Fair elections are possible
Aug 10, 2010
WHEN Kenyans went to the polls a week ago today to ratify an overhauled constitution, the prevailing mood was passionate involvement without the violent edge that rocked the country in the wake of the last national election.
WHEN Kenyans went to the polls a week ago today to ratify an overhauled constitution, the prevailing mood was passionate involvement without the violent edge that rocked the country in the wake of the last national election.
Despite fears of the repeat of the chaos that Kenyans experienced in December 2007 and January 2008, I took a bus to downtown Nairobi on the eve of the referendum last week. The dailies were full of speculations of what might happen, and how those supporting the No vote might resort to violence should they lose. In small groups in street corners, groups of people stood idling around, chatting about the referendum. But even then, one felt the discussion was more about what the referendum would mean to Kenyans in the long-run than concerns about violence.
On the day of reckoning for Kenyans, I flew with my family from Nairobi to Kisumu, and then drove the rented car two hours to Bumala township in western Kenya near the border town of Busia.
In Bumala, a young restauranteur called Boaz Odhiambo showed me around a near-empty local market which he explained was usually busy with vendors and buyers. “Everyone is home voting right now, and I voted early this morningâ€, he explained. When I asked him what the referendum meant to him personally, he answered without missing a beat, “Peace—it means we will have peace.†And therein lies the lesson of the Kenyan referendum that passed with a resounding “Yes†vote that garnered over 66% of the nearly 9 millions votes cast.
While the actual implementation of the new constitution will take time before the citizens can experience real change, it was the process itself that mattered to them in the short-term. Kenyans needed to redeem themselves, to demonstrate first to themselves and then to the world that what happened several years ago was an aberration that they would rather forget completely.
As part of the restoration of the shattered confidence in the electoral system, Kenyan Parliament created the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) which was given the role of reforming the electoral process. Led by lawyer Ahmed Issack Hassan, the commission set about tearing down all that made the old electoral process such a huge failure. It shredded past electoral registers, checked and rechecked that every registered voter was indeed who he or she claimed to be. Secrecy surrounding the polls was a thing of the past too. Instead, the IIEC gave the media, the parties and ultimately all Kenyans unprecedented access to raw information of polling results as they streamed in from polling stations across Kenya. Furthermore, big television screens were erected at the National Tallying Centre at Bomas in Nairobi where hundreds gathered to watch the results come in.
Meanwhile, in an American style election night, Kenyan television stations and radio kept running commentaries on the results that could clearly be seen inching higher and higher for the Yes side.
By the time Hassan stood up before Kenyans to declare the win for the Yes side, Kenyans knew the outcome. Yes, there was some grumblings from some churches who felt cheated at the polls (although none could specifically spell out how), but overall, Kenyans were happy, and congratulating themselves on a job well done.
The point here is that the Kenyan referendum will likely not be remembered for the actual changes it brought in the law of the land, but rather the changes it created in the way Kenyans exercise their rights as voters. The IIEC may have been created out of sheer desperation because Kenyans could not afford another bloody electoral debacle.
However, it has also coined in very real terms what is possible in enabling a clean, fair and free elections to be held. There will not be another time when Kenyans will wait for three to four full days without knowing who actually won the election as happened in 2007.
By reforming its electoral process that ensured the huge success that followed, Kenya, without meaning to do so, might have set election standards by which to measure the performances of Great Lake nations like Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has demonstrated that it is indeed possible to create an electoral process that everyone can respect.
Most importantly, and this is something Uganda might want to look at very closely as it prepares for its general elections next year, Kenya has provided the template for peace, something that Odhiambo, the restauranteur could be proud of.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca
Despite fears of the repeat of the chaos that Kenyans experienced in December 2007 and January 2008, I took a bus to downtown Nairobi on the eve of the referendum last week. The dailies were full of speculations of what might happen, and how those supporting the No vote might resort to violence should they lose. In small groups in street corners, groups of people stood idling around, chatting about the referendum. But even then, one felt the discussion was more about what the referendum would mean to Kenyans in the long-run than concerns about violence.
On the day of reckoning for Kenyans, I flew with my family from Nairobi to Kisumu, and then drove the rented car two hours to Bumala township in western Kenya near the border town of Busia.
In Bumala, a young restauranteur called Boaz Odhiambo showed me around a near-empty local market which he explained was usually busy with vendors and buyers. “Everyone is home voting right now, and I voted early this morningâ€, he explained. When I asked him what the referendum meant to him personally, he answered without missing a beat, “Peace—it means we will have peace.†And therein lies the lesson of the Kenyan referendum that passed with a resounding “Yes†vote that garnered over 66% of the nearly 9 millions votes cast.
While the actual implementation of the new constitution will take time before the citizens can experience real change, it was the process itself that mattered to them in the short-term. Kenyans needed to redeem themselves, to demonstrate first to themselves and then to the world that what happened several years ago was an aberration that they would rather forget completely.
As part of the restoration of the shattered confidence in the electoral system, Kenyan Parliament created the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) which was given the role of reforming the electoral process. Led by lawyer Ahmed Issack Hassan, the commission set about tearing down all that made the old electoral process such a huge failure. It shredded past electoral registers, checked and rechecked that every registered voter was indeed who he or she claimed to be. Secrecy surrounding the polls was a thing of the past too. Instead, the IIEC gave the media, the parties and ultimately all Kenyans unprecedented access to raw information of polling results as they streamed in from polling stations across Kenya. Furthermore, big television screens were erected at the National Tallying Centre at Bomas in Nairobi where hundreds gathered to watch the results come in.
Meanwhile, in an American style election night, Kenyan television stations and radio kept running commentaries on the results that could clearly be seen inching higher and higher for the Yes side.
By the time Hassan stood up before Kenyans to declare the win for the Yes side, Kenyans knew the outcome. Yes, there was some grumblings from some churches who felt cheated at the polls (although none could specifically spell out how), but overall, Kenyans were happy, and congratulating themselves on a job well done.
The point here is that the Kenyan referendum will likely not be remembered for the actual changes it brought in the law of the land, but rather the changes it created in the way Kenyans exercise their rights as voters. The IIEC may have been created out of sheer desperation because Kenyans could not afford another bloody electoral debacle.
However, it has also coined in very real terms what is possible in enabling a clean, fair and free elections to be held. There will not be another time when Kenyans will wait for three to four full days without knowing who actually won the election as happened in 2007.
By reforming its electoral process that ensured the huge success that followed, Kenya, without meaning to do so, might have set election standards by which to measure the performances of Great Lake nations like Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has demonstrated that it is indeed possible to create an electoral process that everyone can respect.
Most importantly, and this is something Uganda might want to look at very closely as it prepares for its general elections next year, Kenya has provided the template for peace, something that Odhiambo, the restauranteur could be proud of.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca