THE 2007 POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE MADE KENYA

…just as much as it destroyed it…

AS THE FORTH anniversary of Kenya’s 2007 post election violence approaches, I bet many Kenyans would rather forget the year all together than have it remembered. This is because all that there was good about it was terribly overshadowed by the darkness of civilian infighting as the year approached its climax. Africa and the rest of the world got a chance to witness a new Somalia in the making.

After 44 solid years of self rule we, Kenyans found ourselves politically belittled by our own actions. A country that for a long time had been known as “an island of peace in a turbulent Horn of Africa” kind of found sectarianism fascinating. I asked myself why days back and you can’t believe the quickness with which my brain dispensed me an answer that I think is worth sharing out here. What made us pay dearly back in 2007 lies in the fact that we took a very long time to replace our independence constitution – which I think its main purpose was to see Kenya become an independent state as opposed to addressing long term challenges.

Back in 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s during the struggle for independence, the most important thing for the people was self rule which the independence constitution helped us achieve in 1963. But then again independence alone is never enough. Hard realities and challenges soon came our way and the question of “how best can we solve this and that?” became a constant nag in our heads. Sadly, the agony was brewing at a time when our country was under one party rule with the sitting president as the obvious head of everything. What this meant is that every change we wanted to see had to be ‘begged on knees’ in front of the president – and whenever he said no (like was always the case) there was nowhere else to turn. I’m sorry to say this but this was the case during the reign of our founding father Mzee Jomo Kenyatta (1963 - 1978) and later during a chunky part of his successor Daniel Moi’s (1978 - 2002). Daniel Moi was however pounded by opposition pressure and forced to support the repeal of Section 2 A of our constitution in 1992 to introduce multi-party for the first time in our history.

Introduction of multi-party was a breakthrough and Second Liberation had never looked more certain. But then again as every Kenyan would testify the journey was just beginning. Even after the introduction of multi-party, Daniel Moi who many wanted out of the office would spend another ten good years as the president. This was primarily because there were still very many sections of the constitution that made it almost impossible to remove a sitting president from office. For instance, apart from running the government, the president also headed the army and appointed all other senior bureaucrats including those mandated to conduct elections. And to make things worse, leading opposition voices weren’t as united as many ordinary Kenyans wanted them to be. Then came 2002, a God sent year when Daniel Moi would not vie for president due to compulsory retirement cast upon him by the constitution. Mwai Kibaki became the next man to succeed him with massive support from all Kenyans. His main task was to lead the nation in finding a new constitution. But his failure and politicians then to come up with a single constitutional document for referendum only meant things would continue the same way they had always been. It was now a case of ‘lets live today and wait to see what happens tomorrow’. And who would have thought it would be during the dimness of 2007 post-election violence that we’d find strength to do what’s right?

An outdated constitution played bad referee in a closely contested presidential election and sharply divided the country along party and tribal lines. As a result, we ended up killing each other and destroying each other’s property. But let’s not dwell much amidst that dungeon because the memories are still fresh and can certainly set off great mental distress. But let’s spare a second and take look at a dazzling vent of light. A bright side, if you like. Soon after the violence was over after an intervention by the AU and UN, we begun picking ourselves up with a single promise – a promise to give ourselves a new constitution within the shortest possible period. And driven by our then famous national chant ‘katiba mpya ni jukumu letu’ (a new constitution is our priority), we achieved the enormous goal in less than three years. And on 27^th August 2010, Kenya promulgated a new constitution which I strongly believe is one of, if not the very best in Sub-Saharan Africa. We said good-bye to being ruled by people and allowed institutions running under clear checks and balance take over. And once again how was that even possible? It’s because we found strength in our darkest moment in history – the 2007 post election violence.

WHERE NEXT AFTER REVOLUTION IN LIBYA?

LIBYA’S PUSH TO get rid of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is definitely one of the biggest news stories this year. It started with ex-servicemen in a small north-eastern town of Benghazi leading gatherings of no more than a thousand demonstrators around town shouting anti-Gaddafi slogans and shooting in the air. And has now blown into a serous revolutionary movement that will depose Colonel Muammar Gaddafi very soon, I believe. Before successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt earlier in the year, all seemed pretty quiet throughout Libya. Almost everybody went about their affairs without much, if not any, clamour against their leader. And it would be good to note that the kind of uncharacteristic silence witnessed then was a product of Gaddafi’s vicious handling of all those who dared oppose his rule over the years. Without a well defined or structured constitution, he has been at the centre of everything – running the government, the military and scheming how education is administered especially to young Libyans. With this kind of personality, it is therefore not a surprise that he has been heard on many occasions referring to himself as the ‘King of Kings’. But sadly for him, his rule is now under siege. And it is only a matter of time before it all falls to the ground.

National Transitional Council – NTC has done itself a great job. Launching a battle against a 42 year old regime with ex-servicemen holding rusted guns and jobless youth with zero military knowledge and experience is something that can only be described as ‘suicidal’. But inshallah (God willing) as NTC rebels often say before heading out to attack Gaddafi’s army, it is clear that they are going for nothing other than victory. They have since made it to the capital, Tripoli – Gaddafi’s nerve centre. And good luck to them. Now as advocates of democracy from all over the world storm the cyberspace and other avenues at their reach with best wishes to all Libyans and the NTC, let’s not forget that there are still a number of systems out there that have no respect whatsoever for humanity – judging from the way they treat their citizens. What such countries need from the international community is strong reaffirmation to them that they are not alone and an urge to stand up against their oppressive systems. In Africa, for example, Sudan is a good example of a country in urgent need of regime change. Its ruler General Omar El Bashir is not only a fugitive wanted at the International Criminal Court – ICC over war crimes in Darfur and Abyei but is also an individual who has succeeded in amending the constitution in a way that I have no doubt will help him remain president of Sudan as long as he remains alive. Zimbabwe would be my next African country to worry about. But first I must admit things seem pretty calm at the moment with coalition government in place bringing together Robert Mugabe – the independence hero turned dictator and Morgan Tsvangirai – the official opposition leader. My worry over Zimbabwe, however, has everything to do with Mugabe’s failure to show commitment in repealing sections of the country’s constitutions that he had designed years back to ensure that his stay as the country’s president remains unchallengeable. He is also not willing to cede more powers to Tsvangirai as he should inline with coalition arrangement. Cameroon’s Paul Biya, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, Congo-Brazzaville’s Sassou Nguesso, Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Nguema and Burkina Faso’s Blaise Compaoré – have also ruled for a very long time to offer anything new. There is nothing they claim they can offer now that they have not had a chance for in their over 20 years rule.

            Elsewhere far beyond Africa’s borders we find Myanmar and North Korea. I specifically chose these two countries because I think, if there is such a thing as a ‘barbaric regime’, then the regimes of these two countries are the most barbaric. In fact, these particular regimes have been far much worse than Libya under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. And if it were a case of ‘worst problems first’ it would have looked fair if NATO and the UN hold the stand they now have over Libya first in either Myanmar or North Korea. But again I’m quick to absolve my wishful thinking since I know that for NATO or the UN to help with deposing a regime first the masses from that particular country must stand up against their regime in one voice.

THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTITUTION IS A CASE OF HOBSON'S CHOICE

LANCASTER Constitution is the only set of laws Kenya has known from 1963 when independence was attained. It offers the good, the bad and of course the ugly. One of its most cellebrated provisions is rather its take on nationhood which clearly states that Kenya is a unitary sovereign republic. The firm conclusion has made sure that all citizens develop and uphold an idea of 'One Kenya, One People' against all odds. And indeed through out post-independence history – as the rest of Africa witnessed secessionistic politics whereby various regions engaged in warfares against their central governments in order to form splinter independent or autonomous states – such a thing could not be witnessed here in Kenya. As a people there is no doubt that we have always shown greater love and respect to our national name and flag. And that is majorly because of what Lancaster law constantly reminded us about who we are. Nonetheless there is a not so good side to this famous constitution that has time and again made our progress utterly impossible. Centralization of nearly all powers in the office of the president with no clear checks and balances in place has been the main cause of our political and socio-economic dwarfism all these years. Under the constitution the president is elevated to the rank of God. And through his enernomous powers, he decides which regions to develop and which ones not to. He can hire anybody – learned or not – to run any department within the land without any worry of being questioned. He can also unlawfully detain and torture anybody accused of dissidence. And that's not all – he can also shut down any media house that often critisizes his style of leadership. There is no doubt that our first constitution has brought us more harm than good. And for over twenty years now we have dedicated our lives and resources on drafting a totally different set of laws that can effectively address most of our current tribulations. In 2005 we missed the opportunity by a whisker when the most anticipated child known as Bomas Draft was marcillessly sabotaged in the womb and later on born without life needed to save this country.

Thankfully, we are a people that never give up. And on 4^th August 2010, the referendum day, we will know for sure whether or not a brand new constitution will come our way. Like most of us, I do also believe the proposed new law is much better than what we have currently – and if adopted, it stand a high chance of addressing most of our national ills. For the first time ever we are going to live under a system whereby power is well split between the executive, parliament and judiciary. The arrangement is done in such a way that each entity has a certain authority over the others (a system of checks and balances). For instance, the president shall only nominate and with the approval of the national assembly appoint and may dismiss cabinet secretaries, the attoney general, ambassadors amongst other senior state officials. Our new judiciary shall never again be subject to the control of anybody or authority. And perhaps the biggest of all good news is the fact that our national revenue will be shared equally amongst all 47 proposed new counties. The people of Kenya will also be able to recall all their non-performing members of parliament – a provision I do believe is long over due. The culture of hiding in the capital city the whole term as soon as our MPs get elected will from 4^th August 2010 be a thing of the past. Failure to pass this new law will no doubt slow down our quest to become a middle income country by 2030. And that's not all, it will mean we carry on under the same old system responsible for most of our problems. Vote wisely, Kenya!

2010 UK GENERAL ELECTIONS

A Case of Rare Observations and Countless Lessons

UK GOVERNMENT welcomed various leaders from around the world mainly under the banners of the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to observe how elections are done British style. The entourage was made up of groups of MPs from Jamaica, Ghana, Rwanda, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone and one Mr. Ababu Namwamba as the sole representative from myKenyan parliament. Nonetheless, it was not just the teams on the ground that would end up enjoying close follow-up on the historic test on one of the world's oldest democracies. The fame of the country coupled with the first ever televised debates between Labour's Gordon Brown, Conservative's David Cameron and Lib Dem's Nick Clegg made sure that the whole world was swept along.

Rare Observations

Even in my own distant obseravation I managed to spot a rather one of a kind scenario at the vote casting stage. It became clear that in the UK voters are not necessarily required to produce any form of identification in order to have a say in the ballot. As long as their names and addresses exist on the voters roll they are a free people to participate in the elections. UK also have a very decentralised electoral system and this is because election officials work under local authorities. Staff at each and every polling station is also very small. And my comparative research readings tell me that the composition is as small as one polling clerk and one presiding officer. However, electoral commission assures all doubtful voices that there are adequate stand-by officers that may be rushed in at any polling station experiencing any form of emergency. Anather rather rare observation in the British electoral landscape is total inexistence of a national voters roll. The only rolls present are local registers at constituency level and the responsibility of maintaning them lies solely and squarely with the 164 local authorities across the country.

Unlike in many democracies around the world, in the UK one is actually free to register as a voter at more than one polling stations even though deterrence against double or tripple voting is totally unclear in the country's electoral regurlations. Postal ballots which the ten year old electoral commission sometimes send upon recieving orders from voters who wish to recieve them some people (me included) do fear stand a chance of being corruptible. And a similar high profile fear came in 2008 on the backdrop of UK 2005 General Elections from the Council of Europe. The council wrote: ''The UK's rather arcane system of voter registration combined with postal voting on demand means that the UK delivers democratic elections despite the vulnerabilities in the electoral system.''

Finally, the British community may also want to rethink their current system whereby one party is actually able to govern with minority mandate. Back in 2005 Labour Party managed to get 55 per cent of the parliamentary seats on a 35 per cent share of total votes cast. While in this year's elections, the Conservatives managed a 36 per cent share of all votes cast but still had to seek reinforcement from the Lib Dems in order to govern.

Lessons To Young Democracies

A young democracy that I'm 100 per cent familiar with is my homeland Kenya. So before constituting any list of lessons from the UK to any young democracy it is important that I first contrast Kenyan style of politics and the British one. Here in my motherland I'm afraid contenders in a presidential race still regard and treat each other as real enemies. This makes political campaigns full of unrealistic defamation and mudslinging – the type I did not see in the UK elections. That sort of unfortunate behavour have perenially made it hard for opponents to work together in, let's say, a coalition government. Right now David Cameron and Nick Clegg are only able to co-rule smoothly despite their completely different ideologies just because they did not loose respect for each other during their campaigns. Certainly these leaders of mine that I still hate to hate need to shade off the culture of excess propaganda and defamation and begin to put on that of selling nothing other than what their party manifestos say the same manner Britons did.

Another great feature in the UK electoral landmap is high level of faith that both politicians and voters have in their electoral commission. In my frequent shifts from one news channel to another, not once did I notice even a single police officer at any polling station. This is a direct opposite to what usually happen right here in Kenya and most of young democracies across the world where on elections day polling stations become no different from army barracks. In Kenya in particular the army and the police are normally part of a campaign to intimidate voters and a wider plot to rig the final elections outcome.

Additional Information

Out of 650 parliamentary seats the Conservative Party won 306 while Labour and Lib Dems won 258 and 57 respectively. All the remaining seats went to smaller parties. However to constitute a government in the UK a party needs at least 325(+1) parliamentary seats – a mark no any given single party managed to reach in this year's elections. The resulting situation is known as a 'Hung Parliament'. And a similar case happened way back in 1974 when Edward Heath – a Tory tried constituting a government with a minority of 297 parliamentary seats and 37.9 per cent of the popular vote. He however failed to sway Lib Dems to his side thereby forcing him to give way to Labour leader Harold Wilson with his 301 parliamentary seats and 37.2 per cent of the popular vote.

Note: This compilation is generally based on my personal observation of the 2010 UK General Elections. However some conclussions are reached after comparative perusals of a number of books, newspapers and internet files.