KENYA’ S FRAGILE political system has veered between breakthrough and breakdown over the past two months amid a hotly contested presidential election. Now the country itself appears in danger of a violent implosion . The government of Uhuru Kenyatta insists it will go ahead with a rerun of the presidential vote on Thursday even though the incumbent ’ s principal challenger has withdrawn and senior election officials have warned that the outcome will not be credible . That could lead to mass protests and bloodshed — not to mention a major setback for African democracy .
The election system appeared to have worked in August , when international observers, including former secretary of state John F. Kerry, praised a vote that appeared to give a decisive victory to Mr . Kenyatta over challenger Raila Odinga . But to the surprise of all sides , Kenya’ s Supreme Court ruled on Sept . 1 that election officials had not observed proper procedures for tabulating and reporting the vote, and it annulled the election. That, too, could have strengthened Kenya ’ s institutions — if Mr . Kenyatta and Mr . Odinga had not both played a spoiling role .
Under pressure from Western governments, Mr . Kenyatta accepted the Supreme Court ’ s decision . But he then did everything possible to nullify it. His supporters in parliament pushed a new law making it harder for the court to invalidate elections . Meanwhile , his supporters on the electoral commission blocked proposals to reform procedures and remove officials involved in the previous irregularities .
Last week , one member of the electoral commission took refuge in New York , saying that she had received death threats and noting that the murder of a commission official shortly before the August vote had not been solved. The commission ’ s chairman then said that his attempts to correct the failures cited by the court had been blocked and that “under such conditions, it’ s difficult to guarantee a free, fair and credible election . ”
Mr . Odinga meanwhile announced his withdrawal from the second election and began calling for street rallies of his supporters . That’ s a dangerous tactic , given Kenya’ s history: In 2007 , at least 1 , 500 people were killed when Mr . Odinga ’ s followers took to the streets following his defeat in an election marred by fraud. The result was constitutional changes meant to ensure fair elections and head off such conflict . Now those institutional protections are being demolished.
Polls as well as the August vote suggest that Mr . Kenyatta would defeat Mr . Odinga in a free and fair election. That makes the president ’ s insistence on going forward with the vote on Thursday , instead of delaying it and encouraging reforms by the election commission , self - defeating . At best a nominally reelected Mr . Kenyatta will be left with a weakened domestic mandate and a lack of international credibility. Mr . Odinga , for his part, has never appeared willing to accept defeat , fair or otherwise , without a fight . His tactics and the government ’ s harsh response risk a conflict that Kenya cannot afford .
The election system appeared to have worked in August , when international observers, including former secretary of state John F. Kerry, praised a vote that appeared to give a decisive victory to Mr . Kenyatta over challenger Raila Odinga . But to the surprise of all sides , Kenya’ s Supreme Court ruled on Sept . 1 that election officials had not observed proper procedures for tabulating and reporting the vote, and it annulled the election. That, too, could have strengthened Kenya ’ s institutions — if Mr . Kenyatta and Mr . Odinga had not both played a spoiling role .
Under pressure from Western governments, Mr . Kenyatta accepted the Supreme Court ’ s decision . But he then did everything possible to nullify it. His supporters in parliament pushed a new law making it harder for the court to invalidate elections . Meanwhile , his supporters on the electoral commission blocked proposals to reform procedures and remove officials involved in the previous irregularities .
Last week , one member of the electoral commission took refuge in New York , saying that she had received death threats and noting that the murder of a commission official shortly before the August vote had not been solved. The commission ’ s chairman then said that his attempts to correct the failures cited by the court had been blocked and that “under such conditions, it’ s difficult to guarantee a free, fair and credible election . ”
Mr . Odinga meanwhile announced his withdrawal from the second election and began calling for street rallies of his supporters . That’ s a dangerous tactic , given Kenya’ s history: In 2007 , at least 1 , 500 people were killed when Mr . Odinga ’ s followers took to the streets following his defeat in an election marred by fraud. The result was constitutional changes meant to ensure fair elections and head off such conflict . Now those institutional protections are being demolished.
Polls as well as the August vote suggest that Mr . Kenyatta would defeat Mr . Odinga in a free and fair election. That makes the president ’ s insistence on going forward with the vote on Thursday , instead of delaying it and encouraging reforms by the election commission , self - defeating . At best a nominally reelected Mr . Kenyatta will be left with a weakened domestic mandate and a lack of international credibility. Mr . Odinga , for his part, has never appeared willing to accept defeat , fair or otherwise , without a fight . His tactics and the government ’ s harsh response risk a conflict that Kenya cannot afford .
Comments
Post a Comment