Playing with fire in Nairobi

It looks as though Kenya will be spared massive post-election violence this time. That said, some two dozen people have died, and every one of them is obviously one too many. Raila Odinga, the opposition candidate who, for yet another time, lost national elections has irresponsibly been playing with fire. The government in power, however, is not blameless either.

Hans Dembowski

14.08.2017

Odinga has declared that his followers would not accept another “stolen” election, but also pointed out that the matter would not be taken to the courts. He did not literally instigate violence, but warned that he was not in control of his supporters’ action. Later, he called on them to stay at home rather than go to work today.

Protests did flare up, but were contained fast. Quite obviously, the vast majority of Kenyans do not want bloodshed and unrest. Odinga’s appeal to go on strike today was apparently not followed by masses of people.

Odinga’s approach is reckless. Flaws in the electoral process need to be checked by the judiciary. Going to court did not deliver the results Odinga had hoped for after the election in 2013. Back then, the judges ruled that Uhuru Kenyatta had won the presidential election. Odinga’s disappointment, however, does not mean that he is now permitted to opt for street agitation instead of third branch of government. The post-election violence that rocked Kenya in 2007/08 was traumatising and any action that risks another disaster of this kind is reckless.

Kenyatta’s government, however, is not blameless either. Two things matter in particular.

Shortly before the election, Chris Msando, the election commission’s top official for information, communication and technology went missing. Three days later, his dead body was found near Nairobi. He had been tortured. It is obvious that Msando did not get the protection he needed. This kind of murder must not happen – and a competent government can prevent it. Had Msando had sufficient bodyguards, one would at least have known when and why he disappeared.
The election results were not published in the fastest and most transparent way. The delay gave scope to conspiracy theories. The best way to convince everyone that election results are correct is to count votes at polling stations, let the public watch and announce the local result as soon as the final count is done. Such data can then be compiled by anyone who wants to check. Uploading documents in a computer system instead of publishing them does not inspire trust. Making people wait for several days for the announcement of the final results leads to unnecessary tensions.

After the voting, Odinga claimed that Msando’s personal access data to the election commission’s IT system had been used to hack and manipulate the official tally. At first glance, such claims seemed plausible. The official numbers, however, have since been confirmed by Elog, a non-governmental monitoring group. My hunch that its report has helped to mute the protests Odinga was hoping to stimulate.

In some of the places, where Odinga is particularly popular, however, protests did erupt initially, and some lives were lost. This drama could have been prevented if the results had been published immediately and in a more transparent way.

Odinga has stated that some kind of international commission should assess whether the voting was correct. That is not a bad idea, even if it now looks likely that it would confirm the official results. Democracy requires trust – and trust needs to be built. And for that reason, a thorough investigation of the Msando murder is indispensable.