Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY PROF AMUKOWA ANANGWE
The
unsettling political situation in the wake of the recent presidential
elections in which Uhuru Kenyatta’s win is vigorously being challenged
at the Supreme Court and beyond, is food for thought for those who are
able to see through the crystal ball on what the future portends for
this country.
I dare say, the country is headed for unprecedented political turmoil, unless circumspection is exercised by both Cord and Jubilee leaders and their ardent supporters to enhance mutual political accommodation.
No amount of pontification of whether or not the elections were free and fair will cure the simmering political passions that could easily get out of hand. Whereas, some may genuinely be preaching the need for calm and peace, others may be contemplating a recourse to political chaos to render Kenya ungovernable if one side secures control of power to the exclusion of the other.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for both Cord and Jubilee to engage each other constructively without which the political situation may irredeemably deteriorate.
Four factors make a political solution to the ongoing electoral dispute urgent. Firstly, Kenya went through a violent post-election crisis in 2008, and the wounds from this callous occurrence have not healed, and, thus, political volatility and attendant potential for violence is not a remote possibility that Kenyans can ignore at their own peril. Secondly, there are external vested interests that are allied to either side of the political divide in Kenya, and their interest is not about whether the democratisation process in Kenya succeeds. Indeed from the point of such external interests, democracy in Kenya is not an end in itself but a means of ensuring a reconfiguration of power, and its exercise in their interests.
If the democratic means fail, such actors may always be willing to turn a blind eye to electoral malpractice, and sham elections as well as to condone autocracy and authoritarianism in the furtherance of their strategic interests. Thirdly, the key political motivation by Raila and Cord supporters in rejecting Kenyatta’s win is, in part, caused by genuine fear of political exclusion and marginalisation in the event that Kenyatta’s alleged win stays.
Fourthly, the new constitution and the related laws seem not have fundamentally changed the old brand of bad politics characterised by impunity, corruption and ethnicity. The old political attitudes and mindsets amongst ordinary Kenyans have continued to encourage state officials to act arbitrarily and to undermine the quest for good governance.
Whether or not Raila succeeds to overturn the Uhuru win, the country will still face a political problem either way. If Raila loses the petition, of course, then the country should brace itself for confrontational politics, persistent squabbles and grandstanding in Parliament that would create political uncertainty and frustrate the Jubilee government’s ability to deliver on its promises.
If the petition succeeds, it will infuriate and unite further the tenacious Kikuyu and temperamental Kalenjin, dangerously polarise the country, and render a run-off highly explosive, to say the least.
Whereas Raila has rightly petitioned the Supreme Court to annul Kenyatta’s alleged victory, the legal approach should not preclude concurrent efforts to solve the political impasse. In fact, justice may well be served if a mutually acceptable political solution was reached by both Cord and Jubilee leaders. Therefore, Kenyans should not be too preoccupied with the petition at the expense of an alternative political approach to the electoral dispute. In any case, the matter before the court is political, and the Supreme Court may bear in mind the political dimension of the weighty matter before it.
Inevitably the judgement may be tempered by politics. The political nature of a presidential election petition is best illustrated by the experience narrated to a scholarly audience by an eminent retired Ugandan High Court Judge who was privy to the backroom goings-on when Dr Kiiza Besigye petitioned against the re-election of Yoweri Museveni in 2006.
Whilst the majority of the judges found Museveni of having perpetrated gross electoral malpractice to warrant the nullification of his victory, the court withheld such a judgement because Museveni had threatened to hand power over to the military if his re-election was nullified. Equally, the Supreme Court judges in Kenya can ill-afford to be oblivious of the political consequences of their judgements, especially if they were to occasion political instability.
To cut a long story short, Cord and Jubilee leaders must negotiate for a political solution to the electoral dispute in the interest of political stability guided by a number of considerations, including enhancement of political inclusion, power sharing, equitable access to public resources and opportunities, as well as the formation of an all-inclusive grand coalition government.
Prof. Amukowa Anangwe teaches Political Science at the University of Dodoma, Tanzania.
I dare say, the country is headed for unprecedented political turmoil, unless circumspection is exercised by both Cord and Jubilee leaders and their ardent supporters to enhance mutual political accommodation.
No amount of pontification of whether or not the elections were free and fair will cure the simmering political passions that could easily get out of hand. Whereas, some may genuinely be preaching the need for calm and peace, others may be contemplating a recourse to political chaos to render Kenya ungovernable if one side secures control of power to the exclusion of the other.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for both Cord and Jubilee to engage each other constructively without which the political situation may irredeemably deteriorate.
Four factors make a political solution to the ongoing electoral dispute urgent. Firstly, Kenya went through a violent post-election crisis in 2008, and the wounds from this callous occurrence have not healed, and, thus, political volatility and attendant potential for violence is not a remote possibility that Kenyans can ignore at their own peril. Secondly, there are external vested interests that are allied to either side of the political divide in Kenya, and their interest is not about whether the democratisation process in Kenya succeeds. Indeed from the point of such external interests, democracy in Kenya is not an end in itself but a means of ensuring a reconfiguration of power, and its exercise in their interests.
If the democratic means fail, such actors may always be willing to turn a blind eye to electoral malpractice, and sham elections as well as to condone autocracy and authoritarianism in the furtherance of their strategic interests. Thirdly, the key political motivation by Raila and Cord supporters in rejecting Kenyatta’s win is, in part, caused by genuine fear of political exclusion and marginalisation in the event that Kenyatta’s alleged win stays.
Fourthly, the new constitution and the related laws seem not have fundamentally changed the old brand of bad politics characterised by impunity, corruption and ethnicity. The old political attitudes and mindsets amongst ordinary Kenyans have continued to encourage state officials to act arbitrarily and to undermine the quest for good governance.
Whether or not Raila succeeds to overturn the Uhuru win, the country will still face a political problem either way. If Raila loses the petition, of course, then the country should brace itself for confrontational politics, persistent squabbles and grandstanding in Parliament that would create political uncertainty and frustrate the Jubilee government’s ability to deliver on its promises.
If the petition succeeds, it will infuriate and unite further the tenacious Kikuyu and temperamental Kalenjin, dangerously polarise the country, and render a run-off highly explosive, to say the least.
Whereas Raila has rightly petitioned the Supreme Court to annul Kenyatta’s alleged victory, the legal approach should not preclude concurrent efforts to solve the political impasse. In fact, justice may well be served if a mutually acceptable political solution was reached by both Cord and Jubilee leaders. Therefore, Kenyans should not be too preoccupied with the petition at the expense of an alternative political approach to the electoral dispute. In any case, the matter before the court is political, and the Supreme Court may bear in mind the political dimension of the weighty matter before it.
Inevitably the judgement may be tempered by politics. The political nature of a presidential election petition is best illustrated by the experience narrated to a scholarly audience by an eminent retired Ugandan High Court Judge who was privy to the backroom goings-on when Dr Kiiza Besigye petitioned against the re-election of Yoweri Museveni in 2006.
Whilst the majority of the judges found Museveni of having perpetrated gross electoral malpractice to warrant the nullification of his victory, the court withheld such a judgement because Museveni had threatened to hand power over to the military if his re-election was nullified. Equally, the Supreme Court judges in Kenya can ill-afford to be oblivious of the political consequences of their judgements, especially if they were to occasion political instability.
To cut a long story short, Cord and Jubilee leaders must negotiate for a political solution to the electoral dispute in the interest of political stability guided by a number of considerations, including enhancement of political inclusion, power sharing, equitable access to public resources and opportunities, as well as the formation of an all-inclusive grand coalition government.
Prof. Amukowa Anangwe teaches Political Science at the University of Dodoma, Tanzania.
No comments:
Post a Comment