among the electoral stakeholders.

Published

on

The Will of the People: Further Reflections on the Post 2017 Election Evaluation Report and a New Electoral Management Culture
Download PDFPrint Article

I was privileged to share my thoughts, concerns, hopes and aspirations during the launch of the Post Election Evaluation Report on 12th of February 2018 as a guest speaker particularly because it bears great significance to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), as an institution, and to the nation at large. In the following essay, I share my own insights on an occasion that afforded us an opportunity to reflect and review the journey the IEBC and electoral stakeholders have travelled, so far, in entrenching sound processes in our electoral operations and systems. The expectation that I believed was shared by many, was the IEBC had prepared a report that was candid and honest in its assessment, and that it addressed, comprehensively, the political, legal, administrative, financial and managerial aspects of the 2017 General Elections.

While the Launch of the Post-Election Evaluation report stands as an epilogue in the election cycle, its utility cannot be gainsaid. It is a moment to celebrate successes, acknowledge and appreciate the failures, and identify the pathways to a better future.

The event brought back to mind two instances during my tenure as Chief Justice when I addressed the previous electoral commission. I believe that the words I spoke then ring true today as they did several years back. First was at the swearing-in of IEBC commissioners on 14th November 2011. On that occasion, I spoke at length on the importance of keeping true to the oath of office that Commissioners take. I stated that failure of any election is a failure of an oath betrayed and that:

‘[T]here is no higher crime an individual, an institution, or a group of people can commit than one that subverts the sovereign will of the people, or whether through incompetence, negligence, or design make the expression of that will inarticulate’.

I hope that in the recently launched Report, the IEBC has answered that question, and done it with candour and honesty.

Second was in my Concurring Opinion in Petition 2B of 2014 (commonly referred to as Munya II) where in paragraphs 251-253 I addressed the issue of electoral management where I cautioned that ‘nothing could imperil our democracy more than an electoral agency that is contaminated by bias, infected with incompetence, and afflicted by a virulent virus of minimal public accountability.

‘[T]here is no higher crime an individual, an institution, or a group of people can commit than one that subverts the sovereign will of the people, or whether through incompetence, negligence, or design make the expression of that will inarticulate’.

Arguably, Kenya can do with one or two indolent political parties, but she cannot afford an electoral management agency that exhibits these weaknesses…the IEBC must demonstrate competence, impartiality, fairness, and a remarkably high sense of accountability to the public and the parties who are its primary customers. It must embrace high disclosure standards, and must avoid conduct such as hoarding of information and data that the public has a right to, both as a matter of course, and also as a matter of Article 35 of the Constitution. Materials that are in the possession of IEBC are not private property but rather they are public resources. The IEBC, therefore, must demonstrate an instant readiness to respond to public concerns, whenever these are raised, and to maintain a public accountability posture at all times.

I also hope that in the Evaluation Report, the IEBC has addressed these issues in a forthright and accurate manner.

Whereas these issues will sound familiar to the current IEBC commissioners, they were said long before you came into office. The fact that some of these matters still emerged in the 2017 election, speak to an enduring electoral management culture that is still far from perfect. And it underscores that fact that the country needs to pull together to create and realise an electoral infrastructure and operations that it has absolute faith and confidence in.

Elections are an important pillar of our democracy. The right to vote must not be taken lightly. The duty to protect that vote is also an important democratic imperative. There is an emerging, and a rapidly entrenching notion, that electors or voters no longer decide who their leader are – whether in party primaries or the general election itself. That leaders are decided either by party barons, manipulated electoral management agency, or by the courts. In Africa, there is a widening chasm between voting and counting – an irony of literacy where peasants (most voters) know how to peacefully cast their ballots during the day, but the educated (presiding and returning officers) and technology forget how to count on election night. There is urgency in changing this perception and/or reality by reclaiming and reaffirming public faith in electoral politics. The IEBC has an oversized role in this regard, but only if it conducts itself competently, credibly and fairly.

But IEBC cannot achieve this on its own. It needs an enlightened political leadership and engaged citizenry. There is no doubt that for a truly independent electoral commission to emerge, the political class needs to drop its practice of capturing and enslaving the commission – completely rendering it incapable of discharging its mandate. The political class falsely sees itself an ‘owning’ every space, initiative, or decision in the country, an erroneous ‘political class as sovereign’ notion that precipitates overreach and disregards the constitutive and operational autonomy of independent institutions such as IEBC, and even the Judiciary.

Elections are an important pillar of our democracy. The right to vote must not be taken lightly. The duty to protect that vote is also an important democratic imperative

The Constitution created independent institutions precisely to cure this mischief – as a necessary bulwark against the highly predictable proclivities and mission creep tendencies of the political class. We cannot create independent institutions then deny them that independence through the bullying of the political class. When those institutions fail because of such political infiltration, we turn around and blame them – and disband them only for the silly cycle to begin afresh with another predictable inane result! Our political class must be self-respecting enough to allow independent institutions to work.

But I have also come to learn that constitutional independence does not work on its own. The leadership and membership of these institutions matter much more. IEBC must fight for its independence by rejecting patronage and partisan politics, and through its conduct, comportment and decisions, project and elevate its authority – effectively. The division that the Commission showed in the last election went a long way in sapping away public confidence. The IEBC evaluation report must acknowledge the problem of disunity in the spirit of honest and candid evaluation and make recommendations on how to deal with it in the future.

It is astonishing that the current IEBC assumed office only seven months to the general election. This was reckless and irresponsible on the part of the country. That it even managed to organize the six-tier election, is a mini-miracle. The demand on the Commission to deliver on the general elections within this short period of time must have been huge. Added to Kenya’s unique legal, political and administrative minefields that attend our elections, the pressure must be have been incalculable.

The political class slow-pedaled and mismanaged the transition from the old Commission to the present one. And even today, almost four years before the next election, the Commission is debilitated and cannibalized, and the political class is in lala landevidently unbothered waiting until the last minute to deal with the outstanding issues in the Commission. There is urgency in getting the Commission working properly and in its full capacity.

It is not my desire to dwell on the 2017 General Elections that I trust is adequately covered in the evaluation report. However, I deem it necessary to share some reflections on our electoral processes by highlighting some issues that I think we also need to address.

First, is the manner in which political parties conduct party primaries. Political party primaries have become theatres of the absurd characterized by patronage, violence, ineptitude, rigging. Whereas considerable progress has been made in developing internal party dispute resolution mechanisms these are still not effective as most disputes still find their way into the court system.

We need to remember that Political Parties are institutions that mobilize the people towards capturing political power. This obligates them to entrench democratic values and principles in their internal systems, especially party nominations. I urge all players including, Parliament, Political parties, Registrar of Political Parties and the IEBC to adopt a multisectoral collaborative approach in developing a legal, regulatory and administrative framework that will promote internal party democracy.

Second, there is need for a national conversation on the practicability of critical timelines within the electoral process. For instance, the Constitution compels the Supreme Court to make a determination on a Presidential Petition within 14 days of its filing. From experience, this limited time forces the Court to sit for long hours during proceedings; grant much shorter time for the conduct of important processes like scrutiny and submissions; and limits or even bars parties from preparing adequately for their petitions. The proposal made by the Judiciary Committee on Elections to extend the presidential election petition by another 16 days merits attention.

Third, statutory enactments and amendments by the legislative arm of Government should provide reasonable time for implementation. Undertaking piecemeal legal reforms close to the elections leads to inconsistencies and administrative challenges in the application of the law.   Furthermore, we should consider the possibility of staggering elections. The IEBC conducts polling for six elective positions concurrently. The undertaking is quite daunting and demanding in terms of logistical planning and processing of results. This is a debate that Kenyans need to have.

Fourth, we need to cure the country of the strong scorched-earth electoral culture. We shed too much blood, damage too many properties, steal too many votes, rupture too many friendships, destroy too many institutions, throw too many ethnic insults, worship too many false gods, spend too much money during our electoral contests. Elections have become corrosive and divisive in a manner that hemorrhages the country in an eminently destructive way. They have become existential contests rather than a civil contest between ideas and policy choices. This absolutist view of elections is what has led to the over judicialization of politics and militarization of politics, thereby giving courts (and security agencies) power to determine who the leaders are, and not the citizens. I believe that if the IEBC were to assert its authority and competently and fairly manage the electoral process, the social costs of elections would considerably go down. Similarly, if leaders put national interests first, then the fear of exclusion that drives this desperation would evaporate.

Fifth, the independence of the IEBC can only be guaranteed if its operations are independent of any executive, legislative or foreign control and direction. An institution can only speak of independence if its processes are not prone to manipulation from executive, parliamentary or international misadventure. It is about time we interrogated and stopped the hugely negative influence of the intelligence and security operatives in Kenya’s electoral processes, particularly since 2007. Similarly, the international community also pays an over-sized role in the electoral commission and this needs to be reduced if not eliminated completely. Therefore, to cushion the Commission from financial incapacitation, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Fund should be operationalized.

Lastly, the role of technology and technology companies in Kenya’s elections also need urgent examination. It has emerged as a contested issue and if the country is not careful, we may hand over the election of our leaders not to voters, parties or courts but to technology and data management companies.

I urge the IEBC Commission to continuously engage stakeholders and the public at large in its processes. The Constitution of Kenya has elevated public participation and inspired citizen vigilance, to the extent that unless harnessed into meaningful engagement, it can be a recipe for constant standoffs and unnecessary legal battles between the IEBC and the various stakeholders in the Electoral Process. This will not only enhance trust among stakeholders but also reduce the cost of conducting elections. The reason our ballot papers have security features that are equal to, if not more than, our currency is because of the trust deficit among the electoral stakeholders.

Lastly, the role of technology and technology companies in Kenya’s elections also need urgent examination. It has emerged as a contested issue and if the country is not careful, we may hand over the election of our leaders not to voters, parties or courts but to technology and data management companies.

I wish the IEBC a productive season as it gears up for the next election cycle that will culminate in the conduct of the 2022 General Elections.

Avatar
By

Dr Willy Mutunga is a public intellectual and former Chief Justice of Kenya.

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