Escaping The Violent Traditions Of Kenyan Elections

It has become an all too feared tradition. Kenya this week is again attempting to return to stability after suffering through another election marred by violence and disorder. This reaction to the election results has become more anticipated than feared in the East African nation. Since 1992 and the return to a multi-party democracy, Kenya’s elections have regularly been plagued with some degree of violent disorder. This is partially due to the colonial legacy left by the British. Post-colonial Kenya covers a wide range of tribal boundaries, which inevitably vote based on the presidential candidate best aligned with their ethnic origins. Elections are also commonly disputed given the frequent suspicions of corruption. A mistrust of the independent electoral commissions coupled with the rarity for those defeated to accept their losses has led to this tradition of disorder.

In the last decade violence after Kenyan elections has been at its worst. In 2007, for example, opposition leader Raila Odinga rejected his loss. The heavily disputed result saw violent backlashes which caused the deaths of up to 1400 people. On top of this, hundreds of thousands more fled, bringing the economy close to a standstill. Odinga again rejected defeat in 2013, taking his qualm to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, violence was not seen on a scale anywhere near to that of 2007. This year, fears of violence have again materialized. Odinga again served as the main opposition candidate, going up against incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta. Last week Kenyatta was revealed as the unexpectedly clear winner of the election, enjoying 54% of the vote. With a key election official murdered just weeks before, and Odinga again rejecting that the vote was legitimate, violence has this week scoured the country. A rights group has reported that at least 24 people have been killed nationwide, including a 9-year-old girl. Opposition officials went as far as to state that at least 100 had been killed. Most violence has occurred in Nairobi, with police reportedly using live ammunition against protestors.

Fortunately for the Kenyan authorities, violence, this week is appearing to subside. However, this is a tradition that Kenyan democracy cannot afford to maintain. To regain the trust of the Kenyan people in the legitimacy of the electoral commission is crucial to breaking the violent trend seen in recent election years. The response thus far has been limited. In combatting the violence itself, the authorities established a response unit of around 180,000 police and army personnel. While ensuring that violence does not escalate, this force will do little in the long term for curing the mistrust associated with election years. Regardless of the suspicions surrounding the legitimacy of election results, it is the party leaders who have the greatest responsibility when it comes to ensuring peaceful solutions.

Kenyatta and Odinga, up to now, have done little, with the country still remaining uncertain of its immediate future. Mr Odinga, for example, was anything but a calming voice as tensions rose prior to the election. In the lead-up to the result, Odinga notably refused to discourage his supporters from reacting violently if he failed to secure a majority. A popular chant among his supporters had been “no Raila, no peace.” On the government side, strong and responsible leadership is needed. Security forces have reacted with as much violence as they have received since the election, only ensuring that protesting Kenyans are further alienated from the ruling authorities. Most of those killed in the post-election violence were reportedly shot by the security forces. This brash use of violence by the authorities will do little to calm those who believe in the illegitimacy of the election results. Kenyatta has at least urged for peace, warning and reminding Kenyans of the effects that political violence had in 2007. However, he has provided no solution to the doubts of opposition supporters, who remain assured by Odinga that the election was stolen from them.

The undercurrent of the violence seen in Kenya after recent elections lies in the fierce questions surrounding their legitimacy. It is these questions and the scrutiny over the electoral results which need to be resolved in order to bring a consistent peace to Kenyan democracy. It would be naïve to rule out the possibility of corruption within previous elections. In 2007, Odinga may have even been justified in questioning the fairness of the result attained. Significant irregularities in the voting figures and the scale of the violence seen in the aftermath would suggest foul play. However, in this year’s election, a transparent and secure electronic voting system was supposedly used. While the murder of a key election official a week before the vote is concerning, there is not yet any clear sign that Kenyatta achieved his majority through corrupt means. Odinga claims, without evidence, that the electronic voting sources were hacked. However, according to the manual tally of voting forms taken at polling stations across Kenya, as reported by the Economist, the provisional electronic results achieved appear to be in accordance with these paper counterparts. Foreign observers also have not raised major concerns regarding the results’ legitimacy. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry saw no signs of irregularities within the election results. According to the Washington Post, Kerry stated that “a paper trail of tallies from individual voting stations, confirmed by party representative, provides a solid basis for confirming the official result.” With these points in mind, this year’s result at least appears to hold a legitimate representation of the will of the Kenyan population.

Subsequently, this acts as a valuable opportunity for the Kenyan authorities to begin to regain the trust of its population during election years. Odinga, Kenyatta, and their future successors can play valuable roles in ensuring this trust, by acting more responsibility in their positions of influence. For Odinga, his overly brash response to the election result has had a key role in provoking the violence seen last week. Through blind dismissal of the result, while not providing any evidence as to his claims, Odinga only helped catalyze ground-level violence which will not help achieve his end goal. If, as he believes, that the election was illegitimate, his pursuit of a peaceful but structured critique of the electoral commission would be far more effective. Odinga would have been wiser to source evidence of malpractice, using this to gain both high profile domestic and foreign bodies to support his claim. Instead, he failed to calm his core supporters who were intent on violence.

Meanwhile, Kenyatta also should be acting more pro-actively to reassure opposition voters. A first step would be to encourage the electoral commission to make the paper tally forms free to view on its website. This would allow voters themselves to view the result, helping to remove doubts from their mind as to its illegitimacy. Furthermore, according to the Washington Post, Kenyatta would further help to regain trust by both stopping the excessive force used by the police against protestors, as well as removing the apparent “pressure being applied to media and nongovernmental organisations.” Ultimately, it is the violent political culture associated with election years that Kenya needs to eradicate. Through opposition parties acting more cooperatively, this violent culture can be made a thing of the past. With the election, this year at least appearing legitimate, and with Kenyatta and Odinga unable to run for office in 2022, a turning point in Kenyan politics could be at hand. Here, a chance lies for Kenya to amend its political culture. Through breaking the violent tradition associated with election years, the country can further its stance as a leading example of a successful African democracy.

Related