Salma Maoulidi looks at developments in Tanzania's ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party and assesses the state of democracy in the country

Tanzania’s ruling party Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) held its Congress in its party headquarters at Kizota in Dodoma this past weekend. The last party congress was held five years ago in 2002. The size and style of political event created a lot of media interest. High on the agenda of the Party Chair, President J. Kikwete, was restoring the party’s credibility among workers and common citizens (wananchi) following a number of graft allegations involving numerous party and government personalities. Similarly it provided an opportunity for the Chair to assert his authority and consolidate his grip on the Party after assuming its leadership following the 2005 General Election. Unexpectedly the congress also became an opportunity to conduct lessons in democracy. Amidst political recriminations by the opposition about unfair privileges the ruling party enjoys and its failure to be accountable for its unconstitutional or undemocratic practices Mr. John Tendwa, the Registrar of political parties, appears to have absolved the party when he announced in the Daily News of November 6, 2007 on the highly publicized CCM Congress, “CCM has set an example of how a democratic party must operate”.

“Gulp!” was my immediate reaction after reading the story. Not surprising the editorial reflected this line of thought having but praises for their benefactors. While most of us are not surprised by the Daily News adopting such a stance we ought to be uncomfortable, if not shocked, by Mr. Tendwa’s choice of words. One would think that there exist many models of democracy each evolving in its own context. Does ascribing a mandatory ‘must operate (in CCM fashion)’ not show some bias in where the leanings of Mr. Tendwa are in so far as political organizing and organization are concerned? ‘JK gives secretariat new face as big names fall,’ read the Citizen of November 7, 2007. It reports that Hon. Kigunge Ngombale Mwiru and former Premier Fredrick Sumaye failed to make it into the powerful National Executive Committee but were retained in the Central Committee hardly ground breaking a development. And as I went over the names, I found my self wondering what the fuss was about because I knew Hon. Msekwa, and Hon. Magret Sitta (who enjoys a place similar to his wife, Hon. A. Abdalla when he was the Speaker in the last Parliament). Nor are the names of Hon. S. Wasira, Hon. A. Kigoda or her boss Hon. D. Mwakyusa…new to most Tanzanians. Am I missing something about the ‘new and fresh’ faces? Perhaps, I was expecting to hear names like Mary Mpya, Joe Simfahamu or Salama Mpendawatu to solicit a reaction of, “who in the heck is Mpendawatu?” Alas, this was not to be. In my book I rate the election at the level of a minor reshuffle of the ranks which hardly suggests new blood. And by CCM’s own admission, as well as news stories in various newspapers, most of these individuals have been at the helm of major institutions in this country. Mr. Msekwa, the new stunned Vice Chairperson, is reported to have been Mwalimu’s right hand man since the early days of independence. Until 2005 he served as the Speaker of the National Parliament. Absent political viagra what should I and 37.99 millions Tanzanians expect from this reshuffle which is a disappointing as recent government reshuffles in terms of their commitment to bring in new and fresh personalities and ideas? In many ways the event itself held many of us captive limiting the scope of local news available. Indeed, the CCM Congress was front line news in most major papers for the whole week forcing everyone, even those of us who are increasingly indifferent to the political shenanigan that has come to define our elusive attempt at democracy in Tanzania. The Sunday Citizen of November 4, 2007 speaks volume by describing the impending elections as, “determining the fate and direction of the nation”. Such a statement equates the CCM Congress at par, if not higher than the General Elections last held in 2005 raising my eyebrows.

So what is democratic in all of this? If anything I read a lot of mixed messages in the charade that was the congress. While the Party Chair waived a wand of words condemning corruption in the Party, we saw before our eyes the different lobbying styles in operation that spelt actions closely fitting that description. Those antic we missed party members let us in on after some public exchanges of “vijembe” or “nasaha” in a supposedly democratic process. An observer writing in Raia Mwema of November 7, 2007 shared how the air in the main hall was subdued and all matters on the agenda were being endorsed without clarification or opposition Bunge style. Apparently, the CCM Chairp wants harmony in the party but does harmony equal kumezea; or sweeping issues under the carpet instead of addressing?

I must confess I was not in Dodoma and all questions I raise comes from what I heard on the radio, read in the papers and discussed with a number of wananchi. I am thus limited in that my observations are not fresh but somehow diluted as I have had to depend on other mediums to get a sense of what transpired inside Kizota Hall. This, however, does not stop me from raising key concerns which in my very humble opinion pose greater questions for an aspiring democracy.

While I respect the President’s initiative to invite representatives of friendly parties from different parts of the world to the Congress, I am keen to establish were these delegates were invited by the President of Tanzania or by the Chairperson of CCM? Moreover, given the sizeable delegation that came along I am keen to know who footed the bill for their participation. All I can hope is that tax payers’ money was utilized for maendeleo purposes while CCM dug deep into their coffers to entertain their friends. Equally, I trust government officials did not utilize public property or finances towards their participation in an undisputedly partisan event.

As a woman who comes of a country that in 1998 paved the way in the region in so far as passing a progressive legislation on sexual violence, I take strong issue with hosting Mr. Jacob Zuma at the Congress. This is a man who was trialed for sexually assaulting a woman, who was, in African terms, technically his daughter, which in itself is inappropriate let alone the circumstances in which he did it. Let us be clear irrespective of what the court in South Africa ruled, Mr. Zuma never denied what he did but affirmed his actions though his own interpretation of Zulu masculinity and its inevitable expression when confronted with a woman in kanga cloth!

Perhaps his graft accusations may not have been enough in a party whose leadership is struggling with similar accusations. Nevertheless, in view of our recent loss of Hon. Salome Mbatia, who was the deputy in the Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children, I would have thought that female parliamentarians, and more so the women of CCM, and some of those good African men who respect their mothers and love their daughters would at least have raised objection about Mr. Zuma’s attendance. Moreover, to avoid the ethical faux pax this issue now poses, in an ideal democratic setting, CCM wakereketwa who still care what others think about the Party and its actions would have at least proposed to the ANC a less controversial name. But then again I live in a cloud of ethical standards only I and a few others have been privileged by virtue of our nonpartisanship. Such contradictions are hardly topical among those posing as flag bearers under a governance scheme that fails to meet all good governance standards. The media, I must add, faired no better choosing to focus on Mr. Zuma’s past identity as a freedom fighter while leaving out his current history as someone facing serious graft and sexual allegations. Under the new AU framework, particularly elucidated in the Peer Review Mechanism and Maputo Protocol, both are key indicators for good governance.

I cannot end this piece without going back to the subject of the elections itself, which after all was the main purpose of the Congress. In all fairness we must call a spade a spade to accurately represent what transpired. Therefore, my headline would have read “CCM vigogos reinstated in top organs” rather than elected or re-elected since such a connotation does not adequately represent what really happened or the outcome.

In electing its veterans, as well as some powerful members of the current government, CCM, in my estimation, has tried to re-assert its authority in both the executive and the legislature since most of those reshuffled hold powerful position in key governance structures. Otherwise, those not currently serving in the government or in the legislature hold considerable influence. Surprisingly, little was said about the presence of religious leaders who did more than bless the event but stayed on to receive some indoctrination.

Also visible in photographs were members of the Tanzanian People Defense Force also adorning the party colour green. Of course they may have been bodyguards to the country’s leadership but what is a country’s military which is not partisan doing in a partisan event? Does Mr. Brown or Bush go into their political party meetings with members of the army or just the secret service, or better the political party’s own intelligence and militia? Only the judiciary somehow managed to be inconspicuous at Kizota. Some of the supposed new faces like Mr. Bernard Membe formerly held positions in the civil service. Under the law civil servants are non partisan yet we have witnessed a number of civil servants venturing into politics and at times transitioning between their civil service status and their political ambitions. Absent a clear demarcation between their political appointments or elections; and their retirement from civil service does the Registrar of Political Parties not feel such issues need to be interrogated more rigorously to properly ascertain how far political parties abide to requirements set in operating laws?

I would have been more impressed if Hon. Msekwa, in view of his already distinguished career in public service (and in the party) would have declined and campaigned for a younger pick to fill the powerful position of party Vice-Chair. Undoubtedly, this would have expedited his nomination for life membership in the Central Committee. In fact all vanguards over retiring age like Kingunge and Malecela can snugly assume a new leadership role within the party (or their communities for those committed to go back to the village) reflecting a transformation in their progression in their leadership journey instead of being stuck at the helm with no where else to go.

If you ask me, democracy in Tanzania, generally, and in political parties, specifically, still has a long way to go.

* Salma Maoulidi is an Activist/Executive Director of the Sahiba Sisters Foundation in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Peter Adwok Nyaba critically analyses the struggle by the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement within the context of African liberation

“… [the] drive for African unity in our times requires a popular mass-based, Africa-wide political movement whose central goal is political and economic unity of African people..” K K Prah [2006]

Introduction

Before we proceed to define what African liberation is, there is need that we perceive and agree on the definition of who is an ‘African’. It would be a fatal mistake to assume that anybody on the African continent today including those who deny that identity is African. On the other hand it will equally be serious a mistake bordering on ignorance of history to perceive that people of the African descent domicile outside the continent e.g. in the Americas, Europe, Asia or Oceania are not Africans. What then is the criterion for classifying or categorising one as an African?

The Africans are the only race in the last one thousand years that has been raped, brutalised, denied its humanity, commoditised, exported like goods, its natural resources stolen by Europeans and Asians, its societies torn apart, their social bonds disrupted and compartmentalised into colonial territories. The history of the African people and people of African descent has in short been that of tremendous tribulations at the hands of nearly all the other races. No human race has gone through such a legacy and possesses such historical indignity.

An African therefore is one who or whose ancestors have gone through this experience and heritage. Black colour, although a characteristic feature of many of us, does not alone define who is African. It is the legacy of sustained dominance, exploitation and enslavement that really defines the African and people of the African descent domicile elsewhere in the world. This sustained societal domination has created a sense of belonging and other realities of its own but it is more among the African Diaspora that the urge to solidarity and identity consciousness in more evident.

On the continent this sustained domination worked negatively in many instances. It subverted the African confidence in them and created syndromes of inferiority, self-hate, and lack of self-esteem to paraphrase Prah. And many others prevalent today even in our societies e.g. the practice of skin bleaching, hair straightening or simulating the or anything European or Arab, are manifestations of this self-hate. It is in this context that we want to discuss the African liberation in all its dimensions socio-cultural, political and economic.

African Liberation

Let’s now attempt to define ‘African liberation’, what are its parameters and which social and political forces pursue this liberation struggle? In the context of decolonisation African liberation has been seen as process leading to independence from European colonial rule. Although that may be a significant aspect of it, African liberation is a socio-cultural and political process for self-rediscovery, self- re-humanisation and return with dignity into human history. Colonialism and dependence on Europe removed our people from history. Liberation essentially is the return of the African people on the continent and in the Diaspora back into history such that they take their rightful place in the course of human development. This process in the final analysis must translate into transforming the oppressive reality by which the Africans have been submerged in for centuries. Its main parameters are social and cultural emancipation, political independence, economic vibrancy, unity of the African people on the continent with their kin and kith in the Diaspora.

The oppressive reality the Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora find themselves is the reality of neo-colonialism – maintaining colonial relationships through diplomatic and economic strings which perpetuates economic exploitation and the robbing of the continents natural resources through such institutions as the Lome Convention [I, II, III & IV], the Cotonou Protocol -2000, which has perpetuated African’s dependence on the European Union. Europe continues to exploit the Africans through such agreements made by African leaders who never cared for their people. It is relationship in which Africa suffers capital flight to Europe, America and Asia to the tune of billions of dollars per year with a corresponding pauperisation of the Africans as manifested in the Human Development Indices of most of these countries.

A synoptic view of the African political landscape reveals astounding reality of conflicts, civil wars, famine, preventable diseases, and many other epidemics. Fifty years of flag independence most African countries find themselves in fiscal deficit which must be covered by donors – a sad reminder that it is ‘not yet uhuru’. They are unable to feed their own people or provide the minimum of life requirements as a result the Africans risk their lives fleeing away to become voluntary slaves in Europe, the Middle East and America. Africa is witnessing a brain drain to the West and this works negatively for Africa’s development.

In historical perspective, African Liberation and the struggle thereof is not something new. It also didn’t start with the struggle for decolonisation in the fifties and sixties. The process started against the European and Arab aggression many centuries ago. We may have to remind ourselves of the struggles against European slave merchants on the Atlantic coastal areas of Africa; against the Arab slave expeditions along the Indian Ocean coastal areas of East Africa and in the Nile Valley across the Red Sea. Africans played heroic roles against this human tragedy.

The Africans also didn’t accept lying down on their stomachs the European colonialism after the Berlin Conference 1884. We may have to remind ourselves of the Mahdi’s uprising against the corrupt Turco-Egyptian state in northern Sudan. It is a matter of fact many of participated albeit as slaves in the war against the European power. The defeat of the Italians at Adowa in 1895 by the Ethiopians under Menelik II is a vivid reminder that African people always cherished freedom in their lands.

The struggle for freedom as manifested by decolonisation of Africa was long drawn out against European colonial administration. It also included the political, military and diplomatic actions against Apartheid in South Africa which ended in the majority rule in 1994. The situation in South Africa had been describes as ‘internal colonialism’ – in which the dominant political class, representing the social, economic and political interests of the predatory white racists captured the state and used it to dominate, oppress and exploit the majority of the citizens. This internal colonialism was more vicious and ruthless than the European colonialism.

Social and political forces for African liberation

The Africans struggle for freedom started in earnest with the process of decolonisation. This struggle took different forms ranging from negotiations [Lancaster talks] for countries like Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania [British East Africa], Nigeria, Ghana, Cameron [British West Africa], Senegal, Ivory Cost, Mali, Niger [French West Africa] among others; to revolutionary armed struggle as it occurred with the Portuguese [Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau] and French colonies [Algeria] or with armed struggle against internal colonialism as in the case of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Eritrea and Southern Sudan.

The unfortunate outcome of this struggle for freedom and independence was the confirmation of Africa’s division in the images of its former colonial masters and the perpetuation of their respective zones of influence. Africa emerged divided and fragmented after decolonisation. Nearer home in Sudan, the Acholi, Madi, Kakwa, Masaai, Zaghawa, Azande, Beja, Anyuak just to mention a few find themselves today divided by the colonial borders of the countries surrounding the Sudan. The situation is the same in many regions of Africa.

The attempt in Addis Ababa in 1962 to forge African unity in formation of Organisation for African Unity (OAU) quickly turned into leadership club, which affirmed the colonial division of Africa. It became a ‘unity’ of African leaders to perpetuate the colonial legacy of oppression, marginalisation and political exclusion of sections of their citizenry. The first phase of African liberation therefore faltered. The result of this ‘false start in Africa’ is the present crisis in which the continent is embroiled. Conflicts, civil wars, military coups, economic depression, refugees, internal displacement, are all symptoms of a serious error of judgement of our independence leaders. There is no African state that has not had a military coup, civil war, tribal wars and conflicts, etc.

African liberation is therefore a struggle against neo-colonial state. It can only occur in the context of a continental movement to which the Africans in the Diaspora may subscribe to. A continental movement which involves all the social and political forces united in their different and variegated political parties and organisations, associations, and unions. A ‘Pan African Movement’ capable of capturing the aspirations of the African people and unite them in solidarity with one another and with the African Diaspora. The Africans may borrow a leaf from the Pan Arab Movement and solidarity in terms of its form and structure but with a different social and cultural content.

Is the Sudanese people part of the African Liberation?

We in Southern Sudan are emerging from a half century struggle against the politics of racial domination, exclusion and marginalisation. The Sudanese political situation resembled apartheid in South Africa and Namibia and qualified as a case of ‘internal’ colonialism. In this context the dominant political class, representing the social, economic and political interests of the predatory Jellaba, captured the state in 1956 and used its different parameters to politically exclude from power, marginalise dominate, oppress and exploit the majority of the citizens.

Disenchanted with the historical role played by the Jellaba in slavery and slave trade, the people of Southern Sudan, had always remained suspicious and never accepted the political dispensation that ensured Arab hegemony over the whole country. The call for ‘federation’ by Southern Political elite in the nineteen fifties didn’t come out of the blues. It was anchored in the belief that the Jellaba would not accept the concept and principle of power sharing in a unitary state. The people of Southern Sudan had to fight two wars to win the exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement has now made it a constitutional right and therefore a victory for all the Sudanese people.

The relentlessness with which the people of Southern Sudan pursued their political objectives played a fundamental role in the awakening of the other marginalised and oppressed Sudanese particularly those of the African stock in central [Nuba and Funj], western [Fur, Masaalit, Zaghawa, among others] and eastern [Beja] Sudan. It is worth mentioning that hitherto many of these people, submerged by the oppressive reality they lived were ensnared into the false belief that professing Islamic Religion and speaking Arabic language [culture] was tantamount to being Arab hence superior to their brethren in the South. They therefore fought bitterly and fiercely to brutalise and dehumanise their brother and sisters in Southern Sudan.

The Southern Sudan influence is manifested in the wars in Dar Fur and Eastern Sudan. This has shattered the myth and falsehood that northern Sudan was homogeneously Islamic and Arab. Yes many of them, indeed most of them, are Muslims but they are not all Arabs. As a matter of fact even those who call themselves Arabs are indeed not Arab but a hybrid race – children born to Arab fathers by African mothers. It now can be said that the Africans in the Sudan have awoken to the reality of their collective oppression. They have therefore taken up the mantle for their own liberation suggestive of their conscientisation i.e. they have correctly perceived of their submersion in the culture of oppression and therefore the need to transform that oppressive reality. Like Southern Sudanese they have now enrolled in the process of their total liberation and emancipation.

Having said that, it goes without saying that we in Southern Sudan, as well as our brothers and sisters in other parts of the Sudan, who subscribe to the definition of the African, are indeed an integral part of Africa and its liberation. It may not be a late realisation because looking back into the sixties, one of the liberation fronts established by Southern Sudanese was Azania Liberation Front, something anchored in the South African experience.

The liberation process in the Sudan now helps highlight the nature of ‘internal colonialism’ I allude to above but more importantly highlights the perennial conflicts that run across African between the Arabs and the Black Africans in Dar Fur, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal and Mauritania. These are conflicts to which many African leaders would prefer to squint from or fudge under the carpet of diplomacy as they flirt with Arab leaders like Gadhafi. A pan African Movement should confront this reality head-on to bring the Arab to accept the Africans as their equals.

This brings me to the recently established African Union and the proposed United States of Africa. What kind of United States of Africa including the Arabs? Going by the Arab’s attitude towards the Africans it will be like a union between the slave and his/her master/mistress. The United States of Africa is not an instrument for African liberation. Instead United States of Africa led by Mohamar Gadhafi is another was of perpetuating Arab hegemony in Africa particularly when viewed in the context of their lukewarm response to the war in Dar Fur and lack of support for the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005).

What should be done?

As part of the liberation process we need to embrace democracy and democratic principles of political organisation and action as tools for liberation. As a matter of fact this requires a high level of political awareness, consciousness and organisation. Africa has been so much segmented and partitioned that their primary conscious knowledge of themselves is their immediate clans or lineages. Even where the same ethnic community has been divided by the colonial borders people remain oblivious to the fact that they are one and the same people. We need to get out of this clannishness and look at the wider picture embracing our destiny as a people.

This discussion forum which has just been inaugurated in my opinion is a conscious attempt to start engaging ourselves in bigger issues that concern the destiny of the Africans on the continent and those of the African origin. This is a process of conscientisation which of necessity must be followed by mobilisation and organisation at every level of our society. This is because liberation will not come until we have internalised some of these issues like construction of a continent-wide political movement whose main goal the political and economic unity of the African people. Borrowing from the European theatre it is the political and economic unity that will really bring an end to the endemic wars and conflicts on the African continent.

In Sudan, we have been absorbed by our own massive problems. This has prevented many of us from engaging in regional and continental issues. The present dispensation which allows Government of Southern Sudan and the SPLM to have offices in the regions must be used to widen our contacts with our neighbours to increase cooperation in solving cross border issues, increase trade and unhindered movement of our people and their goods. The establishment of regional associations and unions of academicians, students, youths, women and political parties will accelerate this process. The movement for African liberation and unity must be two-ways traffic across the colonial borders with the ultimate objective of making these borders irrelevant in the lives of our people. This will eventually lead to the deconstruction of the colonial state and the final unity of our people.

The perpetuation of the neo-colonial state as a diplomatic as well as a reference of sovereignty was a major failure of our leaders. It is this attitude to the colonial state that witnessed the death in its infancy of the East African Community in the sixties. It is hoped the recent attempts to revive this important regional body and more particularly the joining of Burundi and Rwanda will help pull the peoples of these countries together. We are of the opinion that regional institutions of cooperation and economic integration should be stepped up and buttressed as a means of strengthening our economies to achieve genuine liberation.

The neo-colonial state, we in a misnomer, call nation state did not address the concerns of the vast majority of the African people for social and economic development. The current crisis on the continent may be attributed to the failure of the African leadership. Looking round the continent there are many failed or collapsed states. Their economies are in shambles and their people are daily escaping to other areas. Africa is experiencing a plight of its people this time voluntarily to become slaves in developed economies. This situation necessitates a second round of African liberation.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Sudanese people are an integral part of the African liberation. But it is only those Sudanese who recognise and accept the fact that they are part of the African heritage I talked about above. The SPLM being the vanguard of the struggle of our people for the last twenty four years must continue to play this role more vigorously now than before.

The SPLM must become the rallying point for all the Sudanese in the south, east, west and north. It must engage in genuine democratic discourse and build viable, transparent and accountable relationship between the leaders and the masses of the people. It must punish clannish behaviour of some of its leaders and cadres; it must rid the government and society of corruption, nepotism, favouritism and all elements of bad governance.

The SPLM in its effort to transform into a popular mass-based political party in the Sudan must adopt methods of political organisation and action which are democratic. It should be a link between the Sudanese and the other Africans and the African Diaspora. Its departure point must of necessity incorporate a ‘firm cultural vestiture which strengths and roots African national consciousness in our cultural and historical belongings’ [Prah]. In this way the SPLM will be part of the process of uniting the ranks and file of our people across the colonial boundaries.

The Sudanese struggle for liberation, social justice, freedom and democracy is therefore part of the African liberation. We must therefore transform ourselves into conscious mass [Pan Africanist Movement] and agent of Pan Africanist ideals in this way we will have participated in the liberation of Africa.

* Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba is the author of The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan: An Insider’s View

* This article is taken from a talk delivered by the author at Juba University on November 17th, 2007

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In part one, Onyango Oloo diagnosed the Kenya crisis. In Part two he prescribes, amongst other remedies, continued civil action against the Kibaki government

In this section of my essay, I want to examine the options ahead for the Kenya democratic movement.

Many of us heaved a sigh of relief when Raila Odinga announcement the postponement of the rallies.

Let me hasten to add that our sigh of relief DID NOT coincide with NOR WAS IT THE SAME AS the sighs from the Kenyan comprador and petit bourgeois elite.

Rather, our own sense of relief was grounded on organizational, tactical and strategic considerations.

We felt that the initial round of protests were largely spontaneous and unfocused.

Even the first attempts of ODM to rally the troops to Uhuru Park relied heavily on the passions and voluntarist energies of the ODM popular base. These actions were not very well coordinated in our view and that is why the cops had an upper hand.

We also felt that after the series of lumpen jacquerries in the informal settlements which had left in their wake infernos, innocent victims and tribal acrimony, it was crucial for the ODM to step and take charge, because contrary to the strident accusations of PNU supporters online and throughout the country, the Orange Democratic Movement as a party HAD NO ROLE in the riots and subsequent carnage.

This fact is graphically illustrated by the plight which befell hundreds of innocent Kisii speaking voters in Nyanza and parts of the Rift Valley. A comrade of mine who was one of the defeated aspirants in one constituency on the southern tip of Nyanza province recounted to me the violent reprisals and terrible ordeals which befell innocent Kisiis who had actually voted for Raila Odinga. He told me that there was a series of very blatant rigging of the ballots for Kibaki in parts of the Greater Kisii region where the PNU Presidential candidate got abnormally high amounts of votes- a clear plan to steal votes from Raila Odinga. When these artificial tallies were announced by ECK and especially after the shocking award by Kivuitu to Kibaki of the 2007 Presidential prize, mass anger erupted in places like Migori, Kericho, Kuresoi and Kisumu. The target this time was not confined to innocent Kikuyus and their property but also members of the Kisii who were wrongly accused by enraged Luo and Kipsigis mobs of having “betrayed” the people of Nyanza in bringing back Kibaki to power. I am told that even now there are unclaimed bodies literally some of the tea estates in Kericho with many members of the Kisii community losing their businesses in Kisumu and some areas in the Rift Valley. The many illegal road blocks erected on the Kisii-Nairobi road especially the Sotik-Narok section were scenes of unbelievable horrors if one happened to be a Kisii. This account corroborates the harrowing narrative of the Toronto-based Dr. Matunda Nyanchama that was posted on the Africa-Oped and Mwananchi online discussion forums.

My comrade told me that it took his own urgent personal intervention to two members of the ODM Pentagon that enabled the leadership of ODM to travel to the Rift Valley and Nyanza to appeal for calm and the end of ethnic slaughter.

The point I am trying to drive home is that the ODM leadership could have hardly "ordered" an ethnic attack on the Kisii community which rallied together to rout Simeon Nyachae and eliminate the PNU as a political force in Gusii land.

If anything, the ODM leadership, especially in southern Nyanza can be accused of being largely impotent in the face of a grave crisis affecting their own fervent supporters.
I would like to state for the record that I have been disgusted by the emerging PNU propaganda that attempts to portray the ODM leadership as Interhamwe type masterminds of genocide when the facts point to two developments:

The deployment of state troops who went on a shooting rampage in Nairobi, Eldoret, Kakamega, Bungoma, Kisumu and Mombasa killing innocent civilians and two; The cynical abdication of duty by the same state employed uniformed security forces when looting and plunder was taking place in Kisumu, Kibera and Mombasa to just cite three examples where eye-witnesses (including my brother in law in Mombasa who happens to be a half-Kikuyu and who had his bar on the west mainland pillaged and plundered under the uncaring eye of hordes of heavily armed cops who stood by as his club was stripped of all the equipment, appliances and facilities that he spent the last two years installing to revamp the place). It is my considered opinion that the looting and plunder WAS CONSCIOUSLY FACILITATED BY THE STATE TO DISCREDIT RAILA ODINGA AND THE ODM. This position was echoed by an elderly clear headed Kisumu resident when he was interviewed last night by a KTN television crew.

The PNU propagandists peddling the spurious “genocide” allegations are of course blissfully oblivious to the fact that the MAJORITY OF DEAD VICTIMS of the post-electoral violence has police wounds riddling their corpses.

If there is a case that can be made of pre-meditated mass killings, then the person in the dock should be those Kibaki connected and conniving political schemers who instituted a shoot to kill policy after arming cops with live ammunition instead of rubber bullets.

The breaking news revelations by Maina Kiai, the fiercely independent Chair of the state funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights to the effect that members of the dreaded Mungiki sect had been reactivated by the Kibaki regime to carry out murderous attacks in Nairobi slums thought to be ODM strongholds is a stunning setback that is already causing ripple effects and knocking the wind out of the sails of those Kibaki supporters online who have been trumpeting a concocted campaign against Raila Odinga and his ODM colleagues who they have stridently accused of ethnic cleansing.

What is even more astonishing that this story was broken by none other than Mungiki insiders who took the initiative of contacting Maina Kiai's offices.

It should be recalled that only a few months ago the same Kibaki regime was indiscriminately executing innocent Agikuyu youth suspected of being Mungiki members based on the sole “evidence” of ethnicity.

What a CYNICAL case of Use and Dump and Abuse Again!

The PNU propagandists may very well get what they wish for with unintended legal consequences for their paymasters because I earnestly believe that an independent, transparent international inquiry composed of legal experts into the Kenyan post-electoral deaths is far more likely to indict the Michukis and the Murages than anyone else within the ODM leadership.

And that is why I say:

Bring on the Inquiry, the Tribunal, the Commission!

Let the investigations commence this very afternoon!

As I was saying before I veered off on that tangent, many progressive and democratic minded Kenyans were grateful when ODM called off the mass rallies.

Why?

The masses were fatigued; they were famished; they were unorganized and disorganized and certainly not very politically conscientized and sensitized. As one of my comrades was pointing out to me yesterday evening, mass action is NOT A JOKE.

You need a detailed strategy.

You need mobilizers.

You need resources; in the same way an army needs supply lines, commanders and maximum flexibility of tactics to outwit the other side.

Of course Onyango Oloo is NOT going to delve into any kind of detail about how one can implement a successful, sustained and popular mass action strategy here online.

I would have to be certified INSANE for me to do that.

The key thing to remember is that the crisis in Kenya has by now evolved far beyond Raila Odinga and the stolen Presidential vote or the right of ODM to form the next government.

What we are now dealing with as Kenyans is the need to repulse a criminal conspiracy to overthrow democratic rule and restore the neo-colonial fascist ethno-kleptocracy of the Moi-KANU years.

What we are dealing with as Kenyans is a direct danger to ALL of the democratic gains we have made over the last twenty-five to thirty years.

What we are dealing with as Kenyans is an immediate threat that could plunge Kenya into a bloody civil war that would make Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Congo look like child’s play.

The danger we face as a nation calls IMMEDIATELY for, among other prerogatives:

1. A UNITED response that does not look at the problem through PAROCHIAL ETHNIC spectacles;
2. A DEMOCRATIC and PEACEFUL response that eschews militaristic and violent conspiracies;
3. A perspective grounded on SOCIAL JUSTICE and ANTI-IMPERIALIST precepts to ensure a progressive, egalitarian and just eventual outcome;
4. A PROTRACTED approach realizing that Kibaki and his henchmen, having tasted state power, will not, of their own accord relinquish the same unless forced to do so by united, democratic, progressive determination of the Kenyan people rising up to demand their country, their rights and their aspirations back from the PNU usurpers;
5. An organic linkage with the international solidarity and fight back campaigns spearheaded BY PROGRESSIVE AND PATRIOTIC KENYANS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY together with our other global comrades in many countries throughout the world; There is ONLY ONE WEAPON at the disposal of the Kenyan people at this present time and that weapon is:

ORGANIZATION.

Let me repeat Ho Chi Minh’s revolutionary dictum over and over and over and over again:

Organize, Organize, Organize!

Yes we know that the MOST AGGRIEVED IMMEDIATE ENTITY is the ODM who have just been robbed of an election that they won fair and square in broad daylight.

However the issue is far, far beyond the ODM and its immediate supporters. They are millions of Kenyans who are not necessarily aligned to ODM who are completely outraged and want to be part of a successful fight back.

This reality calls for the launching of a Kenya- wide organizational and democratic conduit which is much broader than any one political party in the country.

The other day I called for the formation of a NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT founded on the four pillars of JUSTICE, PEACE, DEMOCRACY and TRUTH. This movement must be based on the poor wananchi in the urban and rural areas, the youth, the women, the cultural and religious minorities, the progressive elements among the middle-class, patriotic Kenyans outside the country and all anti-imperialist forces.

My call is merely one of dozens of such calls emanating simultaneously from Kenyan progressives from all over the country, from Mombasa to Malaba, Moyale to Loitoktok.

Already we see fast mutating ancestors of that kind of an organization sprouting almost on a daily basis.

At the civil society front, a network of over 30 NGOs and non-profit formations formed a Coalition for Peace, Justice and Truth within the first few days of January.

At the core of this coalition are such credible institutions like the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Mars Group, Law Society of Kenya, Kituo Cha Sheria, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, NCEC, the Centre for Multi-Party Democracy-Kenya and other like minded bodies.

We must commend the admirable work of such Kenyan militant patriots and progressives like Muthoni Wanyeki, Gladwell Otieno, Cyprian Nyamwamu, Kepta Ombati, Ndung’u Wainaina, Maina Kiai, Zahid Rajan, Haron Ndubi, Zarina Patel and Mwalimu Mati in jump-starting this much needed vehicle and process.

Among the praise worthy initiatives of the new coalition are efforts to engage members of the Central Kenyan communities through an entity called the Republican Forum- a network of younger business people and professionals from among the Agikuyu. This forum which meets regularly at a certain Nairobi hotel and counts among its regulars people like David Ndii, Mutahi Ngunyi to name just two, is right now assessing the ECONOMIC and FINANCIAL immediate impact and long term ramifications of the Kibaki/PNU on Central Kenya within the context of the national reality that the Agikuyu, like other Kenyans live all over the country and if the anti-Kibaki backlash maintains an ethnic tag how this will mess up national harmony. Apart from that, the group has a mandate to emphasize to the GEMA communities that Kibaki’s coup should not be seen as synonymous as a “victory” for millions of individual Kikuyus, Merus and Embus but rather an insult and assault on every one of them who as Kenyans are equally affronted by this callous subversion of democracy, justice, and yes, prospects for peaceful coexistence across all our diverse Kenyan peoples.

Over and above the above, forces within the coalition are exhorting Kenyans to do the following:

(i)Agitate for new presidential elections within the next three months;
(ii)Urge ODM to take up their seats and continue their struggle in the 10th parliament because a boycott will be a political faux pas that will play right into the hands of the PNU usurpers;
(iii)Engage the police, the paramilitary and the military with a view of winning over these security forces to the side of the democratic and patriotic forces;
(iv)Mobilizing the international community, especially the United States, Canada, Japan and the European Union to realize that Kenya will be UNGOVERNABLE under an illegitimate regime and that their interests and the interests of neighbouring countries like Uganda, Rwanda, the DRC, Sudan, Ethiopia etc will be at risk if the current political impasse persists;
(v)Step up indigenous, in country humanitarian efforts reaching out to ALL the victims of the post-electoral strife regardless of ethnicity, political affiliation and regional origins;

There are of course some other interesting developments but I guess it as this point that I will dutifully ZIP MY LIPS.

*Onyango Oloo, a Kenyan political activist and ex political prisoner.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

From the look of things, it would appear that we are still a long way from resolving the serious post-election crisis that is gripping and almost crippling Kenya.

Even after Raila Odinga and ODM considerably softened their preconditions for internationally mediated talks with their opposite numbers by dropping their demand that Kibaki must resign; calling off a series of rallies and mass actions across the country and lowering the decibel of their political rhetoric, Mwai Kibaki and his fellow usurpers seems set on a suicidal path to tighten their hold on the stolen public offices.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2008 the besieged Pretender President in the State House compounded the putschist, undemocratic initial injury he had inflicted on the Kenyan nation by unilaterally and illegally appointing his cronies and side-kicks to ministerial positions literally hours before African Union Chairperson John Kuffuor of Ghana landed at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport to mediate in scheduled talks between ODM and PNU.

Not only did Kibaki violate Kenyan law by appointing these individuals before they had been sworn in formally as members of parliament, the Othaya MP was desperate to confront the visiting Kuffuor with a fait accompli by grabbing the most powerful and strategic cabinet positions for himself and his faction.

In doing so, Kibaki also laid bare a lot of what Kenyans had been suspecting for months:

Kalonzo Musyoka, the ODM-K leader and also ran presidential candidate had always been a fifth columnist amidst opposition ranks causing much rancour while still in the original ODM and bolting off to form ODM-K as a stratagem of wangling for himself the coveted VP slot. Now every boast of Kalonzo’s about being a “peace maker” and ‘Mr. Clean Hands” rings hollow; words and phrases added to the growing hill of human turd, the self-created merde composed of his swaggering and sauntering election campaign boasts of being the “most formidable opponent” of Kibaki and the “people’s servant”.

How could Kibaki’s so called “most formidable opponent” agree to be a mere junior stand in for his alleged nemesis?

How could an alleged “peace maker” and so called “servant of the people” jump hastily into bed with someone whose criminal actions had led to so much blood shed, ethnic acrimony, economic devastation and political uncertainty?

What is also clearly evident is that Kibaki’s move to appoint Kalonzo Musyoka as his deputy could be an advance gambit anticipating a re-run of the presidential contest where Kibaki and his schemers reckon that Kalonzo may single-handedly delivered the Akamba bloc vote.

Judging by his less than stellar showing at the just concluded parliamentary and presidential elections, it is by no means a sure bet that Kalonzo will actually live up to this lofty expectations.

Many of us in the progressive and democratic camp here in Kenya have been chastened with the emerging agenda of the United States and such multi-lateral global bodies like the World Bank.

A leaked memo authored by the Guyanese born Kenya Country director of the World Bank Colin Bruce basically setting the ground for an acceptance of the Kibaki coup d'etat is a very sobering reminder that when it comes to crunch time, institutions such as the World Bank will gravitate towards the status quo.

Some of my reliable sources here in Nairobi inform me that the United States publicly unstated position militates against a re-run of the election, leaning more towards a negotiated power-sharing formula between Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki- as if the national crisis that has seen tens of thousands of democracy seeking Kenyan protesters lash out in anger in response to the stolen presidential vote outcome.

It is also not very clear what the mainstream African agenda is regarding the current crisis in Kenya.

Conterminous with the arrival and presence of John Kufour was the puzzling tour of ex-Presidents Kaunda of Zambia, Mkapa of Tanzania, Chissano of Mozambique and Masire of Botswana.

Were they in Kenya to bolster or undermine the shuttle diplomacy of the Ghanaian head of state?

What are more disturbing are the personal, ideological and strategic intentions of President Yoweri Museveni from the neighbouring nation-state of Uganda.

Credible reports indicate that Ugandan troops-some of them dressed in Kenyan police uniform, some of them in civvies- have been implicated in the extra-judicial state ordered executions of unarmed civilians in Kisumu, including many infants and minors, with some shot at close range while cowering in their own homes.

An observer in Nairobi has privately suggested to this writer that the Kibaki posse of political criminals did approach the Ugandan government expressing their insecurities about dealing with any negative fallout from within the Kenyan military establishment in the aftermath of the elections.

Museveni, according to this source, is supposed to have reassured the Kenyan head of state and his shadowy kitchen cabinet that Uganda was ready to do ANYTHING- including dispatching troops to Kenya to thwart any efforts at overturning the Kibaki civilian coup.

The observer in Nairobi is of the opinion that the main thing driving Museveni’s mother hen attitude towards Kenya has less to do with guaranteeing Kenyan political stability as with the Ugandan president’s own megalomaniacal ambitions to be the capo dei capi of East and Central Africa over the next few years. As many readers of these lines know, there is a push to consolidate the process of implementing the East African Community as an economic, legal, social and POLITICAL entity. Part of the provisions of that process is the creation of an East African Community President.

My source avers that Museveni sees himself as the natural born leader who will fit that slot. M7 (as the Ugandan president is often referred to, especially in his native land) thinks that Kenya’s Raila Odinga stands in Museveni’s way because of the ODM flag-bearer’s own charisma, Pan African appeal and political pedigree (it never hurts to be scion/offspring of one of the Third World’s most celebrated nationalist heroes, Jaramogi Ajuma Oginga Odinga).

The observer in Nairobi is convinced that Museveni’s covert and overt (he is the only leader to have so far "recognized" the illegitimate hostage in the State House) support for Kibaki is rooted in a cynical, mid term quid pro quo strategy of neutralizing any aspirants to the ultimate East African crown jewel.

I ran this hypothesis by another friend of mine, this one a highly placed individual embedded at the core of Kenya’s National Security Intelligence Service.

My NSIS contact was very skeptical about the Museveni Factor as delineated by my observer pal.

He says that going by his own contacts within the Ugandan armed forces and intelligence agencies, there does not seem to be ANY credence that could lift the Museveni Hypothesis above the level of wild rumour and baseless speculation. He also doubts the reports, lately echoed by Raila Odinga himself about the active participation of Ugandan troops in the state-engineered massacres of civilians in Kisumu.

I will leave my readers to use their own discretion to interrogate, verify and/or corroborate the veracity or otherwise of these serious allegations regarding the role played by President Museveni in the current Kenyan crisis.

Nevertheless, my spooky intelligence pal shared with me something else:

He told me that there is a high level of uncertainty and even mild dissent within the armed forces, the regular police and other elements of the Kenyan state security apparatus.

He claims that the wildly refuted SMS rumours which speculated that Kenya’s army chief and the police commissioner had resigned around New Year’s Day were NOT totally baseless because there had been some kind of heightened pressures on the duo within those ranks that the military and the police should not be seen to be condoning Kibaki’s electoral grand larceny.

The NSIS Deep Throat also told me that overall morale within the armed forces has been lowered considerably and that there are more and more middle-ranking officers who are quitting the Kenyan military to pursue soldier of fortune opportunities in places like Iraq or take up private civilian security consulting gigs within the country- a trend that he evaluates as not being in the best interests of the Kibaki junta.

My shadowy source also asserted that the MAJORITY of the members of the REGULAR police are OPENLY sympathetic to ODM and that could be one reason why the Michukis and Murages opted for members of the dreaded GSU and the Administration Police together with the elements from the National Youth Service as the storm troopers to protect the illegal installation of Mwai Kibaki. Even here he says that many of those young people dressed up in those fierce looking anti-riot gear are actually NOT GSU but AP and NYS personnel because the commander of the Administration Police is allegedly closer to the kitchen cabinet cabal than the other police heads.

Again what I am purveying here is a perspective from one individual. Whether what he is saying is true or not is subject to further investigation and verification.

There are so many things which have been happening in Nairobi which are yet to make it to the public domain. For instance we are told that immediately after the polls, former President Moi (with or without some of his kids) boarded a plane bound for Germany. Upon arrival, the authorities in that European state loaded promptly on another Nairobi bound flight, barring his presence in Germany.

* This is the first part of the essay, the second of which will appear in the next issue of Pambazuka News

*Onyango Oloo, a Kenyan political activist and ex political prisoner.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM ACADEMIC STAFF ASSEMBLY (UDASA)

STATEMENT ON THE GRAVE ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION SITUATION IN KENYA

As an association of academics with the social responsibility of pursuing truth and being obliged to take up issues of great concern to citizens of countries in which we work, UDASA wishes to register our grave concern about loss of live and the wanton destruction of people’s property arising from the sad events that have been unfolding since the hurried inauguration of Mr. Mwai Kibaki as the President, for a second term, of the Republic of Kenya. As intellectuals we have made our modest contribution to the building and consolidation of democratic institutions and traditions in Tanzania and, more generally, in East Africa. General Elections are the principal means by which citizens may exercise their hard-worn sovereignty.

On the 27th of December 2007, General Elections were conducted in Kenya. On the 30th of December, 2007, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya, Mr. Samuel Kivuitu announced that Mr. Mwai Kibaki, the leader of the Party for National Unity (PNU) that had gained 33 seats in the 210 seat Kenyan Parliament against 95 seats gained by the party of his main rival, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), was the winner of the Presidential race in that General Election.

Immediately, thereafter, Kenya has been plunged into violence triggered by outbursts of anger and resentment against supporters of PNU and those ethnically associated with Mr. Kibaki who ODM and its supporters accuse of rigging the tallying of the final count of the General Election results and thus stealing victory in the Presidential race from Mr. Raila Oginga of ODM. More than 300 people are said to have died so far and thousands have been internally displaced. Some Kenyans are said to be already fleeing to neighbouring countries as refugees. All the General Election observers, both local and international are in agreement that there were undue delays in having the constituency election tallies submitted to the Electoral Commission headquarters. There is also consensus now that the results that the Chairman of ECK announced on the 30th December 2007 on the basis of which Mr. Kibaki took the oath as the winner of the Presidential race were not credible tallies of the General Election results where the Presidential race is concerned. The ECK Chairman himself has subsequently made the surprising admission that he himself did not know who won the Presidential race in spite being the one, who announced that Mr. Kibaki won the election on the 30th December, 2007.

Popular displeasure has been unleashed. This displeasure has in some cases taken a very violent turn that has expressed itself in ugly scenes of the destruction of people and property. Political passions have been aroused and in heat of the raised political passions ethnic bigotry has been aroused and made to thrive. Some citizens now have taken to thinking that an injustice had been committed against a political leader or groups of political leaders they considered to be of their kind. Other citizen also now being encouraged to believe that an advantage, however unfair, had been gained by a political leader or group of leaders considered to be of their kind. Seeds of ethnic cleansing are being sowed among residences with mixed ethnic backgrounds coinciding with rival political camps.

UDASA believes that it is time to call on all concerned to sit down and discuss the underlying issues that are the source of the unfolding conflict. The tallying of the election results needs to be revisited. Furthermore, a wider debate needs to be initiated on issues such as the composition and role of election commissions.

Dr. D.L. Nyaoro Chairperson

Keith Jennings writes on the blatant disregard for democratic principles in Kenya's contentious elections and the Bush administration's flawed foreign policy

In the immediate aftermath of the recent elections in Kenya, the Bush Administration wasted no time in sending its glowing congratulations to incumbent President Mwai Kibaki and the Kenyan Election Commission. But despite the subsequent attempt to ignore the congratulatory message, and adamant claim of a global commitment to democracy, the Bush Administration’s official stamp of approval for Kibaki and the elections reflected a de facto endorsement of a naked power grab and contempt for the democratic process.

To be sure, the Bush administration’s eagerness to embrace a stage-managed election reveals a sharp inconsistency between pronouncement and practice -- declining to support calls for a re-count and urging “all candidates to accept the Commission’s final result.” Some would argue that the Bush focus on security and economic interest supersede its rhetoric for democracy. Clearly, the Bush statement and its later about-face joint statement with Kenya’s former colonial masters –the British- reflects morally bankrupt policies which only see Kenya as a staunch ally and “frontline state in the global war on terrorism.”

The Kenyan people participated in a democratic process to elect the representatives of their choice. When the election results were leaning toward the challenger and long time pro-democracy activist, Raila Odinga, the democratic process was over taken by manipulation and fraud. How can a U.S. Administration that preaches democracy in almost biblical terms refuse to pressure the Kenyan government for a re-count or an independent audit? Of course, this question may strike some Americans as naïve in the light of the Florida and Ohio fiascos in our own 2000 & 2004 presidential elections.

After the Bush Administration, offered congratulations to Mwai Kibaki on December 30, in the midst of widespread violent clashes between civilians and Kenyan police, I have to agree with those commentators who have been critical of the Bush Administration’s democracy promotion policy in Africa. Moreover, how can the views of hundreds of European international observers, who proclaim a “staggering mismatch” between recorded vote counts at local polling stations and what the Election Commission officials announced, be ignored. One wonders what the Administration would be saying if this were Zimbabwe or Burma.

The fighting in the streets of Nairobi and police abuse started long before the recent election results were announced. In the pre-election period, numerous human rights violations occurred including the killing and beating of dozens of women candidates and widespread intimidation and violence against opposition politicians. Recent poll results indicate fraudulent vote counting in at least 72 constituencies, which equate to an undermining of the electoral process and a democratic set back once again on the African continent. While the democratic process should never be reduced to an election, it is during an election that the strength of a country’s democratic system is put to the test. This is clearly the case in Kenya.

After years of autocratic rule by Daniel Moi (who’s home was burned down last week), citizens from all walks of life and political persuasions closed ranks to elect a new government in 2002, one that promised never to treat the people the way they had been sidelined and marginalized by previous governments. The promises were soon broken as charges of corruption were leveled against high ranking members of the Kibaki Administration. Consequently, the Kenyan people rightfully expected and democratically prepared for change.

It is important to note that Kibaki’s party won only 35 of 210 parliamentary seats losing more than 20 of his cabinet ministers, including his vice president. These facts alone reveal the deep seated and widespread public resentment against the legendary corruption of the Kibaki Administration.
With an official result producing a less than 233,000 vote difference (4,584,721 for Kibaki to 4,352,993 for Odinga), what is in order is a recount and an independent audit of the tallying process and final results, not a hasty swearing-in of the controversial President for another five years with Bush’s blessings. That swearing-in was immediately followed by a media ban on live coverage of events, a ban on all public rallies and threats from the declared winner to “deal decisively with those who breach the peace.” We have heard those words before. The Kenyan peoples’ right of peaceful assembly and expression should be respected by the current government. The attempt to suppress any opposition to the fraudulent election results is bound to fail and only lead to more violence and conflict.

As it has been reported in the Kenyan and international media, even the Kenyan Election Commission chair, Samuel Kivuilu, admits that the Commission was under pressure by government, which raises questions of its independence. Commissioner Kivuilu also states that he is not sure ‘if Kibaki won the elections.’ At least five other Commissioners have said they are certain that the vote count was manipulated.

The Kibaki power grab may well cause Kenya, a model of stability in the East Africa region, to become another in the growing list of African countries that risk slipping down the path of ethnic conflict amidst a rekindling of old prejudices that has led to genocide in neighboring countries.

We have seen the U.S. government prioritizing its security concerns over democracy promotion in Africa before. Who can ever forget the shameful April 2007 elections in Nigeria, which provides the US with 12% of its oil needs? Nigerians refer to that election as the most fraudulent elections ever held in the country. Despite calls for electoral reform, official U.S. congratulations to Yar’Adua were followed by a recent White House visit, which ended with Yar’Adua promoting the establishment of the U.S. African Military Command that could potentially place U.S. soldiers throughout the continent despite opposition in Nigeria. No wonder many believe there is scant U.S. commitment to global democracy when its economic and military interests are relevant. The Bush Administration’s policies appear to respond to narrow, ill-perceived security and economic imperatives that will ultimately lead to long-term instability in Kenya and other parts of Africa.

It is more than noteworthy that as the 2005 Ethiopian elections were being won by the opposition at such an unprecedented rate that the Melis government intervened and halted the announcement of results. After a series of recounts and adjudication trails, which the opposition was not prepared for, it was once again business as usual, a witch’s brew of repression and torture. The arrest and detention on treason charges of all major opposition leaders followed. The Bush administration, which also sees Ethiopia as a staunch ally in the war on terror who is more than willing to do its bidding in Somalia, offered congratulations to Melis on his victory and urged “dialogue” and “reconciliation.”

As the optimism of the 1990s has given way to the more vexing problem of making democracy deliver on its promises, the past few years have been filled with setbacks for the democratic process in Africa, with the possible exceptions of the 2005 elections in Liberia and the 2007 elections in Sierra Leone. And the U.S. has been largely silent in its actions to reverse those setbacks.
The peace in Kenya was breached long before the day when the elections were stolen. Sanctimonious calls for peace, compromise and reconciliation will do no good when the people’s confidence in the democratic process is what is at stake and the legitimacy of those making the calls for “law and order” or respect for the rule of law is questioned.

The issue here is about power and the future of democracy in Africa not ethnic rivalries. Unfortunately some of the big men in Africa, as in other parts of the world, have not realized how to share power or to let it go when the will of the people is against their continued stay in office. There are those who talk about freedom and democracy but practice autocratic policies, they never really believed in the will of the people to begin with. What will be the world’s response to the farce currently underway in Kenya? Democracy in Africa or business as usual?

* Dr. Keith Jennings is President of the African American Human Rights Foundation and former Director of Citizen Participation for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. He can be reached at [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Caroline Elkins traces the origins of the Kenyan crisis to Britain's colonial legacy

Kenya appears to be on the brink of an ethnically charged civil war following a disputed election on December 27.

President Kibaki was declared the winner of a second term after a vote that opposition candidate Mr Raila Odinga denounces as rigged and that European Union observers agree was seriously flawed.

As tens of thousands of Kenyans flee their homes and hundreds lie dead, part of the blame rests with Britain and its imperial legacy.

The immediate cause of the crisis was Kenya’s delicate ethnic balance. In the bitter electoral contest, in which Raila promised to end ethnic favouritism and spread the country’s wealth more equitably, ethnicity was the deciding factor, and a marred victory on either side had always been likely to spark violence.

Both men are rich, elitist African politicians who have far more in common with each other than they do with their supporters; in their struggle over power, both are using their followers as proxies in a smoldering war. Still, Raila has a point about vote tampering.

If you’re looking for the origins of Kenya’s ethnic tensions, look to its colonial past. Far from leaving behind democratic institutions and cultures, Britain bequeathed to its former colonies corrupted and corruptible governments. Colonial officials hand-picked political successors as they left in the wake of World War II, lavishing political and economic favours on their proteges. This process created elites whose power extended into the post-colonial era.

Added to this was a distinctly colonial view of the rule of law, which saw the British leave behind legal systems that facilitated tyranny, oppression and poverty rather than open, accountable government. And compounding these legacies was Britain’s famous imperial policy of "divide and rule," playing one side off another, which often turned fluid groups of individuals into immutable ethnic units.

In many former colonies, the British picked favourites from among these newly solidified ethnic groups and left others out in the cold. We are often told that age-old tribal hatreds drive today’s conflicts in Africa. In fact, both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena.

It’s no wonder that newly independent countries such as Kenya maintained and even deepened the old imperial heritage of authoritarianism and ethnic division. The British had spent decades trying to keep the Luo and Kikuyu divided, quite rightly fearing that if the two groups ever united, their combined power could bring down the colonial order. Indeed, a short-lived Luo-Kikuyu alliance in the late 1950s hastened Britain’s retreat from Kenya and forced the release of Jomo Kenyatta from a colonial detention camp.

But before their departure, the British schooled the future Kenyans on the lessons of a very British model of democratic elections. Britain was determined to protect its economic and geopolitical interests during the decolonisation process, and it did most everything short of stuffing ballot boxes to do so. That set dangerous precedents.

Among other manoeuvres, the British drew electoral boundaries to cut the representation of groups they thought might cause trouble and empowered the provincial administration to manipulate supposedly democratic outcomes.

Old habits die hard. Three years after Kenya became independent in 1963, the Luo-Kikuyu alliance fell apart. Kenyatta and his Kikuyu elite took over the State; Oginga Odinga formed an opposition party that was eventually quashed. Kenyatta established a one-party State in 1969 and tossed the opposition, including Odinga, into detention, much as the British had done to him and his cronies during colonial rule in the 1950s. The Kikuyu then enjoyed many of the country’s spoils.

The Kikuyu’s fortunes took a turn for the worse when Daniel arap Moi, a member of the Kalenjin ethnic minority, assumed dictatorial power in 1978. He managed to hang on for more than two decades. Western Kenya enjoyed the economic benefits of state largesse until 2002, at which point the pendulum again swung back to the Kikuyu, led by the incoming President Kibaki.

Fears of ethnic ascendancies, power-hungry political elites, undemocratic processes and institutions — all are hallmarks of today’s Kenya, just as they were during British colonial rule. This does not excuse the undemocratic behaviour of President Kibaki, nor that of his opponent Raila, neither of whom is necessarily a true voice of the masses. Nor does it excuse the horrific violence that has unfolded.

Rather, it suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago.

In retrospect, the wonder is not that Kenya is descending into ethnic violence. The wonder is that it didn’t happen sooner.

* Caroline Elkins is an associate professor of African studies at Harvard University and the author of ‘Imperial Reckoning’.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

We, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) wish to question the constitutional legitimacy and legal basis of the Police Commissioner, Major General Hussein's decree barring anyone from holding political rallies after the just concluded general elections.

We have learned from media reports that the Police Commissioner issued this decree before the just-concluded elections. The Government spokesperson has subsequently reinforced these orders by repeatedly making this announcement in the media.

We wish to state here that these orders are illegal, and violate the fundamental freedoms of association, freedom of movement and freedom of expression, guaranteed in both the Constitution of Kenya and international instruments which Kenya is signatory to. In any case, if all public gatherings have been bannned, how will the elected members of Parliament appeal to their constituents to stop the violence?

We understand the Police Commissioner may be concerned about the state of security in the country. However, to issue such orders and decrees not only contravene the law, but only serve to aggravate the situation further.

Rather than arbitrarily ban the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) Rally scheduled for Thursday 3rd January 2008, we appeal to the Police Commissioner to seek assurance and commitment from the convenors of the rally that their supporters will maintain peace and order during the rally. We also appeal to the Police and security agents to provide adequate security during the rally.

The National Commission has learnd that in the interest of security, the Government has ordered curfews in Kibera, Migori, Mathare, Kisumu and Eldoret. Whereas this is provided by law in tense security situations, the Police Commissioner should publicly make an announcement to this effect in order to bring this to the notice of all persons affected.

Further, the curfews should be conducted in a humane manner that allows the persons affected to access food and other social amenities.

We also appeal to the police and security agents to handle the situation with utmost caution, while ensuring the security of all without taking sides.

* Maina Kiai is Chair of the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

It is now widely acknowledged that the electoral process that led to the swearing-in of Hon. Mwai Kibaki was heavily flawed and devoid of credibility.

We, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNHCR), artists, and civil society groups in Kenya, believe that this flawed process precipitated the wave of brutal violence and senseless destruction of property sweeping parts of the country.

We are concerned that the violence seems targetted at innocent Kenyans from particular communities believed to be sympathetic to a particular party. Everyone has a right to vote for whomever they wish. Wherease we understand the disappointment, frustration and anger Kenyans feel at being disenfranchised, their anger needs to be channnelled responsibly, and without resort to violence.

The Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) handled the elections tallying process irresponsibly. ECK is squarely culpable for the crisis in the country, through its intransigence, careless statements, incompetence and lack of accountability.

The ECK had the opportunity to initiate dialogue between various stakeholders to salvage the situation. Despite pleas from credible national and international observers, and evidence presented to verify claims of rigging, among other electoral malpractices, ECK commissioners chose not to engage in this prudent course of action.

We express our disappointment and deep concern that despite every gain made in expanding democratic space in Kenya, a country governed by the rule of law, the former Minister for Internal Security, John Michuki, banned the press from live broadcasts. We question the constitutional legitimacy and legal basis of Mr. Michuki's decree. From which statute or legal instrument does he draw his powers to ban the media in this manner, considering that the president has yet to constitute a Government, and, therefore a cabinet?

Furthermore, such a decree contravenes accepted international standards that guarantee freedom of expression and access to information, both fundamental rights. By muzzling the media, a key source of information to the public, the Government is encouraging rumors, innuendo, hearsay and suspicion, in an already polarized country.

We note Mwai Kibaki's earlier gesture calling on Kenyans to reconcile. Reconciliation can only be genuine if there is truth. We urge that:

The ECK discloses to the public the full presidential tally results, to be compared to results documented by national and international observers
The Government lift the media ban prohibiting the media from live coverage in Kenya.

Those with information on election fraud or irregularities be offered platforms to make such information public, without threat of intimidation. In this regard, whistleblowers may contact:
Hotline number: 0728 606582
Send verifiable information by email to:

lochiel AT knchr.org
linakoth9 AT yahoo.com
lkabiru AT khrc.or.ke

We appeal to the international community to call for credible verification of the results before endorsing them. We note the EU observer mission has raised serious concerns about the reliability and credibility of the elections tallying process.

We appeal to the police and security agencies to ensure their responses are humane, measured, and proportional to the level of threat. We call on them to handle the situation with utmost caution, while ensuring the security of all without taking sides.

Signed:

Maina Kiai, Chair, KNCHR
Gladwell Otieno, AFRICOG
Mugambi Kiai, OSIEA
Betty Kaari Murungi, Vice-Chair, KHRC
Njeri Kabebeberi, CMD
David Ndii, KLI
Haruon Ndubi, Haki Focus
Zahid Rajan, Awaaz
Muthoni Wanyeki, KHRC
Shailja Patel

To foster peace, diplomacy must promote justice

Thursday, January 3, 2008 (Washington, DC) – In light of the serious human rights violations and challenges to stable governance Kenya has experienced in the past week, Africa Action calls for an immediate and comprehensive recount of presidential ballots supervised by international election monitors, and an end to the media broadcast ban. The clumsy series of contradictory remarks on the election made so far by U.S. officials have not been helpful in resolving the crisis and have revealed underlying U.S. interests. The U.S. must provide new coherent leadership to drive international pressure on rival candidates Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga to adhere to the democratic process peacefully and put a stop to the violence. The international community must base its response to the situation on the voices of the Kenyan people and concentrate on addressing not only the immediate political crisis but also deeper issues of social, political and economic justice. U.S.-Kenya policy should be people-centered and truly committed to robust democratic processes rather than defined by a narrow agenda of the “war on terror” and international business interests.

The ugly scenes of violence and chaos that have emerged following Kenya’s disputed presidential polls are symptoms of the greater issues of poverty and socioeconomic inequality. Western observers have held up Kenya as an economic dynamo for its high growth rates and macroeconomic stability without considering who benefits from this development. Despite vigorous growth rates of between five and seven percent over the past three years, Kenya is a country marked by disparity. With a per capita income of just $540 and a current ranking of 145 out of 177 in the United Nations’ Human Development Index, poverty is widespread. Some strides towards economic justice have been made in recent years. Notably, as president, Kibaki succeeded in eliminating primary school fees. However, the volatility around this election is testament to the fact that many Kenyans are still frustrated by poverty and a small elite holds the majority of their country’s vaunted wealth.

Kenya’s 2002 elections generated a powerful sense of optimism among the population that reflected a deep popular commitment to democratic ideals and a new future free of corruption. It is disappointing that these hopes have not materialized. This challenge should galvanize the U.S. and the international community to support this young democracy as it struggles to achieve its vision of a truly representative and responsive government. The African Union is playing a critical role as a rapid responder to help mediate the political crisis. However, U.S. leadership and sustained diplomatic pressure from the entire international community is essential to protecting human rights in Kenya and to a successful mediation between parties that results in a transparent legal solution to the dispute.

Much has been made of the ethnic dimensions of the conflict, but the bottom line is that power hungry politicians can manipulate ethnic differences to promote their own interests with dangerous consequences in the absence of social and economic justice. African nations, like countries worldwide, rely on robust democratic processes to mitigate such conflict. This involves transparent electoral machinery but also involves promoting governance and economic policies that serve all citizens and do not marginalize any groups. Both parties in the conflict have used the phrase genocide to characterize their rivals’ behavior. Africa Action urges leaders on all sides to avoide using inflammatory language that may incite further violence. At the same time, the international community must be vigilant for signs of widespread ethnic cleansing or even emerging genocide and be prepared to intervene if necessary to prevent such crimes against humanity from taking place.

The consequences of an international failure to support Kenya’s democracy during this crisis would be grim, particularly in terms of regional stability. For years, Kenya has been an anchor of stability in a region challenged by conflict. Kenya has hosted peace talks – such as those that led to Sudan’s 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) – and absorbed refugees from neighboring war-torn nations. While a step backwards for this fledgling democracy would hardly reflect on the political fortunes of the whole continent, it would add to the challenges faced by the already tenuous Horn and East Africa. Therefore, the U.S. must lead the international community in a vigorous diplomatic response to defuse current tensions. The first steps to push for are a fully transparent recount of all votes and the lifting of all restrictions on independent media.

The Kenya presidential elections of December 2007 are potentially the most damaging episode to national unity since the assassination of Tom Mboya in July 1969. Both the murder of Tom Mboya and the management of the recent presidential elections are widely interpreted as an attempt to ethnically monopolise the presidency of the country. Both Mboya’s assassination and the latest elections are seen as historic blows to national stability and major setbacks to the process of democratization. Both Mboya’s murder and the 2007 elections unleashed widespread rioting and looting and made national institutions significantly more fragile than they were before.

It is therefore imperative that Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga enter into urgent negotiations to find a solution to this painful impasse, and to help the process of national healing.

The ideal solution would be to agree to a recounting of votes in the most controversial of the provincial results for the presidency, and for both Kibaki and Odinga to commit themselves to respect the outcome of the recounting.

Another possible solution would be for the African Union to appoint an independent commission of enquiry into the management of the presidential election, and make recommendations. One possible recommendation would conceivably be to accept the parliamentary results, which had, by most estimates, been transparent and credible. But there might be new internationally supervised presidential elections with the three main candidates on the new ballot.

The third option is probably the easiest to accomplish. The new parliament should be sworn in, and called into session. Its first task should be to consider a constitutional amendment creating the post of Prime Minister answerable to Parliament and not to the Chief Executive (the President). If the constitutional amendment is passed, parliament would then vote for the first Prime Minister. Considering the balance of political parties voted into the new parliament, the new Prime Minister is almost bound to be the Honorable Raila Odinga.

Kenya would thereby become something approximating the fifth republic of France with both an executive President accountable to the people, directly, and an executive Prime Minister accountable to the people’s legislative representatives, Parliament. As in the case of the French Republic, the President (Mwai Kibaki) and the Prime Minister (Raila Odinga) would have to find ways of working together in the interest of the people of Kenya.

Who would appoint the members of the cabinet- the President or the Prime Minister? The Foreign Minister and the Minister of Defense could be the prereagative of the Head of State (Kibaki) to appoint. But the Minister of Internal Security and almost all other ministries would be appointed by the Prime Minister (Raila Odinga).

The precise division of labor and division of powers between the new Prime Minister would have to be negotiated prior to the constitutional amendment by new Parliament.

Later in the session of the new parliament there may be need to re-examine the whole constitution of Kenya in the light of problems which Kenya has had to face since the last constitutional referendum. Should we re-examine once again the Maboma Draft constructed by the Ghai Commission? Only the new parliament, in consultation with the new President, can decide whether to have a new constitutional referendum.

* Ali Mazrui is Director, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities, Binghamton University, State University of New York at Binghamton, New York, USA and Chancellor, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Thika and Nairobi Kenya

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

DIPESH PABARI: What is your general assessment on the situation?

SALIM AMIN: Well, at the moment it is pretty much what is being shown on television; it is just pockets of protests around Nairobi. We have not been out to Eldoret or Kisumu but in Nairobi it is just pockets of demonstrations around Kibera, Kawangware and Ngong Road, Argwings Kodhek Road and places like that where it is a few hundred people marching and demonstrating and the police pretty quickly crush that. Yesterday, there was more looting and damaging of property which I don’t think is ODM’s idea of protest. These are just a bunch of unemployed people who are just taking advantage of opportunity presented to them.

We have never seen the likes of the police presence in this town. I have covered this city for about 15 years and never seen this sort size of police presence so obviously there are fears that it could get out of hand and police and GSU have been called out in large numbers. There are pictures that I have seen on TV of various insights of people being machete to death and churches being burnt personally I haven’t seen that but it is obviously happening. It is happening in some of the areas where perhaps foreign journalist can’t go to perhaps more local journalist can access to.

DIPESH PABARI: We are receiving conflicting messages – both sides are accusing each other of genocide and at the same time we are hearing that there is rampant destruction all over the country yet the government is saying it is just a few isolated incidences here and there. What should we believe?

SALIM AMIN: I think upcountry there is a much bigger problem than here. Places like Mount Elgon and Eldoret have always been the scene of a lot of ethnic tension between the different tribes stemming from the ethnic cleansing the happened in 1992. That has not been forgotten. For me that is the fear of what will happen in this country. If this is not stopped quickly then the grassroots hatred is going to get worse and worse amongst the different tribes and then it will not matter what Kibaki or Odinga or any of these guys say. That seed has already been sown and it is going to be very difficult to retract from that. It will get to the stage where people will say you burnt my house down now I am going to do the same to yours and once that starts as we saw in Rwanda in 1994, it is very difficult to pull back from that. That is my greatest fear. I think places like Nairobi will slowly get back to normal but areas where there is not much media coverage, where it is hard to get pictures out of, it is going to get worse and worse.

DIPESH PABARI: From that perspective, places like Mount Elgon which have been consistently on the edge, has the media done enough to highlight issues like this that have essentially led to where we are right now.

SALIM AMIN: I think the local media has not done enough. The international media has never done enough to cover Kenya in its entirety. The local media has been suspect in ignoring this problem as well. The government – I think it is in their interest – there are obviously huge political implications in what is going on. It would not surprise me if people within government or outside are a part of what is happening out there. It really would not surprise me at all. I think there is a lot of political background that needs to be investigated and examined. Unfortunately, as we know, no government is very good at internal examination of anything. You know I heard stories about possible genocide in Mount Elgon area over the last couple of days where people have set up road blocks and they are pulling people out of cars from different tribes and slaughtering them. And that is just like it was in Rwanda in 1994. That is very scary. I also heard yesterday that Nakumatt stopped selling machetes – they restricted it to one per person because people were coming in and buying 200 pieces at a go. I am very concerned that a lot of this may have been preplanned which does then give it the element of genocide. It is a very dangerous word to use but if it has been preplanned and organized then the elections were just an excuse to get it started. I just found out about this on the internet yesterday. The planning side of this is very scary. If it was something that just randomly happened because of the election than it can almost be understood because people are upset about the results and the way it panned out. But if this is something that people have been thinking about for 2, 3 or 4 months than this is a really scary scenario

DIPESH PABARI: Have you heard of any other similar cases that could imply planning for this?

SALIM AMIN: No, that was the only incident that I have heard about. And that I only found out about yesterday.

DIPESH PABARI: What we are witnessing for the first time is the explosion of information and reporting through mainstream media and new media such as blogging on the internet. There is so much information flowing and there may not be as much credibility to these sources. Do you think this information explosion is a positive or negative thing?

SALIM AMIN: I think it is a great thing. The more people talk about their incidences, the better – for any society. The problem is whether those reporting are accurate or not and that is what is very difficult to verify. You can’t control what people blog or put on the internet. You don’t know whether it is inciting people or it is actual fact. The government blackout on live coverage – while we initially came out and condemned it – after thinking about it a little more I can see their dilemma as a government because no TV or radio station in this country has what they call a delay switch where they can pause for 30 or 60 seconds so the editor can listen to what the person is saying. And this especially applies to radio stations and call in shows and there were incidences of people calling in and saying let the people of X tribe come out and avenge this – there was no way of stopping it until it had already gone out and the damage had been done. I think that is what led to the government taking action against live broadcasts. And with the different radio stations, the vernacular radio stations in particular, a lot of that could have been used to incite people which is exactly what happened in Rwanda in 1994 where a particular radio station was instrumental in fueling the genocide. So I think that was probably a smart move in hindsight. But they will have to restore it and put some form of control in by asking them to put this delay factor in so that the editors have a chance to actually vet what is happening on live shows.

DIPESH PABARI: During the build-up to the elections, we had a tremendous amount of media campaigning initiatives towards free and fair elections. The whole country was plastered with billboards; the radio waves were filled with information, etc. Do you think it has had much impact?

SALIM AMIN: I think that is what we are seeing is that people feel that they have been robbed at the ballot boxes. They went out in massive number, they voted for whoever they wanted to be president or MP and they feel like they have been robbed and that is why this resentment and this huge outcry for people that was never expected. Now both sides are claiming rigging so nobody really knows who did what and in which areas. There is obviously irregularities there is obviously rigging that happened. I suspect that a lot happened at the last minute and that is why it was so blatant and so obvious because I don’t think anybody felt the mood of the country correctly. I don’t think the Government thought that they would lose 20 of their ministers in a poll and I think that led to a panic at the last minute and that led childish changes to ballot paper and to forms. There was also in the opposition some hanky panky on their side and in their areas. For me the only solution to this problem would be to have a reelection, may be just a presidential election but with an independent electoral commission set up that has nothing to do with the Government that has people from outside with more observers coming in but that would take time to put together and to redo and in that time this country could disintegrate into a crisis that would be very difficult to come out of and even the new ballots would not fix.

DIPESH PABARI: Do you think we are getting there?

SALIM AMIN: I sadly think that if this situation is not sorted out within the next few days, it is not a matter of weeks or months; we are coming down a slope that we will not be able to climb back up.

DIPESH PABARI: Has there been any evidence or any public outcry from the media that has caused this violence? Where did it come from? You said earlier that people were disappointed but were there any leader that would have would have been responsible towards this?

SALIM AMIN: I think more than them doing anything or saying anything to make it happen, the fact that they did not do anything to stop it is more telling in my opinion. I think the fact that there are things that all leaders in this country could have done to avoid this earlier they did not do. I don’t know anybody who deliberately came out and said ‘go and start demonstrating’, I don’t think anyone has said that and but the fact that they did more to stop it is a mark on their record as political leaders.

DIPESH PABARI: 24 hours later after it all broke out we did hear cries of peace coming from both sides especially from ODM but it seems that their people are not listening.

SALIM AMIN: That is a worry for me as well I mean just seeing today’s proposed rally as an example when Ruto addressed the crowd when they were stopped in Hurlingham and said that is fine we’ll step down today and come back on Tuesday. Majority of the crowd did not listen and just wanted to keep going and that worries me that, at some point that it is going to get so personal amongst the people because of what they have suffered in their various shanties or slums, that they are not going to listen to their politicians anymore that they don’t care what the leaders are saying, they just want some revenge of some sort and find any kind of method to do it. That is my fear that the longer this goes on, the less power the politicians are going to have to actually enforce their will on their own supporters.

DIPESH PABARI: We see the media more or less taking a side, the call for peace. It is the first time it has happened across all the newspapers sharing the same headlines. To what extent is it the responsibility of the media to act upon certain rumors that clearly might have terrible implications if they were true? For example, there was a rumor flying around that Ruto had organized truckloads of armed youth into Rift Valley. Where do you base your judgment on things like this as the media and is it your responsibility to report this as a warning?

SALIM AMIN: No, I don’t think it is the media’s responsibility at all to report that at all. They have to double check and triple check their facts especially at this very crucial time in our country’s history. They have got to make sure what is reported anywhere is 100% accurate and there is no room for rumor or speculation or assumptions being made in the media. Up to this point I have been very impressed with the media as they have got together and are saying we have got to save our country. We have got to do whatever we can to say peace has been restored. I have been very impressed with that but they have to be even more vigilante with that to make sure that it is absolutely correct and if they can’t verify information, don’t put it out there because that just leads to more and more confusion and uncertainty amongst people and fear.

The fact that lives media has been blocked means that there is much more hearsay going on around the country, especially with things likes mobile phones. I think the media has the responsibility to play down all that stuff until they have checked and rechecked all the facts. And if they find anything that is huge, then yes, they should report it, and shame the people who are responsible for it.

DIPESH PABARI: Are the media houses working together and cohesively on this?

SALIM AMIN: I think they are but I have not been privy to those conversations because we are outside the local media setup here but for example, we produced a short call for peace – a 3 minute TV package and we are hopefully going to do more of those. When I called all the media houses to see if we can have the airtime to do it – every single one of them was supportive and said keep sending us more stuff.

DIPESH PABARI: Last question; are we all responsible as Kenyans for getting to this state?

SALIM AMIN: I think we are all responsible. I think it would be wrong for us to sit back and say that one group or another group is responsible for this. I think we have been very blasé about our politics and about how we might get involved. I think this is a lesson to all of us. We have all got to be responsible in the way our country is moving whatever part of society you are from. Whatever it is you do in life, you have got to take responsibility for what you do. I think if we can all go out and convince one person to stop fighting, to stop killing, to actually listen and talk, then we would actually have done something good

* Salim Amin is the son of the late Mohammed Amin, one of Africa's top photo journalist. Salim is now running Camerapix and is the founder of A24 which will be the first pan-African news channel.

* Dipesh Pabari is a freelance writer. He sits on the editorial board of Awaaz magazine and writes for various magazines and journals. Dipesh also works for WildlifeDirect.org as the Communications Manager.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Disputed results from last week’s elections have left Kenya in deep political crisis. The opposition has refused to accept the results which have been questioned by local and international observers. Three days of violent protests have left more than 120 people dead. The battles are concentrated in opposition strongholds and shanty neighborhoods in the major cities from the coastal city of Mombasa to Nairobi the capital to Kisumu the western port city on the banks of Lake Victoria where a curfew has been imposed. Live television and radio broadcasts have been banned. While there is relief and even celebration among some supporters of the ‘victorious’ President Kibaki, the frustration and fear gripping the country is almost unprecedented in forty four years of independence. A proud country that likes to see itself as an oasis of stability in a volatile region is being held hostage by a bankrupt political class. Many Kenyans are filled with a sense of shame and anguish, as well as fortitude to salvage their country’s fortunes and future.

Lost in the electoral shenanigans and post-election turmoil has been a historic opportunity to consolidate the country’s newly minted democracy, to confirm its democratic credentials in the region and on the continent. Instead Kenya now faces a prolonged period of political uncertainty that will play itself out in unpredictable ways from the streets to parliament, severely testing the fragile fabric of public order, social cohesion, and inter-group relations, especially those structured around the complex inscriptions of ethnicity, class, gender, and generation. Some worry that Kenya might turn into East Africa’s Cote d’Ivoire, a once stable and relatively prosperous postcolony in West Africa that descended into chaos and civil war because of its failure to manage the combustible politics of democratic transition.

The opinion polls pointed to a close election. They were proved right. But only one out of 50 polls conducted in the lead up to the elections, showed President Kibaki in the lead; the rest pointed to a possible narrow win by the opposition candidate, Mr. Raila Odinga. The latter maintained his lead during the early counts of the presidential vote, but when the final results were announced by the Electoral Commission of Kenya, he trailed by 231,728 votes. President Kibaki was declared duly elected with 4,584,721 votes against Mr. Odinga’s 4,352,993 votes. Election observers expressed surprise, the opposition cried foul, riots erupted, and the country teetered on the brink of an unprecedented crisis.

What a difference five years makes. In 2002 President Kibaki was inaugurated in broad daylight before an ecstatic crowd of a million people in Jamhuri Park in Nairobi; this time he was hurriedly inaugurated in the evening less than an hour after being declared winner before a small and dour crowd of officials. The intoxicating euphoria of 2002 has given way to widespread anger and anxiety. In 2002 the masses brutalized by decades of one-party rule rediscovered their voices and will; the nation was united in its hopes for the future, believed fervently in the possibilities of productive change. Now, many feel betrayed and disempowered, robbed of their votes and voices.

Whatever the future holds for Kenya and its tortured journey from dictatorship to democracy, underdevelopment to development, the present crisis has a complicated history rooted in the political economies of colonialism, neocolonialism, and neoliberalism that have characterized Kenya over the last century. This is to suggest that the present moment, the current political crisis, is rooted in complex historical forces that go beyond the ubiquitous ‘tribalism’ beloved by the western media in discussing African politics or explaining its proverbial crises, or the excessive obsession with personalities often found in the African media itself. This is of course not to dismiss the role of ethnicity or particular leaders, it is merely to point out the need to put both in the context of broader historical forces that have propelled Kenya to this moment and might impel it out of it.

The recent Kenyan elections promised to achieve an extraordinary development: unseating an incumbent president through the ballot box after only five years in power. This would have been unprecedented in Kenyan history, and is rare in Africa where incumbents typically serve the constitutional two terms and some even try to rig their way into illicit third terms. Nicéphore Soglo of Benin is one of the rare presidents to suffer such a fate; elected in 1996 he lost the 2001 elections to the former dictator, Mathieu Kérékou. This is a tribute to the power of incumbency to win or rig elections, the inordinate advantages enjoyed by ruling parties to use the sanctions and seductions of state power.

The manipulation of electoral processes and results by ruling parties is of course not confined to Africa: remember the U.S. elections of 2000, and President Putin’s recent attempts to prolong his rule? It is not uncommon for ruling parties in many so-called mature democracies to call elections opportunistically, redraw electoral districts in their favor, or ‘bribe’ the electorate with contrived economic goodies. However, it can be argued the national costs of electoral malpractices are much higher for African (and other countries in the global South) that are struggling against the challenges of internal underdevelopment and political and cultural subordination than for the more globally hegemonic western countries.

Save for the disputed victory for the president himself, the government suffered a political tsunami as a score of cabinet ministers and the Vice-President lost their parliamentary seats. Altogether, the Party of National Unity (PNU), cobbled together only last September, under which President Kibaki run, won only 37 seats, the victorious opposition party, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), led by Mr. Raila Odinga took 100 seats, and the rest (parliament has 210 directly elected members) went to the Orange Democratic Movement-Kenya (ODM-K), the party of the third major presidential candidate, Mr. Kalonzo Musyoka, and other smaller parties.

Swept away also were power brokers of the former dictator, President Daniel arap Moi including the once feared Mr. Nicholas Biwott and the tycoon Mr. Kamlesh Pattini an infamous architect of one of Kenya’s largest corruption scandals, as well as Mr. Moi’s own ambitious three sons. In a sense, the election signified a rejection of leading politicians associated with Presidents Moi and Kibaki. While the two represent different presidential administrations, one dictatorial and the other democratic, they are associated in the popular imagination, and were painted by the opposition, as old men leading corrupt regimes. Remarkably, Mr. Moi campaigned indefatigably for his successor, to the obvious glee of the opposition.

Thus the contest between the octogerian Mr. Kibaki and the flamboyant Mr. Odinga pitted a generational struggle for power. It is one of the ironies of contemporary Africa that countries that have enjoyed political stability since independence such as Kenya, Malawi, and Senegal, are still ruled by the nationalist generation that brought independence, while the countries with more turbulent histories have long made the generational transition. In this sense, the Kenyan election was a referendum between the older and the younger generations, between the Kibaki generation in power since independence and the Odinga generation that came off age after independence.

The first Kibaki government was elected in 2002 on a strong anti-corruption platform. Impoverished and exhausted from 24 years of authoritarian and corrupt rule by the Moi administration, the country was hungry for a clean government that would bring to justice corrupt former officials and lead a transparent and accountable government capable of reviving the economy and pursuing development. The drive against Moi-era corruption scandals not only stalled, but new corruption scandals sprang up, and the new administration’s anti-corruption credentials were irreparably damaged when the government’s own anti-corruption czar, Mr. John Githongo fled to exile in the United Kingdom in 2005.

But the Kibaki administration delivered on the economy. The country’s economic growth rate jumped from 0.6% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2006. Buoyed by this robust growth, the government unveiled its ambitious Kenya Vision 2030, a development blueprint to turn Kenya into a newly industrializing “middle income country providing high quality of life for all its citizens by the year 2030." President Kibaki and his PNU run on this economic record, while the opposition claimed it could achieve even faster growth unadulterated by corruption. One sought continuity, the other promised change. In reality, there was little difference in the programs of the PNU and ODM and their contending presidential candidates.

As is often the case in such contexts, the absence of policy differences was more than made up by the personality and symbolic differences of populism in which Mr. Odinga bested the president. Mr. Odinga a millionaire businessman, who had once been a political prisoner, and most importantly, was the son of the nationalist icon and former vice-president, Mr. Oginga Odinga, campaigned vigorously in his red hammer to achieve what had eluded his father. He appealed to the youth and people from disaffected regions, while assiduously assuring domestic and foreign business interests who preferred the wealthy, elderly and gentlemanly President Kibaki that he had long shed the socialist inclinations and firebrand reputation of his younger days.

The contestation between continuity and change in the electoral contest partly reflected the glaring mismatch between growth and development, both socially and spatially, and tapped into deep yearnings for a new socioeconomic dispensation, a restless hunger for broad-based development frustrated by neo-liberal growth. Kenya’s economic recovery and growth from 2002 largely benefited the middle classes rather than the workers and peasants, the bulk of the population. Even among the middle classes, the benefits flowed unequally between those in the rapidly expanding private service sectors rather than in the retrenched and decapitalized public sectors, which has been under assault since the days of structural adjustment in the 1980s.

For many Kenyans, therefore, the economy may be doing well, but they are not. As dependency theory used to postulate in the radical 1960s and 1970s, growth is not synonymous with development; neo-liberal growth is even less likely to lead to broad-based development because people are secondary to profits, public to private good. In Kenya, as in much of Africa and indeed the wider world since the onset of neo-liberalism the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, the sense of economic insecurity has increased among large numbers of people even as their countries’ economies grow. This partly helps explain the tightness of the vote and the prospect of a government losing elections in times of rapid economic growth.

If the economic growth of recent years in Kenya stoked expectations of development, the unequal distribution of wealth thwarted those expectations and engendered popular frustration, while democracy gave a new vent to express the frustrations. Anti-corruption discourse, the widespread popular distaste against corruption was both real and rhetorical in so far it reflected disgust at actual corruption scandals and invoked deep disaffection among many Kenyans who felt left out of the rapidly growing economy, a critique of rising economic class inequalities. In the authoritarian past there was no political alternative to the one-party state, now the discontented electorate could transfer its hopes for development to the opposition, even if the investment in the opposition did not promise to yield different dividends.

But class is not a reliable predictor of political loyalties and voting behavior even in the so-called developed countries. Often far more powerful are the constructed identities of ethnicity or race. In Kenya, as elsewhere in Africa, ethnic identities have greater political salience than racial identities. This is not simply because politicians mobilize ethnicity for electoral purposes, which they do and Kenyan politicians are notoriously adept at playing the ethnic card. Rather, elections for members of parliament are local or regional political events, latched on to the national presidential election; they are spatialized performances in which both the candidates and voters are located in particular constituencies and tend to share some common identity, ethnic or otherwise.

As we await a fuller breakdown of the elections results, it is clear that many members of parliament lost elections in their constituencies to competitors from their own ethnic groups. In such cases, party allegiance, record of the incumbent, and personalities all played a role. It is mostly in the large cities with their ethnically diverse populations where ethnic consciousness could be mobilized and the ethnic card played. In such contexts party allegiance loomed exceptionally large as a proxy for ethnicity. Only the president is subject to both local and national constituencies, and hence the enhanced ethnicization of the presidential election.

The complex interplay of local, regional, and national elections is of course not confined to Kenya or Africa for that matter. Look at voting patterns across Europe and North America and the different regional strategies political parties tend to employ to appeal to voters in various regions, not to mention the use of race. Nor is the ethnicization of electoral politics a peculiar African predilection. In no major western country has a black person ever been elected president or prime minister. In the United States, few blacks win state wide offices. Currently, there is only one black governor out of 50, and one black senator out of 100—the charismatic Barack Obama, the half-Kenyan and half-Luo 2008 U.S. presidential candidate. Yet, nobody labels electoral contests and results in western Europe and North America as ‘racial’, let alone ‘tribal’; they are given more dignified names.

Media reports on the Kenyan elections and especially reports of the protests following the inauguration of President Kibaki almost invariably include the word ‘tribal’; the reference is to ‘tribes’ and ‘tribalism’ as primordial identities untouched by history, as ancient hatreds immune to modernity, as pathological conditions peculiar to Africa. Forgotten is the simple fact that both Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Odinga could not win the elections based on voting from their so-called ‘tribes’; two ethnic groups out of the country’s many ethnicities. While the presidential candidates received overwhelming electoral support in their home provinces, to win the presidency ethnic coalition building is essential, for the president has to win at least 25 of the vote in at least five of Kenya’s eight provinces.

The enthnicization of politics in Kenya is not a reflection of some atavistic reflex, or simply the result of elite political manipulations or primordial cultural affectations among the masses, even if the elites do indeed use ethnicity and the masses are mobilized by it. It is salutary to remember that some of Kenya’s ethnic groups only emerged or developed their current identities under British colonial rule. Few can trace themselves to the remote past notwithstanding the work of some historians to distinguish their ethnic communities with long and pristine pedigrees. Imagined ethnic and national histories are of course not about the past, but the present; they are part of the discursive and political arsenal for claim making in the present and for the future.

As we have learned from African studies, we need to distinguish between ‘moral ethnicity’, that is, ethnicity as a complex web of social obligations and belonging, and ‘political ethnicity’, that is, the competitive confrontation of ‘ethnic contenders’ for state power and national resources. Both are socially constructed, but one as an identity, the other as an ideology. Ethnicity may serve as a cultural public for the masses estranged from the civic public of the elites, a sanctuary that extends its comforts and protective tentacles to the victims of political disenfranchisement, economic impoverishment, state terror and group rivalry. In other words, it is not the existence of ethnic groups (or racial groups) that is a problem in itself, a predictor of social conviviality or conflict, but their political mobilization.

Ethnicity in Kenya is tied in complex and contradictory ways to the enduring legacies of uneven regional development. During colonial rule Central Kenya, the homeland of the Kikuyu, became the heartland of the settler economy, while Nyanza, the Luo homeland, languished as a labor reserve that furnished both unskilled and educated labor to the centers of colonial capitalism. Not surprisingly, the Kikuyu bore the brunt of colonial capitalist dispossession and socialization, and were in the vanguard of the nationalist struggles that led to decolonization and they came to dominate the postcolonial state and economy. Capitalist development and centralization of power reinforced domination of the Kenyan economy by the Central Province and the Kikuyu, a process that withstood the twenty-four year reign of President Moi, a Kalenjin from the Rift Valley, and was reinvigorated under President Kibaki’s administration.

Central Province and Kikuyu dominance of Kenya’s political economy bred resentment from other regions and ethnic groups. It fed into constitutional debates about presidential and political centralization of power, and the regional redistribution of resources that dominated Kenyan politics until 2005 when the draft constitution supported by the President and Parliament was rejected in a referendum. The ODM was born in the highly politicized maelstrom of the run up to the referendum.

This narrative tends to ignore an important qualifying fact, that not all Kikuyus are dominant and not all Luos are disempowered. Colonial, neo-colonial and neo-liberal capitalisms have bred class differentiations within communities as much as they have led to uneven development among regions. In other words, Kikuyu and Luo elites have much more in common with each other than they do with their co-ethnics among peasants and workers who also have more in common with each other across ethnic boundaries than with their respective elites. This is a reality that both the elites and the masses strategically ignore during competitive national elections, because the former need to mobilize and manipulate their ethnic constituencies in intra-elite struggles for power, and the latter because elections offer one of the few moments to shake the elites for the crumbs of development for themselves and their areas.

Kenyan politics exhibits familiar African trends. The country started its independence with a hurriedly negotiated multi-party system between the nationalists and the departing imperial power that could not withstand the homogenizing imperatives of nationalism and the intoxicating and intolerant demands of uhuru: nation-building, development, and democratization. Before long, Kenya joined the African bandwagon towards the one-party state. It became a de facto one-party state as the pre-independence opposition party KADU folded voluntarily into the ruling KANU in 1964, while the post-independence radical Kenya People’s Union formed in 1966 by former vice-president Oginga Odinga, the father of the ODM leader, was violently suppressed.

Kenya became a de jure one-party state under President Moi, who took power in 1978 following the death of the founding President Jomo Kenyatta, and was confronted by on the one hand the political tensions engendered by the attempted coup of 1982, and on the other a slowing economy that stagnated under the onerous weight of structural adjustment programs imposed with market fundamentalist zeal by the international financial institutions—the World Bank and International Monetary Fund—and western governments. By the end of the 1980s, it was clear that while the country remained relatively stable in a tumultuous region its early promise had been squandered under a reign of authoritarianism, corruption, and structural maladjustment.

As in much of Africa, from the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the unproductive power of one-party rule faced growing popular opposition. The struggles for the “second independence” by the restive masses and organized civil society scored limited victories in the 1992 and 1997 elections, and finally seized the prize in the elections of December 2002 when the ruling party, KANU, lost to the opposition National Rainbow Coalition (NARC). It was a new day: democracy expanded as political and civil freedoms spread, so did the economy as the stagnation of the Moi years receded, but the social and structural deformities of the postcolony remained as entrenched as ever. It is in this context that the current crisis can best be understood.

The last five years have seen the growth of both democracy and the economy, but the marriage between democracy and development remains unfilled. The economic growth rates under President Kibaki resemble those in the early post-independence years under President Kenyatta. The difference is not only that neo-colonial capitalism of the Kenyatta era, which had a nationalist face, has given way to contemporary neo-liberal capitalism, which has a neo-colonial soul, democracy has reconfigured old challenges and brought new ones that the society and state have yet to manage satisfactorily as the results of these elections amply demonstrate.

Examples abound that as the suffocating lid of state tyranny is lifted during moments of democratic transition the suppressed voices and expectations of civil society surge, but the stresses and strains arising from the competitive grind of democracy often find articulation in the entrenched identities, idioms, and institutions of ethnic solidarity. The challenge in Kenya, as in other divided multicultural societies, is the need to balance group and national interests through further democratization, devolution of power, and power sharing. In so far as ethnic interests and cleavages are only one set among many other possible bases of political contestation—class, religion, region, and gender that often mediate and reinforce ethnic identities and antagonisms—there is need to think about group interests beyond ethnicity.

The current trials and tribulations facing Kenya will not be resolved without the emergence of a leadership that is truly up to the challenge, a leadership that pursue a national project of profound social transformation, that eschews narrow and shortsighted exclusionary politics and neo-liberal economic growth. Kenya, and Africa as a whole, have no historic alternative from building truly democratic developmental states if they are to chart the twentieth century more prepared and empowered than they did the disastrous twentieth century marked by colonialism and neo-colonialism and their depredations that were simultaneously economic and existential, cultural and cognitive, political and paradigmatic.

The current leadership, both the ‘victors’ and ‘losers’, seem keen to retain or gain power at all costs. The power struggle is as sinister as the differences among the leaders are small. But often it is the very narcissism of minor differences that breeds gratuitous violence and viciousness as histories of genocide demonstrate. The leading politicians engaged in combat whose followers are tearing their lovely country apart are members of the same recycled political class committed to neo-liberal growth that offer no real solutions to Kenya’s enduring challenges of growth and development, choiceless democracy and transformative democracy.

Most of the major figures in the three leading parties, PNU, ODM, ODM-K, served in the Moi and Kibaki administrations at one time or another. Their politics do not differ in any significant ways. Indeed, it is a mark of the promiscuity of the political class that the three parties were formed quite recently, and politicians shop for parties with the consumer ease of well-heeled customers. In a sense, then, their collective interests of the politicians and national interests of the population are not coterminous, although converges do exist and are invoked at certain moments. The political animus between the Kibaki and Odinga camps is rooted in the now infamous secretive Memorundum of Understanding on the distribution of cabinet positions and power drawn up among the opposition parties that hurriedly formed NARC to fight the ruling party KANU in the 2002 elections. NARC was a marriage of convenience for a splintered opposition determined to win that failed to survive squabbles over the spoils of victory. Before long, Mr. Odinga and his followers began complaining that Mr. Kibaki had reneged on the MOU and thus began the slide to the current political impasse and crisis.

President Kibaki’s contested ‘victory’ has deprived the country of the opportunity to see that the opposition offers little more than a recycling of the same policies and politicians as has been witnessed in other African countries that are now into their third or fourth cycle of competitive multiparty elections. As this has become evident the lure of elections as engines of fundamental socioeconomic transformation has dimmed in many countries and the search for new forms of politics is underway. In Kenya the disputed results of this election may have done the same. Only time will tell, perhaps long after the violence has subsided. What can be predicted is that the Kibaki government will be paralyzed in the new parliament, where it controls less than a fifth of the seats, and might even be brought down by a vote of no confidence, although the power of the government to secure or ‘buy’ support from self-serving parliamentarians cannot be ruled out, as has happened in Malawi and other countries where the President’s party is in the minority. And a popular uprising, or even an 'orange revolution', can never be ruled out.

Kenya’s current political tragedy is part of a much larger story. The absence of articulated and organized institutional and ideological alternatives under neoliberalism is at the heart of the political crisis facing contemporary Africa and much of the world. It has led, thus far, to the ossification of politics, and in some countries, the premature abortion or aging of elections as instruments of transformative change. The specter of choiceless democracies is not confined to countries in the global South, for in many parts of the global North including the United States the ideological divide between the major parties is often indecipherable, the result of which is political apathy as nearly half the population has exited the electoral process. For more fragile societies, the danger is not apathy, but anarchy. As a keen observer of Kenya, a country where I spent many fruitful years studying and teaching in the late 1970s and 1980s, I hope the country can avoid such a fate. Perhaps the ferocity of the reaction to the botched elections will serve as a wakeup call to the political class and the troubled citizenry to chart a more productive future for their beloved country. A good beginning would be for the contending parties to agree to a binding independent and internationally monitored investigation of the election results.

* Paul T Zeleza is editor of The Zeleza Post. This article was first published at First Written December 31, 2007

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Inside looking out, snow is falling and I am thinking how
happy we once were, when promises and dreams came
easy and how when we, lovers covered only by a warm

Eldoret night, your slender hand waved a prophecy
- a shooting star and you said, "when the time comes, we
shall name our first child, Kenya" and how I laughed

and said "yes our child then shall be country and human"
and we held hands, rough and toughened by shelling
castor seeds. My dear, when did our clasped hands

become heavy chains and anchors holding us to the mines
and diamond and oil fields? Our hands roughened by love
and play, these same hands – when did they learn to grip

a machete or a gun to spit hate? And this earth that drinks
our blood like a hungry child, this earth that we have
scorched to cinders - when we are done eating it, how

much of it will be left for Kenya? My dear, our child
is born, is dying. Tomorrow the child will be dead.

UW-Madison, Jan. 3rd, 2007
Commissioned by The World Today – BBC News

This brief list of useful links is provided to help our readers keep up to date.

LINKS FROM 3 JANUARY 2008
In this AllAfrica blog Brian Kennedy lists the wide range of those who now question the results of Kenya’s 2007 presidential election, including foreign governments, election monitoring missions, and the Electoral Commission of Kenya itself. He also refers to reports that the Kenyan police, who were deployed to guard the 36,000 polling stations across the country, kept records of the results and that their tally is said to differ from what the ECK announced:

The Economist has described the result as a meticulously planned ‘civil coup’, stating that the decision to return Mwai Kibaki to office was made not by the Kenyan people but by a group of hardline Kikuyu leaders. Although the report states that their instinct will now be to use the security services to reverse basic freedoms, ‘it is not clear that Kenya will stand for it’:

The ECK Chair, Samuel Kivuitu, has given details of the inconsistencies in the constituency tallies of the presidential votes, which include altered figures from certain constituencies and the improper submission of documentation:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801030025.html

The leader of the Pan-African Movement Observers Mission, Stephen Othieno, also criticised the ECK at a press conference in Kampala. The Mission sent 41 observers to Kenya who were not permitted to observe the process in its entirety – specifically the final tally. Mr Othieno also criticised the limited time made available for verification of the voters’ register prior to polling day, and biased coverage by some media houses:

The Kenya Human Rights Commission has called on Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who arrived in Kenya on 3 January, to oversee a recount. Professor Makau Mutua, chair of the KHRC, appealed for calm, dialogue and statesmanship from Kenya’s political leaders:

The head of the Commonwealth Observer Group, Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, has decided to stay on in Kenya to support mediation efforts. The Group’s departure statement on 2 January noted that ‘delays in the announcement of the results raised questions about the integrity of the final phase of the election process’:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801030533.html

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/174034/kenya_elections_2007___departure_statement_by_the.htm

A group of business, religious and cultural leaders delivered an open letter to all three presidential candidates, calling for an independent and transparent review of the whole electoral process and its outcomes, as well as personal and collective leadership that delivers a swift conclusion to the crisis in the best interests of the country:
Add link

Daudi Were writes in his blog of the shocking speed with which Kenya slid into violence. ‘The aim of this post is not to explore the issues around the issues but to highlight that there is a sophisticated and dedicated response to the crisis in our country’:
http://www.mentalacrobatics.com/think/

Moody Awori, the Vice-President, appealed for calm and stated that the government was willing to enter into dialogue with the ODM leadership. Raila Odinga reiterated his position that any dialogue must be based on acceptance that the elections were compromised:

The Kenya Red Cross Society estimates (3 January) that at least 100,000 people require immediate assistance in the northern Rift Valley alone. Confirmed country-wide statistics are not yet available. John Holmes, the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator, emphasised the responsibility of Kenya’s political leaders to protect the lives and livelihoods of innocent people, and deplored the recent increase in gender-based violence:

Newspaper reports from around the East African region illustrate the impact of the crisis in Kenya on its landlocked neighbours. Fuel prices in Uganda have soared due to the shortage of fuel and the actions of speculators; bus fares in Kampala have in some places doubled.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Fuel_crisis_is_big_lesson_for_us.shtml
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/155_fuel_tankers_on_the_way_to_Uganda_-_govt.shtml

Traders in Rwanda are concerned at both the shortage of fuel and the prospect of being unable to restock from the suppliers in Kenya on whom they rely:

LINKS FROM 2 JANUARY

Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has called on the Kenyan government to abide by its international human rights obligations in responding to demonstrations and to allow journalists to carry out their work freely. She also emphasised the responsibility to use only peaceful means of protest:
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/080102073900.kf169jow.html

A report from the Human Rights House Network describes the attack on the church near Eldoret in which at least 35 people were killed. Water and food for those displaced in churches and public buildings are running short, and travel in the area is highly dangerous:

The Regional UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) published police figures released on 1 January of 143 people killed across five Provinces (Rift Valley, Western, Nyanza, Nairobi, and Coast). It adds that these are confirmed cases and that the real number may be higher. The main obstacle to delivering assistance is the number of roadblocks set up by vigilante groups:

The Nation reported on 2 January that 16 people had been killed at the Coast, while violent incidents had occurred in Taveta, Diani and Kilifi Town:

Dr Dan Ojwang, a Kenyan academic based in South Africa, criticises media coverage of the crisis and argues that it has deeper and more complex roots. ‘Let the world know the truth’, he writes, ‘that members of almost all Kenyan ethnic communities are being killed and not just Kikuyu supporters of President Mwai Kibaki’s illegitimate government’.
Add url

Political situation:

A report from the Human Rights House Network on 31 December, based on coverage in the Kenyan press as well as interviews with several human rights defenders in Nairobi, captures the breadth and severity of the political crisis, in terms of the heavy-handed security response, the infringement of media freedoms, and the prospect of an even more powerful presidency:
http://kenopalo.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/kenya-quickly-degenerating-into-an-african-statistic/

The BBC reported on 2 January the accusations being traded by both sides. Asked if he would urge his supporters to calm down, Raila Odinga reportedly refused to be asked ‘to give the Kenyan people an anaesthetic so that they can be raped’:

The Chair of the Electoral Commission of Kenya, Samuel Kivuitu, admitted on 1 January that he announced the results of the presidential election under pressure from some PNU and ODM-Kenya leaders. According to a report in the Standard, he said that ‘We are culprits as a Commission. We have to leave it to an independent group to investigate what actually went wrong’:

Francis Atwoli, the Secretary General of the umbrella workers’ union COTU, is quoted as saying that the crisis is politically instigated and thus can only be solved by political means. In the same press report the government’s spokesman, Alfred Mutua, states that the military has been deployed to various parts of the country ‘to assist in averting a humanitarian crisis’:
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200801020003.html

The head of the Commonwealth’s election observer team in Kenya, former president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah of Sierra Leone, has now met all three leaders (Mwai Kibaki, Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka). Kenya’s Daily Nation reports that a joint statement may be imminent:

At the international level, the US and British foreign secretaries issued a joint statement on 2 January urging political compromise and noting the responsibility on all sides to maintain the political process:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,2234121,00.html

On Thursday December 27th 2007, shortly after polling stations were closed, Kenya was hailed as having fulfilled an African dream – to have a free and fair closely contested democratic election. But less than 48 hours later it was clear that the dream of democracy could become a nightmare of ethnic violence. Most of the casualties so far have been the poor and the marginalized – and if things continue as they are, a bitter civil war fought along ethnic lines is certain. To say that what is at stake is the very future of Kenya is not an overstatement.

To answer the question of how the promise became a nightmare one must begin with very nature of democracy and how it has been functioning in Africa.

The first element to consider is that in the absence of strong democratic institutions (the three pillars of legislature, executive and judiciary), democracies in Africa are relying more and more on the goodwill of politicians: in this case, a nation is only as democratic as its politicians.

Added to this, African democracy is in real terms an expression of ethnic tensions. Instead of rolling back tribalism (I use the derisive term deliberately), African democracy serves it. One could say that all democracies have an element of this: in the West it generally goes under the euphemism of voter demographics. When Hilary Clinton is courting the white, black or Latino vote, she is in fact practicing what might, in other circumstances, be called tribal politics.

In the Kenyan presidential election, ethnic politics were a key factor in the close election results: the incumbent Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, received very few votes in the Luo areas, while his Luo opponent, Raila Odinga, received only a very small percentage of the Kikuyu vote. In this bitterly contested election where ethnicity was the deciding factor, victory from either side was bound to spill into violence.

As a direct result of the above, questions of what true justice means and about the growing divide between haves and have-nots become lost to ethnicity. Raila is a flamboyant millionaire while Kibaki is as elite as you can get in Kenya. Lost in the fires of ethnicity is the simple fact that Kibaki and Raila have much more in common with each other than with their supporters. In this sense those engaged in the violence are, to put it bluntly, proxies in a war between two elite leaders.

Another element to consider is the extent to which the landscape of African politics has changed. We need to stop blanket condemnations of African leadership, and acknowledge that it varies and some leaders are better or worse than others. Kibaki, while not a Mandela is not a Moi or a Mobutu, or a Bokassa or an Idi Amin. By the same token the nature of opposition has changed. Since independence and the struggles against neo-colonial governments, opposition has been automatically understood as the legitimate voice of the people. But opposition no longer means the good guys. In many instances the opposition and the sitting government are practically the same as is indeed the case in Kenya. So while Raila is accusing Kibaki of vote-rigging, it could just as easily be Raila trying to rig and short-circuit the democratic process to favor himself. In other words we have no reason to take either of their claims to be true at face-value. In this impasse of two leaders intent on seizing power, respect for the democratic process couldn’t be more important.

Toward a solution, Kenyans should realize that something beautiful did happen during this election. Most of the big men of Kenyan politics were voted out of Parliament and hence out of office. Even the sons of former dictator Moi did not win seats in Parliament. There seemed to be a belief that voting was a way of talking back the Kenyan political elite, and that democracy could be made to work for the majority poor. This is the flame that we must not let die.

To nurture this flame, a recount of the votes in a transparent manner is necessary. This, no matter what one thinks of Raila or Kibaki, or whether one thinks the elections were fair or not, should be the meeting ground of all those concerned about the future, immediate and long term, of Kenya.

If the votes can be recounted in full transparency, this election will not then become the death of Kenyan democracy but rather a test along the way to a democracy with real content – the content of security, equality and justice for Kenya’s majority poor.

*Mukoma Wa Ngugi is co-editor of Pambazuka News. A version of this article first appeared at

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

We the undersigned call on the ODM and PNU leaders to urgently seek a resolution to the current electoral crisis in the country and restore peace and harmony in the country through leadership.

We express our concern at the deteriorating situation in Kenya following what has been widely acknowledged as an impressive election turn-out. We commend the Kenyan people for their dignity and courage but also express our condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives and to the many who have been injured in the course of needless violence over the last few days. This is a time for Kenyans to be patient, dignified and to look for solutions that are in the best interest of the majority.

We regret the chaos which has caused loss of life, destruction of property and general unrest in the country. The contested outcome has marred the prospects of democracy and peace not only in Kenya but also in Africa. The cloud which hangs over the conclusion of one of the most fiercely-fought elections in Kenya's history is regrettable. We believe that peace should be regained as a matter of urgency so that a free and fair outcome can be reached.

We believe that this is not the time for provocative actions, but a time for demonstrating leadership through bringing the contending partners to the table. This crisis can be resolved by the players in disagreement using conciliation and arbitration mechanisms as a matter of urgency to plan a peaceful resolution of the crisis. If necessary, this could be done with the involvement of others such as
the African Union and others, such as those who acted as election observers. We urge the contending leaders to act within the spirit of democracy and seek to heal the wounds that have been opened by recent events and to do so in transparent ways.

We are aware of the betrayal that many may feel in what they consider to be an electoral injustice. We ask them to engage in the process by seeking explanation and accountability and to be guided by their own sense of civic responsibility.

We call on the PNU and ODM leaders to seek conciliation and resolution of the current crisis for the sake of the country.

We call for mechanisms for mediation and conciliation to be put in place urgently to give voice to all grievances that have arisen from the present situation in which there can be no winners, only losers. We welcome the mediation processes that have been initiated

We call for an immediate ending of violence by the security forces and all other parties. Whilst we recognize that the security forces have a role to play in maintaining peace and order, we condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the security forces against unarmed civilians that has been manifest over the last few days.

We call for an independent transparent review of the whole electoral process and its outcomes so as to resolve any differences between contesting parties. This should include reviewing the results of the election and all reported irregularities, especially those related to the disparities in the tallying of the final results.

We call for a swift formation of an independent and credible Judicial Commission of Enquiry by endorsing the call by the Electoral Commissioners who have called for one.

We urge the international community to be patient pending the outcome of such a proposed review process. As it is Kenyans who have to live with the consequences of a Mwai Kibaki or Raila Odinga government, the international community can only follow the recommendations of an independent review before declaring the elections free and fair.

We call on those who wish to see a peaceful democratic Kenya, especially in the African Union, to support initiatives that can bring this crisis to a swift conclusion by facilitating dialogue and reconciliation.

We are deeply concerned by the gagging of the media, especially as this has only fueled suspicion and encouraged speculation in an already highly volatile situation. Freedom of expression has been one of our greatest democratic prizes won by Kenyans during the last few years and we cannot afford to go backwards.

We call for an immediate and unconditional lifting of the reporting ban so as to ensure that Kenyans are able to keep abreast of what is happening. We commend the Kenyan press for the work they have done to keep information flowing. It is precisely in the time of crisis that a free and independent media is essential to ensure a democracy that is based on information not speculation.

We urge the international media community to support the Kenyan press during this time and continue promoting the right for a free and independent press especially during such a period.

We call on all peace loving people to join us in calling for a swift conclusion to the crisis so that Kenya can return to normality andpeople can continue their lives without fear and anxiety.

The petition is now online at
and at the time of going to prese had nearly 800 signatures. Please sign the petition.

Kenya is bleeding. Kenya is bleeding from a political crisis that has rapidly led to a social and spiritual crisis. We, the Church leaders working together with the leadership of all faiths have been alarmed at the speed and depth this crisis has taken over the last 24 hours. Unless checked, this crisis will plunge Kenya into a complete state of lawlessness, disregard for human rights and the sanctity of life.

Three actions could defuse this political crisis.

Firstly, the outcome of the recently concluded Presidential and Parliamentary elections requires a quick and comprehensive political resolution. The Church as part of KEDOF endorses KEDOF’s statement –

“ in our view, considering the entire process, the 2007 General Elections were credible in as far as the voting and counting process is concerned. The electoral process lost credibility towards the end with regard to the tallying and announcement of presidential results”

We have considered the opinion of the Members of the Electoral Commission and international observer groups. In our opinion, the Government, in close consultation with all the parties who fielded Presidential and Parliamentary candidates should immediately establish a credible process for the establishment of an Independent Commission. This Commission will seek the transparent verification of tallies for the concerned constituencies. All parties must start by committing themselves to acting on the outcome verification by the Independent Commission.

Secondly, we urge the leaders of the three major political parties to meet and dialogue. Their political leadership at this critical hour is central to saving lives. Over the last 24 hours, we have lost at least five lives every hour, with scores of other men, women and children injured, scared, displaced and vulnerable to attacks by fellow Kenyans.

We call upon leaders who contested Parliamentary seats – both those that won and those that lost to jointly and urgently address their constituencies within the next few days. We urge the mass media to continue to support the cause of peace.

Thirdly, while we appreciate the efforts of the uniformed forces to stop lawlessness and we acknowledge the challenge that they have to protect all civilians we call upon them to establish corridors of safety. Such corridors of peace are critical for restoring access to food, shelter, crisis centres and other basic needs to which we as a faith community are committed to assist in providing.

The ability to communicate during a period of national crisis cannot be gainsaid. While we deplore the use of these media for ethnic hate speech, attempting to block these avenues will be counter-productive. It will block also the flow of information that is required for identifying and reaching people at risk. We consequently call upon the state to lift the ban on live broadcasts.

While calling on the Government, political parties and other non-state actors to take these actions, we realise that the future of Kenya is in the hands of the Kenyan people. We therefore call upon all Kenyans to immediately cease the violence that is occurring in our towns, villages and communities.

We commit ourselves to monitor and quickly respond to the humanitarian needs of all Kenyans regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and political affiliation.

God bless Kenya.

* Kenya Election Domestic Observation Forum (KEDOF) is a partnership representing Kenyan Civil Society Networks (and faith-based organisations) in establishing a common platform for domestic election observation programme
2007.
* * Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Cenya Ceyendi agues that for the sake of democracy itself, Kenyans should vote for Raila Odinga.

Whilst the political scenario in Kenya is as turbulent and exciting as one may ever wish it to be, the entry into the playing field of Kenyan politics between three leading contenders has been interesting to watch during this count-down to elections which will take place on the 27th December 2007. Although I was born outside Kenya, I maintain a keen interest in the developments there and am intrigued by just how the Kenyans will vote between the three contending players and the numerous parties which have been cobbled together in the last five years and some as late as the last few months.

On the one hand is the seasoned Kibaki who hurriedly formed PANU, hoping to recreate the same effect as NARC which was elected into power into 2002 but which rapidly crumpled. Mwai Kibaki , who was sidelined by Daniel Arap Moi in the pre 1990 elections, found his roots back to the desire for democracy which had catapulted him into Kenyan politics since the early 1960’s when he returned from Makerere to join Kenyatta’s government as a junior Minister. Although he had served in the Kenyatta and Moi governments, he was the unlikely contender yet Kenyans coalesced behind him to make him the de facto president of Kenya from 2002 – to 2007. His incumbency gives him an edge as does his long experience.

On the other, are Raila Odinga of the ODM and Kalonzo Musyoka of ODM- Kenya which splintered from each other earlier this year after delivering a blow to the Kibaki-led referendum last year. ODM splintered from the former NARC after internal wrangling, most of them dating to KANU years where Raila, Musyoka and Kibaki had all served at one point. So it could be said that the ODM, ODM-KANU and PANU are all part of a KANU wrangle.

Kalonzo Musyoka does not really seem to be a genuine contender for this two horse race. He does not have a track record, having quietly worked with Moi for several years and is tarnished by this track record although he served as the foreign minister and drew appeal for his smooth appearance/operations both in the region and internationally. However, until recently when he splintered from ODM thus showing himself to be bold and determined, he is not recognised as a heavy weight and was rescued by Julia Ojiambo, another long standing colleague from the Kanu legacy.

There are several other contending parties, but for the moment, these three players appear the most interesting and significant although the entry into the presidential field by the clergy and women frustrated for being “outsiders” from the original KANU group of contenders brings vivid colour to the game and there are and the stakes to play for a high at least at the local level.

Many young Diasporic young people like me have been watching and debating who we would choose of the three leaders and many of my friends are dismayed that I would choose Raila Odinga, not because I believe he will bring much change to Kenya or he and his party are above the allegations such as those of corruption, but because I believe that he has the greatest potential to change. Change, which my friends convince me is not always the antidote to the misery of millions of people and maybe, continuing treading the known path and maintaining “stability” might be.

I tend to differ and argue that if this is their reasoning, then that would give me even greater reason to vote for Raila since we can always come back to the tried and tested path which we already know and detest! Besides, as the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Odinga promises change by addressing amongst other things, the neglected regions and the question of decentralisation which has tended to favour the already favoured ethnicities of the Central region which also benefits from its close proximity to Nairobi and its very large population. I have nothing against all this, but, this is not itself a reason to govern for eternity and could set a bad precedent from which we may never recover.

I am one of those people who is tired of this whole polarisation around the myth of ethnicity which has been taken to new heights through the Kibaki years which has sunk to new depths. The spell has to be broken symbolically so that “other” communities can feel released from the yoke of the unstated Kikuyu supremacy in Kenya which belongs to all the nations of Kenya and also from the Muthaiga types who do not see the contradiction of their actions and the wars that their relatives and ancestors died for!

No person is better placed to break this spell than Raila who is seen to hail from the “rival” ethnicity of the Luo. I know that this is not a good argument, but it is one which is playing on many people’s minds and will be used to determine who wins or loses the elections. Besides, I have a multiethnic identity and this has never bothered me. My parents come from two ethnic communities in Kenya and have managed not only to have a long harmonious relationship but to also produce me in the bargain. For many young Kenyans, despite what we have heard, we do not want to be dragged into past myths about the differences between the ethnicities in Kenya. We do not understand or believe in the myths which I understand were started as part of the divide and rule policies of the British colonials.

On this front, Kalonzo Musyoka is compromised by being Kamba, not through any fault of his own, but through association as the Kamba nation has close traditional, social affiliations to the Gikuyu who are their distant cousins from what I am told.

More seriously however, has been Raila’s capacity to steer the political focus of the country towards a democratic agenda, whether through his activities as a student, through his political activism or through his engagement with the political process. He ensured the toppling of Moi through fortuitous footwork or through genuine political genius. His desire not only to become a politician in his own right, but to also continue the tradition of Jaramogi Odinga Odinga whose legacy was NOT YET UHURU is formidable. Raila could have gone to become a business man or engineer but choose to risk his life several times to bring about change in Kenya. This is a man of courage and holds the longest record of detention in Kenyan history.

Finally, the real reason I would elect Raila is because of the three candidates, his vision for change genuinely seems to stem from deep inside him. I believe that Raila represents the best unifying factor for divided nations but also has the potential for seeing through the changes for which Kenyans are so hungry. He has also represented the urban people, some of them the poorest in the country. He is also respected internationally in Africa and beyond for his Pan African ideas. He represents the possibility for a unified nation and between the three contenders; he has the best possibility of confronting the legacy against myopic ethnicity and regionalism.

He is the best hope for change in Kenya and this is the measure on which I have made the decision why I would cast my vote for him. If he can commit to rid corruption and this is genuine, to unite the nation, to deliver the constitution, to decentralise resources for the marginalised and poor communities, I am confident, he will make it to the State House in a few days time. I have bet my friends who have decided to ostracise me: Then he said Kibaki Tosha and now he says Kibaki Toka.

I hope that the issue of dual citizenship is resolved as I intend at minimum to vote or run for office next time. I think the older generation will be retired by then and we in the Diaspora can bring freshness to the processes. Bring those elections on and may Raila win for change.

*Cenya Ceyendi is an activist of Kenyan origin living in London

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The XYZ Show, a unique African political satire web-series created by artist Godfrey Mwapembwa (Gado) and produced by Communicating Artists Ltd in Kenya is making waves by putting a humorous spin on the upcoming general elections. Please visit to view or download episodes.