Polls: Kenya did something Kenyan, but not ‘unAfrican’

The pronouncement of William Ruto as Kenyan President-elect speaks volumes on Kenya’s long journey to democracy.

In this analysis, I’ll shine light on what we need to interrogate not for the aim of disputing the decision that Kenyans made recently but putting record straight. Before I delve into what I’m to aver, I must make some clarifications. I’ll do so by asking a few questions to help my readership to decide if what Kenya recently did is ‘unAfrican’ or just Kenyan.

Considering the mess that hasn’t been addressed and resolved yet, are the results that the Electoral and Border Commission (IEBC) announced recently legally binding, and will they hold water whereas four out of seven electoral commissioners openly distanced themselves and disown their own commission not to mention the refusal by the Azimio coalition to concede? What’s it, and why did IEBC chair, Wafula Chebukati, override the other four commissioners? Do we need to listen to the commissioners and the Azimio to know why this occurred so that we can know more before passing an uninformed judgment?

The other day I read an article by Charles Onyango-Obbo (East African, August 14, 2022) Kenya champions an ‘unAfrican’ openness in the electoral process saying that Kenya did something ‘unAfrican’ to mean electoral transparency as if it totally were.

I see nothing new here if I refer to what’s been transpiring in Botswana since 1966 or in Malawi and Zambia since 1992.

I feel bad when some of our people become their own enemies and portray Africa, including themselves, as an inferior society that’s to be tutored by the West on everything.

 Secondly, when Onyango-Obbo asserts that Kenya did something ‘unAfrican’, doesn’t define what African and what ‘unAfrican’ mean.

Onyango-Obbo writes “what happened in Kenya was different and new in that it went over the top, and weaponised electoral openness, at a time when Africa is facing a democracy crisis.” Seriously? Let me play a devil’s advocate.  Can you compare the slapdash conclusion of recent Kenyan elections with those Malawi and Zambia have been conducting since the introduction of multipartyism?

Is it because some people like to see everything by replicating what’s happening in their countries without even thinking rationally based on historicity?  What type of openness is this if four commissioners out of seven can boycott the results issued by their own commissioner? What does openness mean whereby the competitors refuse to concede?

Kenya’s elections would have contributed something to Africa’s democracy had it not ended the way it did.

If Onyango-Obbo is talking about a warring country as a replica of Africa, which also is wrong, maybe he might have a point even though a weak one.

Stating generally that Kenya has become a harbinger of electoral openness is an understatement if we remind ourselves about what Botswana’s been doing since gaining independence or what Malawi and Zambia have perfected.

 Those who know the history of Kenya’s chaotic elections and rigging allegations will agree with me that the problem always is not how voters vote but how results are received and reached at.

Kenya did what it’s been good at, doing things in a Kenyan way, which means that its transition to democracy is still premature compared to other established African democracy.

How can one generally aver that Kenya’s shown the way while, up until now, we don’t know if the President-elect will be sworn in?

 Another thing that I would like us to consider are the curricula vitae (CVs) of the competitors. This is because there’s a subjudice issue on the legality of Rigathe Gachagua’s fitness to hold public office after being convicted of a criminal offence. What does this say? Kenya might have a very progressive constitution. However, it’s a paternalistic system. How did the IEBC allow such a tainted person to run for high office in the first place?

If we clinically view the CVs of the contenders, especially the frontrunners, namely Raila Odinga and his running mate, Martha Karua compared to Ruto and his, who have ethics? Practically, electors choose the leaders that look like them. If they are corrupt, they will elect corrupt people. If they are clean, they will elect uncontaminated leaders.

  To make a long story short, one of the pillars of democracy, apart from transparency, revolves around ethicality.  If democracy is a heaven, those entering it must be ethically clean and trustworthy.

They must be like the wife of Caesar who, when accused of wrongdoing, her husband told her that he knew she was clean. However, being the wife of Caesar, she had to be beyond any reproach. Therefore, what Kenya did isn’t ‘unAfrican’ but Kenyan.

Nd. Nkwazi Mhango

[email protected]