The Construction and Destruction of the Kenyatta State

By DAVID W. THROUP

Kenya has been regarded as a successful African state by both academics and journalists. Although it came under attack in the 1970s for its neocolonialist policies and has encountered acute economic difficulties with the end of the coffee boom and the second dramatic increase in oil prices in 1979, it seems to have weathered the storm. Kenyatta's death in 1978, the maize shortages of 1980, the attempted coup of August 1982, the Njonjo affair, and the 1984 drought have all been negotiated. Its critics are less sure of themselves than in the early 1970s because leftist inclined regimes have also lurched from economic crisis to crisis. Leys (1974, 1978) and Swainson (1976, 1978, 1980) have pointed to the development of indigenous capitalism while Cowen (1972, 1974b, 1976, 1980), Kitching (1980), and the Cambridge historians have provided a more complex portrait of capitalist articulation, putting Africans back into Kenya's political economy as participants not simply victims of history.

Most recent research has focused upon the processes underlying the development of Kenya's political economy and particularly peasantization (Leys 1971; Anderson and Throup 1985; Lonsdale 1986c). This chapter relates this development to the nation's "high politics" and seeks to examine the operations of the political process at two levels:

The high politics of elite competition for control over policy and patronage at the center, and the "deep politics" of social and economic relations, which legitimize the regime through the incorporation of local clients. We shall see that the study of high politics provides insights into what has happened since independence and more particularly since Kenyatta's death in August 1978

Class and Kinship in Kenya’s Killing Fields

By Oduor Ong’wen

It is easy “indeed tempting” to dismiss the violence that has engulfed Kenya in the last one month as an unfortunate, though not totally unexpected, resurgence of African atavist ontological disposition. Many analysts, particularly in the West, have argued that even though the breach of peace and mutual existence was triggered off by the stealing of the presidential election by the incumbent, what followed had nothing to do with electoral fraud in particular and politics in general, but an excuse by neighbours who have lived in an artificial harmony while harbouring pathological disdain for each other based on petty nationalism to settle scores with each other. This could be true. But only partially. The stark reality is that the crisis in Kenya has exposed the class tensions that have been peppered over for over more than one hundred years.

In May 2000, The Economist newsmagazine treated the world to an edition with a picture of a young man uneasily holding a rocket propelled grenade launcher, commonly known to guerrillas only as RPG, on his shoulder. His picture filled the whole map of Africa accompanied by the issue’s title: “The Hopeless Continent”. With this one stark phrase, all of us Africans, from diligent farmers along the Nile Delta to cattle breeders in Botswana, from dutiful fisher folks around Lake Victoria to merchants at Nigeria’s Kano Market, were summarised and relegated from the ranks of civilised humanity to one single, dishonourable reality: self-destruction.

The same publication admitted in one of its January 2008 editions that Kenya represented hope for Africa. What hope? Sadly, this hope was equated with a vibrant Stock Exchange, fast food outlets in every corner of central Nairobi, thriving casinos, manicured golf courses and booming tourist industry. Ignored were the facts that two thirds of Nairobi residents occupied only eight percent of the city’s land, living in informal settlements; that more than 63 per cent of Kenya’s urban population had no access to clean water; that two out of every three Kenyans survived on less than a dollar a day; and that a few own huge tracts of idle land while the number of squatters and landless labourers continue to swell.

Virtually bypassed by the benefits of prosperity and modernity that is enjoyed by the North, Africa survives and exists on the fringes of global economy and global politics. It is no wonder that while election observers from the European Union, the Commonwealth, the East African Community and the local observer team were in agreement that Kenya’s presidential elections were stolen, the West has insisted that this being Africa , the subversion of people’s will be ignored for “the sake of the country’s unity and stability”. This is a euphemism for “our strategic interests, our investments, our holidays and safaris are more important than your democratic rights; so shut up, trust and obey.”

Once undisputedly regarded as the repository of culture, the cultures of African people are also fast being relegated to the margins as the MacDonald culture, fiercely promoted by the cinema and television, takes over. This erosion of Africa’s culture is being seen as a good thing “integrating Africa into the global society” that must be encouraged. However, this integration is not being accompanied by the material conditions that sustain such avarice and ostentation. No wonder in Kenya , like would happen elsewhere in Africa , when the protests erupted it was the fast food stores, video libraries, electronic shops and supermarkets that were first targeted in the urban centres. Among the rural communities, it was eviction of “foreigners” from the land they occupied.

While most of the people in industrialised countries are affluent, most of the African people are impoverished, under-nourished, illiterate and without decent shelter and clothing. While the economies of industrialised countries of the North are strong and resilient – and therefore offering hope and security to the populations of these countries “those of Africa are mainly weak and vulnerable” and therefore offer nothing but despair and defencelessness to the African people. While the countries of the North are in control of their resources and destinies, those of the South, more so Africa, are vulnerable to external factors and lack in functional independence and sovereignty. This is the context in which we should understand the attachment to land in many African countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe. Ownership of land, however tiny, gives a sense of security and independence.

We can not contextualise the mayhem in Kenya without appreciating the Kenyan National Question. Kenyans are not polarised because they belong to different subnationalities. They are because they relate differently to the country’s resources and productive forces. At the centre of the National Question is land. It is instructive to observe that the epicentre of the clashes was the agriculturally-rich Rift Valley region. This was no accident. Rift Valley is the most settled region of Kenya. It is also in the Rift Valley where communities like the Maasai, the Pokot and the Nandi have unresolved grievances over land ownership centred on historical injustices traceable to colonial occupation.

It was in the Rift Valley where British settlers alienated huge tracts of land from indigenous Kenyans (paying a mere 10 cents per acre to the crown, not to the owners). It was in the Rift Valley where the Maasai community was duped into signing a 100-year agreement with the British in 1904 and denied a hearing by Kibaki’s government (a successor to the colonial administration) in 2004 when the agreement had elapsed. It is in the Rift Valley where the Pokot were forcefully pushed out of their communal land. As the struggle for independence ensued and the colonial rule looked destined to a sad chapter of history, a new ruling class with interest in landed property was quickly recruited from amongst African collaborators. With the help of the colonial state, the new gentry quickly occupied land belonging to entire communities “that had been herded into detention camps and concentration villages” and were awarded titles by the colonial authorities.

Upon the attainment of independence, the new rulers could not relinquish their claim to these lands but came up with a scheme of settling the new landless in former settler areas (which had been alienated through force or treachery). This led to non-acceptance of the large Kikuyu populations from Central Kenya settled among the Nandi, Maasai, Pokot and other communities in the Rift Valley. The area has since been a powder keg and this is not the first time it has erupted. Instances where the land issue in Rift Valley has threatened Kenya’s unity include early 1960s when a former legislator, Jean Marie Seroney, shook the country with what he called the Nandi Declaration calling for the region?s autonomy and expulsion of “foreigners”. Other major clashes over land occurred in 1991/92 in response to clamour for the re-introduction of pluralist politics, in 1997 and 1998. There have been similar land-related skirmishes along the KenyanCoast, even though the history is slightly different from the Rift Valley.

Going back to the issue that triggered off the chain of ugly events “fraudulent presidential elections” is in order. The incumbent Mwai Kibaki was trailing Raila Odinga by more than one million votes according to the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) print out at 4:07 a.m. on December 29, 2008. The latter had 3, 734,972 votes against the incumbent’s 2, 269,612. It was at this stage that the ECK and Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU) did a quick calculation and arrived at the number of votes to add to Kibaki’s credit and how much to debit from Odinga to enable the former catch up with and overtake his rival. That day, results that had apparently been received the previous day but their release held waiting the “opportune” time were altered (sometimes more than once) and released to close the gap. Later in the day, the ECK announced results from 176 out the 210 constituencies placing Odinga at 4,046,010 votes ahead of Kibaki’s

3,760,233. Barely two hours later the Chair of ECK shocked the Kenyan nation when he announced results from 189 constituencies with Odinga leading with 3,880,053 votes against 3,842,051 for Kibaki. The art of counting backwards had been introduced!

Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party as well as various observer teams have detailed how the vote was stolen. What has not been talked about is why Odinga had to be stopped at all costs from assuming the presidency of the Republic of Kenya. It is safe to assume that if was any of his other five opponents that had won the elections, Kibaki would have no problem handing over to them – but not one Raila Amolo Odinga. The reasons for this may be found in the platform of his campaign and his personal history.

Odinga’s campaign was anchored on five planks: addressing economic and social inequalities; devolution of power and resources from the centre to the regions in the context of subsidiarity; eradication of corruption and administrative injustice; state provision of basic social services; and pursuit of a progressive Pan- Africanist and Foreign Policy. In a country where neo-liberal policies have found a very fertile ground, it was quite brave for Odinga to declare from the rooftops that he was social democrat and would faithfully pursue a social democratic agenda.

The first line of attack was that Odinga was trying to introduce communism through the back door. Scaring mongering that provision of free basic social services would mean increased taxation also did not wash. Kibaki’s supporters finally latched onto the pain factor – land. They demonised devolution of power as a recipe for dispossessing the Kikuyu people who had settled in the Rift Valley and elsewhere. This worked for members of the Kikuyu community but not other Kenyans. It is therefore not surprising that members of Kikuyu community from rural areas, regardless of whether they lived in their ancestral regions or not, voted for Kibaki to a person. Only young urbanised ones were able to see through this diversion.

But the biggest worry for the ruling elite was Odinga’s anti-corruption stance. On September 22, 2007, he declared that there would be no blanket amnesty for former heads of state and that both former President Daniel Arap Moi and Kibaki would be called to account personally for their improprieties. This announcement came barely two weeks after it had been exposed that Moi and his family had stolen public money to the tune of Kenya Shillings 130 billion (US$ 2 billion) and stashed offshore.

Wielding of or proximity to state power has been the main avenue of primitive accumulation in Kenya . All those who lay claim to being indigenous bourgeoisie in Kenya trace their wealth and status from state connections. On this score, concentration of power at the centre has been particularly beneficial. Odinga’s devolution, antiinequality anti-corruption package was therefore seen by the captains of politics and industry as going against the natural order of things.

Odinga’s personality and history did not help him either. From the onset of the campaign, Odinga did not refer to himself as a candidate. He simply declared himself “The People’s President.” Odinga cannot claim membership among the proletariat. He is not a peasant either. Nor was his father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. In fact, although born to a simple school teacher, Odinga grew in relative privilege as his father abandoned teaching when he was still in his early teens, built a business empire and quickly plunged into nationalist struggle for independence. Odinga Senior was so passionately anti-colonialism, antiexploitation and charismatic that it was almost automatic for him to be named Kenya’s Vice President at independence.

The senior Odinga was anti-imperialist. During the struggle for independence, he opposed the exploitative economic system the colonialists had erected. The colonial government accused him of being a communist to which he retorted: “Communism is like food to me.” He was quick to establish Kenya nationalist movement’s fraternal links with the then socialist bloc and as a result, many Kenyans benefited from educational scholarships. Among the beneficiaries was Raila Odinga, who studied mechanical engineering in the then German Democratic Republic.

But Raila Odinga began charting a path for himself much early in life. As a student in the then East Germany , he took the initiative to establish an international office of the opposition Kenya Peoples Union (KPU), a left-leaning opposition founded by progressive nationalists and headed by his father. He was later to be independently involved in a number of underground political initiatives, including the still-born Kenya African Socialist Alliance – the effort made Moi rush a law to parliament to make Kenya a de jure one-party state. But many Kenyans only came to know Raila when he was arrested after a 1982 abortive military coup against Moi’s government and charged with treason. The charges were withdrawn after six months due to lack of evidence but Moi went ahead to detain Odinga without trial. He was to stay behind bars for close to six years before he was released and detained again only five months later. In total, Odinga has served a total of nine years behind bars without trial and spent a stint in political exile.

Having failed to tame Odinga, Moi tried to work with him in a courtship that culminated in Odinga becoming the Secretary General of the then Moi-headed Kenya African National Union (KANU) party. Six months later, Odinga was out of the party and had taken with him the majority of the party’s stalwarts. KANU was left a shell that it still is. Odinga then teamed up with the then opposition chief Kibaki on a platform of change to hand KANU a humiliating electoral defeat. The change never arrived and less than three years down the road, Odinga had mobilised Kenyans to humiliate Kibaki in a referendum vote over a new constitution.

Odinga was the only serious presidential candidate that was seeking a parliamentary seat from a metropolitan constituency (the rest only felt safe in their rural bases among people from their ethnic groups). He represents a parliamentary constituency whose bulk of voters are slum dwellers from one of Africa’s biggest slum settlements. Odinga is one of the few politicians who feel at ease in a slum beer hall as he does an exclusive members’ club. He would meet a foreign dignitary in the morning, be at the soccer stadium terraces in the afternoon and attend a burial fundraising gathering in the evening. The fellow is at home in designer Western suits as he is comfortable in a Swahili kanzu or Nigerian agbada.

To look at what is happening in Kenya purely with an ethnic lens is to blur one’s vision. That is not to say that ethnicity is a non-factor. However, ethnicity is a drug that the ruling keep administering to their victims to cloud their vision. It is escapist. I did not see Kikuyu residents in Nairobi’s exclusive Karen suburb hack their Luo or Kalenjin neighbours with machetes or worse still shoot at each other, even though the majority of them own guns. However, in the informal settlements, neighbours turned against each other. Why, because they believe “wrongly of course” that their neighbours are beneficiaries of the skewed resource distribution and since they cannot reach the culprits, they can settle accounts with their “representatives.”

At independence, Kenya , like the rest of Africa , inherited an edifice that promoted heavy dependence and corruption, both on the economic and political fronts. On the economic front, the country inherited an inordinately backward economy based on subsistence farming dominated by the peasantry and cash crop production and export, revolving around three crops (coffee, tea and pyrethrum) and almost solely in the hands of alien commercial farmers. Small-scale commodity production dominated by a backwardlooking, highly superstitious peasantry that was emerging from the nightmare of decades of oppression and dehumanisation; this was the predominant character of Kenya’s rural setting. The vast majority of the population was helplessly underdeveloped economically; their agriculture fragmented into tiny plots, each hardly sufficient to support a single household.

For any meaningful development to occur, it was necessary and urgent that this problem be tackled as a matter of priority. Instead, however, the newly installed leadership relied on Western “experts”, whose experiences were wholly metropolitan and whose background was entrepreneurial. In other words, Kenya’s leaders sought the solution to these urgent problems from business manuals and Harvard-trained economists seconded by the World Bank, IMF or bilateral “development partners”, rather than from the reality of the situation. The end result is that the new leadership succeeded in perpetuating the colonial division of labour where Africa extracted and exported (unprocessed) primary commodities and imported and consumed manufactured and processed goods.

The decision making processes that govern the international flows of goods, services, knowledge, finances, capital and technology are controlled by the major industrialised countries of the North and by the international institutions under their tight control. Kenya (and the entire African continent) is placed in unfavourable and therefore hopeless position in the global economic system. The country is linked economically mainly to capitalist economies of the industrialised Europe – both a legacy of slave trading and colonial pasts sustained by the relative economic strength of Europe and a consequence of development strategies adopted by post-colonial leadership. The West, and particularly Europe and the United States of America, are therefore as much interested parties as are our leaders. Is it any wonder that the EU, U.S and other major Western nations have been more concerned than our “African brothers?”

On the political front, the new post-independence leadership inherited a state that was monstrously oppressive and that was designed to serve the interests of colonial oppressors; a state that was not geared towards the improvement of the people’s social welfare and the country’s economic progress, but the one which coerced them into accepting and submitting to colonial subjugation so as to produce, through forced labour and other coercive mechanisms, for the metropolitan economies. It was a state that was designed to instill fear, subservience and diffidence in the people by destroying their self esteem through dehumanising and degrading treatment. This has become painfully manifested when state security apparatus are shown in television footages shooting dead unarmed demonstrators in one corner of the country while virtually escorting weapon wielding gangs in another corner of the country according to what they perceive be the preferred side of the leadership.

Since Ghana’s independence in 1957 unto the time of South Africa’s liberation from apartheid in 1994, many painful and largely unsuccessful attempts have been made at trying to put the economies of the fifty-plus African countries on the path of independent development and politics on the road to democracy and realisation of human dignity. In virtually all cases, these attempts at socially and economically altering the state of existence have met immense internal resistance and external obstacles. As has already been observed, the economies of newly-independent African states were weak and fragmented, mirroring centuries of colonial subjugation and exploitation. Industries and physical infrastructure “road, energy and communication” were virtually non-existent. The infrastructure for developing human resources through education and training was also grossly inadequate. Education, literacy and skills development levels were pitifully low.

Add to these economic and social deficiencies the spectre of an exponentially rising population and rapid urbanisation and the picture becomes clearer. As people flocked into cities, municipalities and other urban centres in the hope of securing a better life, pressure on public utilities and welfare services began to overwhelm the authorities, which had neither the administrative capacity nor the wherewithal to respond to these public needs. Raila Odinga promised Kenyans that he would address the foregoing. He articulated it in the people’s language and they understood him. Even though he might have been playing a populist game, Kenyans took him seriously. They decided to give him a chance. Kibaki stole the chance. Kenyans revolted. All the grievances were recalled. Now Kenya is a country openly at pains with itself. Only fundamental re-engineering of Kenya’s politics and economy will heal the wounds – not peppering over our inequalities, our ethnic differences, our exclusionist politics and our self-deception.

Breakthrough in talks as both sides climb down

By Fred Oluoch

Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan appears to be on the brink of clinching a peace deal for Kenya.Getting President Mwai Kibaki to climb down from the position that the election dispute could only be resolved in a court of law was no easy task.

Neither was it going to be easy to persuade Raila Odinga to climb down from the position that the election was stolen and that the only option was for Kibaki to either step down or agree to a re-run of the presidential election.

It is noteworthy that even as a breakthrough was being announced, Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka was in the United States lobbying Congress to press Raila to seek redress in court.

Indeed, throughout last week, temperatures remained high at the Serena Hotel where the negotiations are taking place, with Kibaki’s team making it clear that a power-sharing deal was out of the question.

The standard refrain of hawkish elements on their side of the divide, including Finance Minister Amos Kimunya, was that they were not prepared to share power with “losers.”

In the midst of it all, one other factor was causing positions to harden even further on Kibaki’s side: As international pressure mounted on him, with one diplomat after the other issuing threats to members of his administration, his key players began taking exception to what they saw as bullying by foreigners.

Clearly, getting the parties to agree to discuss power-sharing was not going to be easy for Annan’s team.

Still, agreeing to discuss how to share power was the easy part. As long as the stakes for the hardliners on both side of the divide remain high, an agreement on a power-sharing deal may take much longer to achieve.

One on side, there is a group that fears that the mediation process may expose their culpability in the sins that may have been committed at the Electoral Commission of Kenya during the tallying of the presidential votes.

On the other are hardliners who fear revenge for the killings — especially in the Rift Valley. In the middle of the post-election violence, criminal elements have taken advantage, burnt people’s houses and displaced hundreds of thousands of members of President Mwai Kibaki’s community.

Their fear is that if Kibaki is allowed to entrench himself in power, they may face retribution.

Which is why one of the most important achievements by the Annan team was to get the negotiating parties to agree to a truth and reconciliation commission.

Implemented well, truth and reconciliation commissions have proved to be the best medicine for dealing with the fear of retribution for historical injustices.

What options will be on the table as the teams reassemble for negotiations? First is an interim coalition government that will last for a few years to give space for national healing, agreed constitutional reforms and reconstitution of the Electoral Commission.

Second, a grand coalition of all the major parties in parliament.

Third, where Odinga and Kibaki share executive powers — a compromise between what was stipulated in the Bomas Draft constitution and the Kilifi Draft during the constitutional reform debate of 2005.

Success will, however, depend on whether the principals manage to dissuade their agents from engaging in strident rhetoric.

The decision by the government to lift the ban on public rallies, which was announced a day before the “breakthrough” was a good starting point — as it signalled that the government was keen to implement decisions agreed on and signed off on by both parties at the Annan mediation process.

If parliament is recalled, and as long as the mood of hope is maintained, the country may be on the path of reconciliation.

Africa’s most decorated diplomat, Annan has handled more serious conflicts, where the stakes were even higher than in Kenya.

Before becoming secretary-general of the UN, in 1990, it was Annan who facilitated the repatriation of international staff and citizens of Western countries from Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. Subsequently, he led initial negotiations with Baghdad on the sale of oil to fund humanitarian relief.

As secretary-general, Annan used his good offices in several delicate political situations, including an attempt in 1998 to gain Iraq’s compliance with Security Council resolutions, as well as a mission that year to promote the transition to civilian rule in Nigeria.

In 1999, he helped to resolve the stalemate between Libya and the Security Council, and to forge an international response to violence in East Timor.

He has worked to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences through negotiations based on Security Council resolutions and the principle of “land for peace.”

It is Annan’s stature as former secretary general of the United Nations that has made it possible for the man to mobilise international opinion and resolve to return Kenya to normalcy.

Signs that the Kenyan dispute was likely to assume international dimension because of the country’s strategic importance in Africa came early in the dispute when the European Union made it clear that it was not satisfied with the way the poll tallying was done.

The EU was the first to threaten to impose sanctions on Kenya in case nothing was done to rectify the situation. Now Britain, the US and Canada are talking the same language, threatening to ban any individual who might have participated in rigging or violence from travelling to their countries.

Last week, the US issued banning letters to 10 politicians and business personalities whom it considers to have participated in either promoting violence or subverting the democratic process. The focus now is on individuals taking part in the mediation who may be deemed to have derailed the talks.

It is now apparent that the international community is reading from the same script and fears that the Kenyan crisis could overshadow or divert attention from complex cases like Darfur and Chad.

And, with the Kenyan crisis now being discussed at the UN Security Council, the matter has quickly taken on a global dimension.

In a statement, the Council said the only solution to the crisis was dialogue, negotiation and compromise, and strongly urged Kenya’s political leaders to foster reconciliation.

It reaffirmed its support for the African Union and the Panel of Eminent African Personalities led by Mr Annan in their efforts to stem the violence and requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report on how the United Nations could further support the mediation efforts in Kenya and mitigate the impact of the crisis on the wider region.

Meanwhile, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes arrived in Kenya on Friday. A fact-finding mission deployed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour arrived in in the country last week.

The team will conduct research for an initial period of three weeks, as it works to assess allegations of recent grave human-rights violations in the country.

Kenya’s election crisis exposes Africa’s flawed ‘democracy’

By Leon Louw


"Power is obtained by ballot instead of bullet only if there are sufficient constraints on what those with power can do to those without it to moderate the consequences of being out of power."


Few analyzes of Kenya's post-election crisis have addressed the fundamental issue of how African democracy can be converted into a peaceful means of transferring power from minorities-in-power to majorities out-of-power. Virtually every ‘solution' boils down to the unhelpful shibboleth that there would be peace if people were peaceful. The problem, as I see it, is a lack of appreciation for the fact that democracy not so much "fails" in Africa but that it hasn't really been tried.


A crude conception of what characterizes ‘Western' democracy has been exported by the West and imported by putative Third World ‘democracies'. In Africa, ‘democracy' is presumed to entail the crude counting of heads, the purpose of which is to find out who has the most support, and then to let them govern as they wish, rather than a sophisticated set of institutions and mechanisms aimed at ensuring good governance.


My contribution to the South African constitutional process, and that of a few other countries where I've been involved, has been to discourage obsession with the concept of democracy as being a process to establish winners and losers, and to focus instead on protecting losers sufficiently for them to surrender power peacefully.


There are 25 or so recognized ‘checks and balances' in the constitutions of most Western democracies, almost none of which have been incorporated in Third World constitutions, including Kenya. One of the most important is the Rule of Law, which has become a largely empty cliché.


The components of the Rule of Law, as opposed to the ‘rule of man', which are of greatest importance are:


Laws must be objective, not discretionary - so that rulers cannot engage in patronage, nepotism and favouritism, and people's rights are a function of law, not the whim of politicians and officials granting licenses, protection, subsidies and government contracts.


Corruption, for instance, is not a manifestation of poor governance, or not ‘clamping down' on corruption and having a ‘clean' administration, but of the formal ability of officialdom and politicians to grant or withhold benefits.


There must be a separation of powers - so that only the legislature legislates (makes laws), the executive executes (implements laws), and the judiciary adjudicates (settles disputes, and imposes sentences and penalties). There is virtually no separation of powers in the Third World, yet it is so taken for granted in the First World as to be virtually automatic.


In Kenya, for instance, countless substantive laws are made by executive decree, and the executive has many tribunals and quasi-courts settling disputes and imposing penalties. These should be functions of a truly independent judiciary working strictly in accordance with the jurisprudential principles of ‘due process'.


There's much more to the Rule of Law, but these two components alone, if understood and implemented in emerging democracies, would go a long way to reducing the intensity of the battle for power, because they reduce the negative implications of losing. What matters in mature democracies is the extent to which those who govern can victimize the governed.


Another well-known constraint on those who govern is a Bill of Rights, which is regarded as ‘democratic', yet its sole purpose is to limit what victorious majorities may do to vanquished minorities. Most Third World countries have Bills of Rights, but they miss the point. Unlike First World Bills of Rights, they are characterized the essential purpose of a Bill of Rights. Instead of specifying what's not voteable, what the majority may not do, they are wish-lists of what governments supposedly must, but cannot do, especially in poor countries, such as provide generous incomes, security, housing, education and health care. What paltry attempts most governments make at delivering on such wish-lists invariably entails making things worse because they claim a constitutional obligation to intensify abuse of elective losers by redistributing more of their wealth to the government's friends, relatives and supporters.


What we should all do at this time of crisis and reflection in Kenya is contribute to a better understanding of why there's conflict - because the price of being out of power is higher than the price of resistance - and how to prevent it henceforth - which is to have unambiguous institutions protecting the governed from those who govern.

The truth about the Naivasha killings

By Odhiambo T. Oketch

I have been to Naivasha on two occasions to help evacuate some of my relatives who were victims of the violence that took place in Naivasha.

The first time, we did not get the gory details of what took place, and I bet, the press is afraid of bringing some of these planned murders and killings in Naivasha to the fore.

We must have the courage to face the truth and confront the same, then talk of the healing process. If we sweep this under the rug, we are doing nothing.

Politicians and administrative officers involved

The Naivasha Massacre was planned in complicity with government agencies. The police were informed, and they only brought officers who were not armed to confront the murderous Mungiki (banned militia) team.

The DC (District Commissioner) was in the picture, as some of the politicians who had lost in the recent general elections. They were well coordinated by donations from some current cabinet ministers and the pangas (machetes) that they used were bought at the Shamba Hardware store in Naivasha town.

When the Mungiki were to strike on the January 27, 2008, the prison warders came out and thwarted all their moves. They retreated so that orders could be made to bar the prison warders from coming out in support of non-Kikuyus who were the target.

When they struck the second time, they were under police escort, and they specifically killed Luos, in a systematic way. They torched their houses and chased them like rats in town.

When the Luo organized themselves to hit back, the police shot at the them instead. This went on for three days. Within this time, the Mungiki murderers were housed at LakeSide and Silver Hotels.

They used to come to town at 6:00 am, reign terror until 6:00 pm when they retreated to their hotels to brief their paymasters, chief among them former and current MPs.

The Naivasha Massacre of the Luos was well planned in a meeting attended by politicians like Uhuru Kenyatta and Jayne Kihara among others, and top businessmen such as Chris Kirubi, Jimna Mbaru, and George Muhoho.

They were annoyed that it is the Luo who had made things elephant for them. They hence came up with a plan that hitting at the Luo would be the best thing. They did not look at the fact that it is the Kalenjin who removed them mostly from the Rift Valley. They thought that it was the Luo who had made the Kalenjin do that.

Biased Red Cross and Mungiki paymasters

The Kenya Red Cross Society that has been acclaimed as one of the best relief support agencies, did not come to the aid of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) at Naivasha Prisons for a whole 3 days, yet, they were in Burnt Forest and Eldoret within hours of the fracas breaking out.

It came out that the Red Cross, just like the government, was partisan in addressing the problems. In the case of Naivasha, the Red Cross and the government were looking at it as a Luo affair, not a Kenyan affair.

This partisan approach to the massacre has exposed the Red Cross as a dishonest agency.

When the Mungiki youths went to Kabati cemetery for oath-taking, the police were very much in the picture. When they ransacked Kabati Estate, the police looked helpless. When the people ran to Naivasha Prisons for safety, the police moved in on the road, armed and ready to shoot at anyone who dared come out of the prison.

I reckon they should have been engaging the Mungiki so that they could save non-Kikuyu property, but they only escorted them on the macabre mission.

The world must know the truth. And it is this truth that will set us free.

Why were Kikuyus hell bent on eliminating Luos from Naivasha, when it is a known fact that Luos never killed any kikuyu in Nyanza at the beginning of the evictions?

Why were Kikuyus in Naivasha cheering and telling Luos that they wanted Majimbo (regionalism), yet now had to be evicted?

Why were the police under instructions to safeguard Mungiki, and to shoot to kill at any show of resistance, people who stood helpless as their houses were being burnt and their people killed as they watched?

It is time to make clear distinctions; those who shout loudest about crimes against humanity, are the main paymasters of the murderous Mungiki sect.

Kenya’s Darkest Days: A Nation Beset With Violence

How could a poorly handled democratic election quickly plunge this relatively peaceful nation into chaos? What does this reveal about Kenya, Africa—and mankind as a whole?

By Samuel C. Baxter

Election Day in Kenya, Dec. 27, 2007. Long lines of citizens patiently wait to pick up a ballot, mark off the candidates of their choosing, and drop the completed form into the ballot box. More than 30,000 local and international, accredited election observers scrutinize each phase of the process, working to ensure the vote is free and fair, even watching as each ballot is hand-counted.

The International Republican Institute, a nonprofit nonpartisan organization who monitored the election, initially commended Kenya in a press statement for “the peaceful manner in which Election Day was carried out.”

“However,” it stated, “voting is only one part of the process. The vote count and the acceptance of the results by the people are equally important.”

During the following hours and days, mobs armed with machetes and clubs roamed the streets, hacking and beating those who held opposing political views, and pillaging the areas they destroyed. Smoke from fires set by rioters mixed with retaliatory tear gas. Throngs of police wielding white batons and gray metal shields attempted to quell the unrest, firing live rounds, and beating rioters, onlookers or anyone loitering outside their homes.

The mobs left charred black frames teetering where villages once stood. A church was leveled in a fire, started after more than 50 people fled to it for safety, then were locked inside and burned alive.

The violence, which has been churning for over a month, has left over 850 people dead and displaced more than 300,000. The United Nations has stated that about 500,000 require urgent help. Many fear that Kenya will never acquire the relative peace that it once knew.

Blame for the violence has been pinned on a rigged election, stubborn politicians and ethnic tensions.

Opposing Sides

In only a matter of days, Kenya suffered a national meltdown. Held up as an example of a peaceful, developing African nation, this country has entered what have been called the “darkest days” since its 1963 liberation from Britain.

As the election drew near, Raila Odinga, the prominent contender against the current president, began to pull ahead in the polls. On the day of the vote, early reports declared Mr. Odinga the winner, but the official count declared that the incumbent, President Mwai Kibaki, had won by a mere 230,000 votes.

Mr. Kibaki, who was sworn in for a second term less than an hour following his electoral victory, was dismissed by Mr. Odinga, who asserts the election was a fraud.

International groups also question the results. The European Union and members of the African Union have expressed serious concerns about the nature of the election after reports surfaced that there were instances of voter inconsistencies in several large voting constituencies across Kenya. After meeting with both sides of the opposition, the United States envoy to Africa told the Associated Press, “Yes, there was rigging. I mean there were problems with the vote counting process...both the parties could have rigged.”

Both Mr. Odinga and President Kibaki refuse to budge on how they view the results. It took the better part of a month for the two leaders to discuss the election-related violence. However, most saw this meeting as fruitless—a mere handshake and a photo opportunity. Still, Mr. Odinga refuses to accept his rival’s victory, demanding another trip to the polls. President Kibaki holds that the election was fair and there is no need for a revote.

There is another obstacle complicating Kenya’s move forward: Mr. Odinga’s party won 95 parliament seats, while Mr. Kibaki’s party won only 43. Kenya will be hard-pressed to make any political progress unless these two parties can reach a consensus on the election results and how to end internal turmoil.

However, this is not merely a political problem. Bands of young men brandishing bows and arrows and machetes—who feel Mr. Odinga should have won—roam the countryside terrorizing villagers who largely supported President Kibaki. Boys carrying sticks attempt to block main roads, crying, “If the election fails, violence prevails.”

These problems run deeper than politics. The election has brought long-held ethnic tensions to the surface. Mr. Odinga is a member of the Luo tribe, as are many of his supporters. President Kibaki is a member of the Luos’ longtime rival, the Kikuyu tribe.

Kenya has a long history of tribal tensions. In 2007, 300 people were murdered due to inter-clan violence, prior to the presidential election flashpoint.

The Root Cause

It may be difficult for those in Western nations to understand nationwide unbridled acts of human nature resulting from one botched election. The blessings the West enjoys ensure that riotous violence rarely rears its head in such a complete way, making what is occurring in Kenya seem strange. However, it should not be.

News organizations and experts generally point to the political reasons and continuing tribal tensions as the source of Kenya’s current crisis. But this is not the case.

To best grasp the true cause of the crisis, we must look beyond the web of political wrangling and long-held intertribal grievances, and examine the very nature of human beings themselves.

One only has to look to Hollywood and literature to see what characteristics are inherent to the human condition—lust, greed, revenge and hatred, often lashing out with some degree of physical aggression. These bursts of violence drive nearly every plot ever written. And just as these fictional violent acts fill movie theatre screens, real violence fills the pages of newspapers and news websites from the world over.

The real life scenes in Kenya’s mob-ridden streets, still playing out daily more than a month after the election, illustrate this dark fact of humankind:

• A group of young Luo men set fire to a bus they believed was owned by Kikuyus, in response to an incident the day before, when Kikuyus trapped 19 Luos, including 11 children, inside a house and burned them to death.
• Hospitals have seen rape cases double—with doctors knowing well that the crime generally goes untreated and unreported.
• Men set up blockades to rob approaching cars or pull passengers out of vehicles and hack them to death with machetes.
• Police were forced to stand between 400 youths from one ethnic group and 500 from another in an attempt to extinguish an all out battle.

Violence is filling Kenya to the brim, with no end in sight.

History also is rife with examples showing violence is intrinsic to mankind. The last century was filled with such acts—the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, Tiananmen Square protests, genocide in Rwanda, etc. This list would be endless if one were to look back into the millennia mankind has existed. One such account recorded in the Bible shows that during the days of Noah, the entire “earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11).

Scripture also reveals that mankind’s governments are leading humanity into the earth’s darkest days, that thousands of years of man ruling as he sees fit would result in a time that would be “as the days of Noah” (Matt. 24:37)—that in these days the earth would be “corrupt before God” (Gen. 6:11) and again would be filled with acts of violence—just like Kenya has become.

Human nature is defined in the Scriptures, detailing the reason for man’s long history of violence. The book of Romans explains, “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10)—and reveals that mankind’s “feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes” (3:15-18).

Said plainly, the capacity for violence and murder lies within all human beings! While this may seem a stretch for those in nations blessed with relative peace, it takes only one controversial law being passed, the killing of a citizen by a police officer or a natural disaster for riotous violence to surface even in these countries. In bleak times, violence boils over.

This human nature is a characteristic that no government system now in place can outlaw, or deter with tear gas, plastic shields or batons.

While recognizing mankind’s violent nature is helpful, as it identifies the cause of the problem, it is not a solution. Again, periods of lawlessness and violence have been seen throughout history and without a way to change man’s nature, these gruesome acts will continue to grow worse.

God’s solution for the times of Noah—which, again, typify the times in which we are now living—was to wipe out mankind, save a few. While He has promised to never completely do this again (Gen. 8:21), Jesus Christ will soon return to wipe out the governments of men, which are based upon human nature and have brought forth these dark times and the foreboding future. With these systems removed, a flawless government will be set in place. Coinciding with this monumental event, man’s violent nature will be changed, allowing peace, joy, equity and prosperity to flourish.

Quite a stark contrast to the present.

Copyright © 2008 The REAL TRUTH.

Seeking lasting solutions to Kenya's problems

By Dino Kanyotu

We spend a lot of time pushing things under the carpet, atleast questions that need answering is forensic scanning of pathological issues that brought about this

1. hope for all, with our voices in the voters card
2. land
3. equity/economic emancipation where people are accorded a chance at equal footing
4. elections triggered an issue that was long suspended or hidden people had to come out send the message
   

This is not rocket science, if divided into short term and long term intervention and driven by the needs of the people which is people driven to underscore the basic tenets of economic livelihood of Kenyans drawn along the divide with our rich heritage looked at positively. Our differences should be used for unification, to bring about cohesion to push forward diversity and integration.


We should and it is our joint responsibility to single out the ills from the entire divide objectively in midwifing a new beginning. In addition facilitate change through widening our view looking at the bigger picture Kenya not our tribal constituencies and affiliations. Should we drive others because they belong to the wrong tribe? Pertinent questions are whether we have been blind all this years not to notice that our neighbours are from wrong tribes. If that is true , what wrongs have they committed and did living harmoniously contribute to breaking down of the society fabric? Our school lives, majority are included in this interacted with diverse groups of people notwithstanding their tribes. Schooling and education as defined by Decartes and Plato saw education as a tool to make us a social being therefore integrate and fit in the society. There is a difference between being educated and learned. The word school, Plato says that when one has a belief, one thinks things, but different things from those that one thinks when one has knowledge. What one thinks when one has knowledge is "what is. " That is to say, the things which one thinks when one has belief fall under the heading "what is not." In his argument that "all judgements are true" and in the relevant argument "from knowing and not-knowing". In short judging a falsehood is the same as touching a unicorn; for judging what is false means judging what is not, which is not judging at all


Closer to us our own Ngugi Wathiong'o wrote a book Decolonising the mind which is an exposite of political and ideological slant. He writes of two mutually opposed forces in Africa today: an imperialist tradition on one hand, and a resistance tradition on the other. Imperialism for him continues after the colonial period: it is the rule of consolidated finance capital. Ngugi's worldview here is still profoundly Marxist, and one has to question how useful this simple division imperialism versus resistance is at the beginning of the 21st century. (Curiously he chooses to see the class struggle as universal, never considering that it too might be an imperialist fiction imposed on Africa despite not fitting African tradition, culture, or history.) And this is what we see in Kenya today with the current impasse, the rich and the poor, the home guards and the oppressed using us for their selfish gain. He focussed on art with a purpose: be it pedagogic or political or helping preserve traditions or forge identities, all the literature he considers serves a purpose. The simple beauty of art isn't at issue for him -- in part, no doubt, because he does not want to admit that politically incorrect art (of any stripe or colour -- even art with say a blatantly imperialist message) might still have some value.


Students of history will attest to the lessons from bring down the Berlin war and to reasons for unifications as opposed to balkanising them to some warlord led states. Hey Kenyans, It is my plea that we woke up from this stupor, we are in 21st century where the world is a village that should not be seen along ethnic lines. In retrospect supporting your man will not change the lives of poor Kenyans the village unless you are connected. Let us start with ourselves and redeem our hearts and thought process to decolonise our imprisoned minds. In our small world we should see that all these start with us for a better Kenya , not a divided one full of vitriol. We got to begin now. After all our incomes, jobs will not change with the differences, but may change if discussions across the table are inclusive


See yourselves as champions of change ,the exposure you have had should be used to our people’s advantage to re educate them of their responsibilities to act responsibly and send message to the status quo that we have Kenya that is bigger than their dreams .We have all sorts of experts peddling cheap rhetoric since all this began, but when you read through there are no solutions offered, they are either based on support or rumours. We have the responsibility to pull the problems apart , view them with forensic heart and ask ourselves what brought about this?


Further down, do you know how much our people are suffering? Businesses lost are massive, what we need is preaching harmony and healing. The current political dispensation require you and I to act with some decorum and responsibility to emancipate people who are imprisoned in their tribal cocoon. Being Kikuyu, Luo hate will not give me better job, improve my status only aggravate it. As is happening elsewhere the burden is heavy on those with income to support our kinsmen and relatives.


We are at crossroads that we need to explore strategies that would stir, stimulate economic growth and independence for our people. This is only possible in peaceful atmosphere, no one is spared of this , hence providing an enabling environment for business, skills development and economic growth through our concerted effort. Ask not what the society can do for you but what you can do for it


My approach is simple though hope would be clear and concise in a coherent way, I tried posting this somewhere though in a different context but was branded an Odinga sympathiser


A. Issues to be addressed in the reconstruction planning for Kenya should include:

1. Overall reconstruction effort underpinning an overall strategy monitor and assist a planning effort carried out at provincial level—or inter-provincial level around economic development that cascade across the boundaries
2. Explore development plans that have synergies with political spectrum to ensure maximum exploitation of potential of politics in development
3. Create an implementation plan that is autonomous but overarching special development authority with technical assistance; through a coordinating contractor or grantee; by beefing up an existing provincial or regional organization; or possibly by trying more than one technique in different areas.
4. Involve local stakeholder in various implementation plans i.e CBOs, Faith groups, Opinion holders, Administrators and local community reps
5. Revamp the local CDF to jumpstart and stir local economies through a reconstruction plan with an open agenda which is inclusive
   

B. Orientation in Conflict Resolution and Consensus Building
The development partners will certainly face deep seated emotions and mutual distrust and animosities amongst the local groups and organisations in the post conflict reconstruction. It will therefore be imperative to hold joint stake holder planning with neutral facilitators which should include taster programmes in provision of training in conflict resolution and consensus building for the belligerent parties, particularly among leaders and the planning groups. This will be appropriate for in-country representatives of the principal donors and non-governmental organizations involved in implementing the reconstruction program. Special programs for fostering reconciliation should also be planned for political and administrative leadership at both national and local levels.


At the onset the training programme should be facilitated by outside/neutral experts or acceptable individuals by the group, to be taken over eventually as continuous activity by local learning providers and local groups.


C. Demobilization of militias
Demobilisation strategy should involve disarming process of the Mungikis, local groups which involves integration into the society whilst scoping social enterprise scheme involving training, business start up and skills sharpening. At top of the agenda should be the involvement of private sector, public sector in rolling out micro finance schemes, training work shadowing and mentorship. Accelerate the process in an integrative manner that involves the general population and in an equitable way, targeting a wider populace at the same time.


Activities that would be beneficial could be done through special programs in which the ex-conflictive zones participate in land transfers, vocational technical training, agricultural credit, micro-enterprise credit, and assistance to the war-wounded. Close emphasis should be made on inter party consultation and for an integrated planning process to go beyond the regrouping of militias Their leaders should be allowed should be accorded opportunity of travelling to travel to post conflict or areas where reconstruction is taking place.


On the other hand delays in demobilization as long as political reconciliation has been done, though rapid demobilisation may also have knock on effect to minimise the resumption of fight; media should also be encouraged to respond to conflicts positively and not to peddle rumours
In all likelihood, all post-conflict situations will leave large numbers of people in need of repatriation and devastated areas badly in need of rehabilitated infrastructure to facilitate commerce, a revival of industry, and access to health and education facilities. Perhaps it would be feasible to work closely with NGO and CBOs to manage of the immediate humanitarian assistance and rural infrastructure activities. They might work under the general supervision of, and be paid by, nongovernmental humanitarian organizations or donor-funded contractors.


D. Special Health Needs.
The immediate post-conflict health needs will involve expanding or establishing health care facilities in the war zones and ensuring health coverage for all and sundry. The success of this effort will depend in part on the availability of on-going programs that can be expanded on short notice.


Secondly, special health problem for civilians will include post-conflict traumatic stress disorders (psychosis and acute and severe depression).There will be need to address immediate technical assistance to survey the magnitude of the problem; identify existing and needed institutional capabilities (including facilities near the victims); and design a strategy for the activities needed to cope with the situation. There may be special needs for women and children in families in which where the militias will be reintegrated.


E. Structure and Timing of Assistance to the Agricultural Sector
Kenya’s mains stay is Agriculture, displaced persons should be assisted and encouraged return to farming in the former conflict areas. Infuse programs to provide agricultural credit and technical assistance to those wishing to return to or go into agriculture. In addition, because many of the potential farmers may require technical assistance, they should be supported provided with grant schemes in the venture.


On the other hand land transfer, should be given proper attention and land allocation board presided over by the local communities and the ministry should be a priority. Land transfers are not easy to administer under the best of circumstances. They are especially difficult to carry out in conflict zones, where buildings and farms may have been destroyed and where owners of the land may be difficult to locate. Special efforts will be needed to streamline procedures and facilitate the participation of those without land. Furthermore, the beneficiaries will need shelter and a safe water supply immediately. Probably few will have ever owned farms or be skilled farmers. They will need technical assistance on how to grow crops and/or raise livestock and on farm management. They will need credit for inputs.


The timing of the technical assistance and credit must relate to the growing season or it may be lost. The amount of credit must be sufficient to augment all income-generating activities of the farm and raise food for the family, not just enough to plant one specific cash crop. The terms of the credit should be designed to improve the credit worthiness of the recipients, not just permit them to survive. Special arrangements, including possibly revised legislation, may be needed to ensure that women farmers can have access to land, credit and technical assistance.


Inadequate attention to the foregoing can result, on one hand, in inadequate numbers being given land at demobilization and, on the other hand, those who have settled not being able to make a reasonable living. Either result can have seriously adverse political results and possibly threaten the peace process.


F. Implementation Mechanisms and Procedures
Once the a peace accord is assigned by the aggrieved parties , both ODM and PNU to build cordial working relationship The implementing agency should be seen as a counter –insurgency agency and the effort should be seen to have been fairly executed.


It is desirable to work with local NGOs affiliated to local communities in reconstruction programme since they are familiar the population/organisations, additionally they would be bale to deal with both financial controls /requirements and the areas.


G. Local Political and Administrative Structures
The provision of health services and revamping of the local economy may be important in Kenya but the local involvement is deciding on priorities for rural infrastructure projects is equally important.


In some post conflict situations, it may be that there are no locally elected personnel—only appointees. Whether local officials are appointed or elected, it will be important for the success of the reconciliation process for the "outsiders" to be able to participate freely and meaningfully in local decision-making as soon as possible. This could be done by establishing development planning committees and project implementation monitoring committees with proportionate representation from local groups and organizations. Development partners should use their influence to ensure that any local groups that will relate to donor-funded activities should include appropriate representation from women or women's groups.


H. Local Infrastructure
To stimulate meaningful economic growth, it would be helpful to people together—as well as providing funding for badly needed local infrastructure. Once programs are in place to replace major infrastructure (roads, railroads, electric power, and urban water supplies) and local infrastructure, it will be important to initiate a planning activity to bridge the national and the local. The District Development Committees, or inter-regional plans should be based on development poles or magnet areas, should be prepared.


The planning for regional or provincial infrastructure should look not only at the needs and how to meet them. The planning should also look at the financial and technical manpower requirements for maintenance of the infrastructure once constructed and propose institutional mechanisms for ensuring that the needed maintenance would be carried out efficiently and effectively.


The construction of safe water supply facilities and appropriate sanitary facilities is potentially one of the most important activities in a local infrastructure program. It is essential, however, that the activity be seen as a health activity, not just infrastructure. Such projects in rural areas will not have the desired health impact, nor be sustainable, unless there is organized community participation and meaningful (to the community) health promotion activity preceding, during, and after the construction period The local participation should be inclusive and democratic with women having slots in driving it..


I. Monitoring Human Rights
Human rights monitoring offices (national and international) should be established in partnership with local security teams with workshops, seminars, etc. to provide the training and orientation proposed above in value for human and consensus building and organize other activities to promote reconciliation at all levels. One such activity might be the holding of a conference on the human rights situation in the country (or a region) and the steps that would be needed to deal with the threat and foster a more homogeneous society.


In conclusion, I would highlight the need to push forward an inclusive agenda that is participatory and transparent set on:

• The planning process for demobilization and rebuilding
• Orientation in conflict resolution and consensus building
• The actual demobilization of militias, and
• The monitoring of human rights violations.
  

And Kofi Anan team should come with binding resolutions that are fool proof , which will not be manipulated

Stop this descent into hell

The Economist

President Mwai Kibaki must be persuaded to compromise or he may lose a country

SIX weeks after Mwai Kibaki stole an election, the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing in swathes of Kenya are getting frighteningly worse. Parts of the country are in danger of sealing themselves off (see article). Areas where a medley of ethnic groups once lived together are being ripped apart in tribal mayhem. The economy is rapidly deteriorating. The export of tea, coffee and flowers, big foreign-currency earners, has slowed drastically. Tourism is plummeting. Whole towns have been paralysed, as ethnic cleansing has spread, with Mr Kibaki's fellow Kikuyus, who run thousands of businesses outside their own heartlands, being chased out or even killed. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced.

Mr Kibaki has been hoping that time is on his side, that the violence and anger will burn itself out, that the opposition led by Raila Odinga will gradually be forced to accept a fait accompli, that the African Union and leaders of countries close to Kenya will rally to the incumbent in their usual clubbable manner, and that Kenya's biggest trading partners and aid givers will shrink from penalising him because general sanctions would hurt Kenya's many poor. But this happy (for him) outcome seems a distant prospect. If Mr Kibaki is to save his country, let alone his presidency, he must give ground. Otherwise Kenya will move beyond saving. This would be terrible not just for Kenya; it threatens the well-being of the entire region, for which Kenya and its capital, Nairobi, have long served as a hub of political moderation and economic bustle. Landlocked Uganda and Rwanda are being hurt. Goods are piling up in the region's main port, Mombasa.

The international bodies and countries that might have been expected to squeeze Mr Kibaki into seeing sense have been incoherent. The Americans first endorsed Mr Kibaki's flawed victory, as he has been an ally in their war on terror, then withheld approval, then sent out confusing signals after their State Department's head of African affairs said, rightly, that ethnic cleansing was happening. The British and their European partners have been more united in disapproval but have yet to present a real plan. Next door to Kenya, Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, himself the beneficiary of a constitutional fiddle to give himself a third term, has been alone in granting full support. The Chinese, whom Mr Kibaki is looking to for economic and moral support, have unhelpfully sneered that multi-party democracy is ill-suited to Africa.

This leaves a former UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, as the sole plausible mediator. He has made a little progress. At least Messrs Kibaki and Odinga now have two teams of negotiators grappling with each other under Mr Annan's gaze. But Mr Kibaki still seems loth to share power, let alone contemplate rerunning the election under international supervision.

A rerun would have been the juster solution. But with Kenya burning, the world may have now to settle for second-best, a government of national unity. Mr Kibaki should also promise to reform the electoral commission, perhaps bringing in members from Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia. Ideally, he should also agree in principle to long-mooted constitutional changes that would provide for a prime minister and a more devolved administration, thus softening the winner-takes-all attitude that is partly responsible for the current intransigence on both sides.

Bringing the entire building down on himself

There is no easily enforceable way for outsiders to impose such sensible conditions on Mr Kibaki. Certainly, the United States and the European Union, if not the African Union, should impose targeted sanctions—with asset freezes and travel bans—against a clutch of the most venal ministers, some of whom Mr Kibaki has even promoted since his fraudulent re-election; they should be named, too. Kenya should be suspended from the Commonwealth and aid reconsidered.

But the most powerful pressure against Mr Kibaki is the sight of his country's economy threatening to implode. Many of his keenest Kikuyu supporters must realise that his refusal to budge is leading all Kenyans, whether supporters of himself or Mr Odinga, into a bloody and bankrupting dead end from which it may soon become impossible to retreat.

Kenyans for justice and democracy statement to the Senate Committee

Statement submitted to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa

and Global Health hearing on the Political Crisis in Kenya

February 6, 2008; 10:00 a.m.

Background

Kenyans for Justice and Democracy (KJD) comprises Kenyans in the Washington, DC area and other parts of the United States - challenging the official outcome of the presidential elections of December 2007. KJD does not represent the interest of a particular political party, or candidate. Its major goal is to uphold respect for the democratic process and institutions of democracy such as the electoral commission, the Judiciary and the Presidency. This key element of the democratic process was not adhered to in the tallying of the presidential ballots following the December 27, 2007 elections, and in the final declaration and swearing in of Mwai Kibaki as the winner. Subsequent violence and ethnic tensions currently prevailing in Kenya were triggered by this blatant disregard of the peoples’ will expressed through the ballot box.

Evidence of premeditated rigging

· The unilateral appointment of 19 out of 22 Electoral Commissioners by Kibaki immediately before the General Elections to stack the Commission with his acolytes. In the past political parties have nominated candidates for appointment as Electoral Commissioners.

· Kibaki appointed 5 new judges (believed to be partisan) to High Court and Court of Appeal (Court of last resort) only two days to elections. Presidential election petitions can only be heard by the Court of Appeal.

· Young people of voting age in Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) strongholds were denied national identification cards, and were unable to register as voters in time for the General Elections.

· The voters’ registered was interfered with-names of voters from presidential candidate Raila Odinga’s ethnic community were deleted from the register. Hon. Raila Odinga himself could not find his name on the voters’ roll on Election Day.

· Paramilitary officers surrounded the Kenyatta International Conference Center (KICC) and cordoned off surrounding streets. The government was planning to steal elections and was expecting protests from the public.

· Civil servants were actively involved in the campaigns for Kibaki against Civil Service regulations.

· Government attempted to block cell phone text message services to prevent citizens from communicating in the wake of the declaration of Kibaki as the winner of the General Elections.

· Government security personnel were transported to various parts of the country where ODM had massive support to intimidate voters and to interfere with the election process. At least three of these policemen were killed by citizens in Nyanza province a few days before the elections.

A Hopeful People- Betrayed

Kenyans went into the General Elections extremely hopeful and excited about the prospects of a different political dispensation devoid of the corruption, sectarianism, impunity and total disregard of popular sentiment that had characterized the Kibaki regime. The majority of Kenyans-67 percent - believed that the elections would be free and fair.[1] Citizens queued for hours to cast the very important ballot; some for the first time. On these queues every one believed that their vote counted and that, at the end of it all, the outcome would reflect just that: vote counts! But, after hours and days of prevarication and outright animosity against the Orange Democratic Party (ODM) and its officials, the international and local media, international and local election observers, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission ordered all of them out of the announcement hall, and with only the government media present, declared Kibaki president. Earlier, Kenyans had witnessed what had been an assailable ODM presidential candidate Raila Odinga’s lead of close to one million votes, shrink to thirty thousand and finally to a two hundred thousand votes deficit. Kibaki had won.

The rightful winner may not have been declared President: Some interesting facts

· 23 of Kibaki’s Cabinet Ministers were defeated in the elections- including his Vice-President, and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Local Government, and Trade.

· The ODM presidential candidate won six of the eight provinces, while Kibaki won only 1 province. The other was split between Kibaki and Kalonzo Musyoka.

· ODM party won 99 parliamentary seats (48 percent) against PNU’s 43 (21 percent).

· ODM party won 1,042 (out of 2419) seats representing 43 percent of local government seats against PNU’s 441 or 18 percent.

· The ECK Chairman, Mr. Samuel Kivuitu is on record that he does not know if Mwai Kibaki won the elections, and that he declared Kibaki winner under pressure from ODM-K and PNU leaders.[2] This is a criminal offense under Kenyan law. The Law Society of Kenya has recently struck him off its roll of honor.

· Four Electoral Commissioners declared on national TV that the tallying process of the presidential ballots was full of irregularities, and therefore called to question the integrity of the entire outcome. They called for an independent audit.

· An ECK officer told local and international media that he had witnessed the entire process of ballot manipulation at the ECK tallying center.

· The senior officer in charge of national tallying has sworn an affidavit supporting allegations of rigging and vote manipulation.

· The Attorney General also declared that in view of the dispute surrounding the outcome of the elections, a forensic audit was necessary.

· All the major election observers: European Union, African Union, Common Markets for Eastern and Southern Africa, East African Community, The Commonwealth, the International Republican Institute and the Domestic Monitors group which comprised the Kenyan Civil Society are unanimous that the tallying of presidential ballots was manipulated, and that the process did not meet international standards for free and fair elections. They called for an audit, and recount of the ballots. Most have called for power sharing on an interim basis to prepare for new elections.

· Only one foreign Head of State has publicly congratulated Kibaki after the elections. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni later said he did it for diplomatic reasons- Uganda relies on Kenya’s Mombasa port as its gateway. The US government which had initially congratulated Kibaki withdrew soon after it emerged that the outcome had been manipulated.

· Kibaki was hurriedly sworn in at a subdued private ceremony without the national anthem and the customary invitation of foreign dignitaries, media and the clergy. In 2002 nearly one million people witnessed the ceremony.

· Having watched this blatant rigging for three days impatient citizens burst into chaos. Subsequent delays and actions of the ECK further fueled the conflict in various parts of the country. Over 1,000 people have died, many from police bullets. Over 350, 000 people have been displaced. The effect to the economy and to ordinary lives is immeasurable.

· As a result of these uncertainties, and evidence in the public domain, the governments of US, UK, Australia, France, Canada and major multilaterals such as EU and World Bank have indicated that it is not going to be “ business as usual” with the Kibaki government and are reviewing their respective Kenya portfolios.

Twilight robbery; Daylight murder[3]: Why there should be no confusion

There is a general misconception that the post election violence triggered by the announcement that Mwai Kibaki had won the elections is ethnic cleansing. The cause of violence was not ethnic animosity. It was anger over stolen dreams; shattered hopes. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that it has inflamed existing, and pre- election historical grievances which now have to be factored into any credible resolution of the conflict. But, attention should not be diverted from the real and immediate cause of this conflict that is, the deliberate and blatant disenfranchisement of the Kenyan voter.

While the violence has taken an ethnic dimension, it is important to note that it is more political than ethnic. Supporters of rival political parties have been targeted in areas that were considered “specific party zones”. It is important to note that in Kenya support for political party or candidate is preponderantly ethnic. Nevertheless, given the intensity of political activism ahead of the General Elections, and the unprecedented and historic turnout that was witnessed during the elections, it was inevitable that a deliberately falsified would lead to violence.

On voting day, voters from various ethnic groups queued on the same line aware that ethnic differences would determine voting patterns- no conflict was reported on the queues or any where else, until after the announcement of the presidential tallies. It is safe to say that the ensuing violence was triggered by the perceived falsification of the presidential election results by an Electoral Commission under pressure, the deliberate muzzling of the press, and the open and blatant connivance of the Chief Justice to hurriedly swear in Mwai Kibaki, even with the final tally in dispute. The ensuing police brutality and the sudden slip of Kenya into a Police State pointed to a well rehearsed plan to subvert the peoples’ will. The implementation of an illegal shoot to kill order, a ban on live media coverage of police brutality, continued threats to journalists from a cross-section of media houses, and the recent killing of two ODM legislators are not mere coincidences.

An interim power sharing arrangement

Power sharing arrangement would be a repudiation of democracy considering that there was a clear winner. However, under the current circumstances an interim and transitional arrangement would be a first best option to get the country out of the impasse. Kenyans were clear about the kind of leadership they voted for. They made this clear by electing Mwai Kibaki on a reform platform in 2002. And, when he reneged on many of the pledges, citizens punished his government in the 2005 referendum by defeating the draft constitution. And, by electing 99 ODM members of parliament against PNU’s 43, and 1,042 local government candidates against PNUs 441 in the 2007 General elections Kenyans sent a powerful message against the impunity and chicanery of the Kibaki regime. It is the people’s verdict; it should be respected. Nevertheless, these are extraordinary time, and extraordinary measures are called for.

Future of Democracy and Rule of Law in Kenya: Implication for United States

The future of democracy and rule of law in Kenya is currently under threat, as is the security of the entire region including the Horn. An unstable Kenya would provide a breeding ground for terrorist elements in the region, and would undermine US- Kenya partnership in the war against terrorism. Kenya is surrounded by mostly fragile states, and has served as a beacon of hope and peace in a region torn by war. Moreover, Kenya is the gateway to Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eastern DRC, Somalia, parts of Ethiopia, and North Western Tanzania. These economies have already been adversely affected by the crisis in Kenya. Decades of investment in civic education including support from United States, European Union and several US based foundations now face an uncertain future. Kenya is slowly sinking into abyss, and soon respect for democratic institutions will wane and its place taken by apathy, disdain for the vote and the use of alternative and violent means of acquiring political power. With various suggestions including a military take over being floated around, and citizens’ gangs asking for guns, it is clear that if quick action is not taken, democracy may be doing its last rounds in Kenya. And quick action must be one that restores the citizens’ faith in democratic institutions, and not one that asks them to live peacefully in a dictatorship. They have rejected it in the past, they always will.

How should the United States Government respond?

Kenya is a key strategic partner of the United States in the war on terrorism, military partnership and future engagement with the region. Any spiraling of the country into violence beyond the present situation will not only threaten Kenya, but also American interests in the country and the region as a whole. The United States cannot afford a “wait and see attitude”. It must be proactive, and be fully engaged both in public statements and also in symbolic and substantive measures in its dealing with the Kibaki regime. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger has so far distinguished himself in this regard as a champion for democracy and rule of law. But much action is still needed especially at more senior levels of the United States Government.

What the United States should NOT do?

· Not recognize the Kibaki government.

· Not deal with the Kibaki government in a way that signals a “business as usual” attitude.

· Not mistake the on going conflict as an ethnic conflict, ethnic cleansing or genocide. Kenya has over forty ethnic communities living side by side in peace.

· Not suggest that the solution to the current problem lies in power sharing only, unless on an interim basis pending a fresh round of presidential elections

· Not assume that Kenyans are merely interested in peace without justice and democracy.

· Not see power sharing as an antidote to the current crisis, and instead seek for a political solution to what is obviously a major political conflict.

What the United States should do?

· Call for a speedy resolution of the political conflict that underlies the more visible social conflict.

· Encourage regional leaders to support the on-going peace efforts mediated by Kofi Annan and the team of eminent Africans.

· Support the creation of an interim power sharing arrangement between Kibaki and Raila to prepare the country for another round of presidential elections.

· Support all the forces of democracy in and outside Kenya with interest in the peaceful and just resolution of the present conflict.

· Mobilize the international community to provide help for rebuilding the areas torn by violence.

· Act as a strong voice within the Security Council of the UN to create awareness on the danger posed to the country and to the region by Mwai Kibaki’s intransigence.

· Encourage and support an internationally supervised recount of the ballot in disputed areas.

· Immediately impose selected sanctions on political elites that have perpetrated the electoral fraud and those known to be barriers to a rapid, just resolution of the current conflict and restoration of democracy in Kenya.

---

[1] Richard Wike, and Kathleen Holzwart, “Despite Progress and an Upbeat Pre-Election Mood, Ethnic Conflicts Have Long Worried Many Kenyans”, Pew Global Attitudes Project. January 3, 2008. Available at: www.pewresearch.org/pubs/678/kenya

[2] ODM-K presidential candidate, Kalonzo Musyoka, was later appointed Kibaki’s Vice-President.

[3] The Economist’s description of Kenya’s flawed elections. See: Jan 3, 2008 issue.

Credits: Contact: info@kenyansforjusticeanddemocracy.com Website:www.kenyansforjusticeanddemocracy.com