PLAGUED by continent-wide political turmoil, expectations that Africa will begin the journey to sustainable democratic practice with the recent general election in Kenya are receding. That is hugely frustrating. Tensions boiled over shortly after Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission declared Deputy President, William Ruto, as President-elect on August 15. This immediately sparked contention within the electoral body, the political class and the population. Uncertainty reigns. All stakeholders in the country have the patriotic duty to resolve this amicably and avoid plunging the country into another round of deadly violence.
Amid a high-wired political game, Ruto, 55, of the Kenya Kwanza (Kenya First) party scored 50.49 per cent to defeat three other candidates. However, Raila Odinga, 77, his main challenger and a five-time contender for the office, received 48.85 per cent of the vote. Interestingly, outgoing President, Uhuru Kenyatta, backed Odinga against his deputy, raising the stakes in the keen contest.
Ruto, deputy president since 2013, had to depend on the youth vote and won against the opinion polls that had projected victory for Odinga. To become Kenya’s fifth political leader after independence in 1963, the president-elect fought the Kenya establishment to a standstill—and triumphed. That is rare in Africa, where the establishment often takes the spoils of election by foul means. The polls were seen as “hustler” (Ruto) versus “dynasty,” which Odinga represents.
Ahead of the six-day wait for Ruto’s declaration, Odinga, prime minister (2008-2013), had rejected the outcome. He alleged the results were not compiled transparently. On his side were four of seven members of the IEBC, who called a news conference to discountenance the result released by Wafula Chebukati, the chairman of the commission.
Although Ruto sensibly toed the pacific line after his victory, saying, “In this election, there are no losers. The people of Kenya have won because we have raised the political bar,” ethnic divisions are resurfacing. This is where Kenya’s political leadership and the international community come in: they must quickly intervene at different levels to prevent the East African country from descending into needless turmoil.
Like many African countries, Kenya has had more than its fair share of election violence. The 2007 post-election violence in this country that attracts two million tourists annually claimed 1,200 lives. It displaced 600,000 others, who fled their homes for fear of violence. Kenyatta and Ruto were tried for crimes against humanity after the horror by the International Criminal Court in 2013. They were later acquitted.
Another round of violence broke out in 2017 when the presidential ballot ended in a stalemate between Kenyatta and Odinga. In a joint report, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International recounted 33 deaths (possibly 50) and 100 persons badly injured in parts of Nairobi, the capital. The Supreme Court ordered a re-run which Kenyatta won although Odinga alleged massive rigging, claiming he won the final tally with 8.5 million votes.
Instructively, there was initial praise for the conduct of the latest ballot, primarily because this is the third time the umpire would deploy technology. From the polling station, the result went straight to the central server. Despite this, there was still a six-day wait for the results till August 15. That is too long. Technology ought to make things better—and faster.
And, as Odinga’s rejection of the ballot’s results shows, the bad blood still runs deep. It means a delicate moment for a country of 51.46 million and a GDP of $110.35 billion (in 2021). In Odinga’s native Kisumu, protests broke out. His kinsmen were adamant that he was cheated of victory. They set tyres on fire and erected barricades. It was the opposite in the Rift Valley, where Ruto grew up selling chickens barefooted on the roadside, as jubilant citizens took to the streets.
This impasse is bad for Kenya. The president-elect has a work overload to contend with. Plainly, the outcome once again portrays Africa as lacking sound democratic instincts. Only a few countries on the continent can be described as true, growing democracies, unlike in Europe, North America, and Oceania. It is largely because African countries have refused to build enduring institutions or enabled seamless political succession over time. Conversely, the ‘Big Man’ syndrome is pervasive. It has delivered poverty, strife, and underdevelopment. Failure to overcome ethnic loyalties and animosities also play a part. In its 2021 Democracy Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit rated only Mauritius as a “full democracy” among the 44 sub-African countries surveyed; six were “flawed democracies,” 14 (including Nigeria) “hybrid,” and 23 “authoritarian.”
At different times, democratic balloting had descended into large-scale mayhem in Sierra Leone, Guinea, the Gambia, Libya, Sudan, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Election outcomes are often viciously disputed and litigated across Africa. Constitutions are corruptly compromised at the 11th hour extending or eliminating term limits to favour tenure-elongating incumbents.
Therefore, Kenya must get it right. The politicians should not view elections as a do-or-die contest. Kenya is far bigger than any individual ambition. If they do not tread cautiously, the ensuing discord might turn out bloody again.
Closer home, where elections imitate all-out war, there are lessons to learn ahead of the February 2023 general elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission, which has upgraded the technology in use, should also control the human element in the electronic transmission and collation of results. On its own, technology alone cannot vouchsafe free and fair elections, as the disputations in Kenya demonstrate. That means INEC must combine technology with the capable, efficient, and well-trained human capacity to deliver free and fair polls next year.
Sadly, human saboteurs had degraded elections in Nigeria with the manipulation of figures and violence. Their illegal acts have been inexplicably legalised by the judiciary at different times. Apart from making technology work seamlessly, INEC should prepare adequately for the 2023 polls to neutralise the manipulators and riggers and shield the judiciary from electoral contests and stop it from being the ultimate decider of elections.
