Financial Times (FT): To have one flawed election in a year is destabilising enough. To have two would be a provocation.

Politics
Forwardoh
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 3863
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:27 am

Financial Times (FT): To have one flawed election in a year is destabilising enough. To have two would be a provocation.

Unread post by Forwardoh » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:54 am

Election boycotts can be counter-productive and fruitless, leaving those engaging in them excluded from the political process to no obvious gain. But in cases where democratic institutions have been hijacked, boycotting can be a justifiable means of exerting pressure for change. Kenya’s opposition leader Raila Odinga this week adopted that last resort, leaving it potentially to the courts to decide whether a re-run of flawed August presidential elections can go ahead without him. A veteran populist who has styled himself a champion of democracy, Mr Odinga was originally defeated by his long-term rival, incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta. But in a move unprecedented on the continent, the Supreme Court ruled in September that the polls were marred by “illegalities “ and “irregularities”, nullified the results and ordered fresh polls within 60 days. The judges also accused the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) of having failed to verify digitally transmitted results against paper returns before it declared Mr Kenyatta the winner. It was a damning verdict that invited a far-reaching and rapid response. Yet thus far there has been no sign that corrective actions are pending. It is inexcusable for example that the same election officials who presided over this fiasco that has cost the Kenyan taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, remain in place.

Mr Odinga had cause to feel cheated in both 2007 polls, which triggered violence in which more than 1,300 people died, and 2013 elections. It was therefore critically important for the sake of national stability that these ones were free, competitive and fair. In the circumstances, Mr Odinga’s decision to withdraw from the race is therefore understandable if regrettable — given the uncertainty it will prolong, and damage that it will inflict on east Africa’s leading economy. The question now is whether the vote can go ahead without him or whether the courts can intervene to postpone the re-run until necessary safeguards are put in place. Lawyers are divided on what the complex provisions in Kenya’s constitution have to say about this. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has given only vague guidance on what is needed to ensure that the fresh elections lead to a convincing outcome. The problem, in any case, is now less legal than political. Should Mr Kenyatta be returned virtually unopposed he will face a crisis of legitimacy. Elections in Kenya are to some degree an ethnic census and it would be unprecedented for diehard followers of Mr Odinga in western Kenya and on the coast to switch allegiances. A large part of the electorate would be disenfranchised. Such an eventuality risks further polarising society and ushering in a renewed period of instability. Kenya has been hostage to the same feuding families since the 1960s when Mr Kenyatta’s father, Jomo Kenyatta, and Mr Odinga’s father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, competed for power in the aftermath of independence from Britain. But, what matters now is not the candidates — neither of whom offer much that is new — but restoring public confidence in the democratic process. Kenya’s western allies, in Britain, the EU and the US — not to mention international election observers — have played a perfidious role in sweeping gross irregularities under the carpet this year and in the past. They now owe it to Kenyans to lean on the main protagonists to engage in dialogue, to restrain their followers and to compel the IEBC to affect corrective changes. To have one flawed election in a year is destabilising enough. To have two would be a provocation.

https://www.ft.com/content/55d08b34-af4 ... aa44b1e130

Garlic
Level: Imperial Majesty
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:08 am

Re: Financial Times (FT): To have one flawed election in a year is destabilising enough. To have two would be a provocat

Unread post by Garlic » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:50 am

In Kenya it is well known fact that August 8th Election was not bungled. It was not rigged. It has brought a lot of political pressures and legal uncertainties because one of the loser, who has quite a fanatical following, cannot accept a defeat. Nothing more to it.

Supreme Court decision was a gratuitous display of judicial activism combined with desire of majority Judges to favour their political favourite person and a good dose of corruption. Wait for "revisiting" of Judiciary after Uhuruto are sworn in once more.

Therefore even if election is tomorrow, on 26th or January 2018 or after 5yrs from now, Raila/Nasa cannot beat the Jubilee Party as it is at the moment. It doesn't matter system of transmission is used or whether Orengo or Ida are the CEO of the IEBC Raila will always claim to have been rigged.
Credible election to Raila and his supporters (some) can only be fair if and only he is declared the winner.

The rest are just academic and hypocritical justification of causing chaos. And Kichwa does it very well here and eloquently too than FT.

Forwardoh
Level: Council of the gods
Posts: 3863
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Financial Times (FT): To have one flawed election in a year is destabilising enough. To have two would be a provocat

Unread post by Forwardoh » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:20 am

Boston Review: Western neutrality in Kenya is profoundly false. To place equal blame on ‘both sides’ when the government has employed an authoritarian playbook is to implicitly pick a side.

OCT 12, 2007
http://bostonreview.net/politics/aziz-r ... racy-kenya

Image

(Someone with time on their hands can paste the whole article.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AntiHubris, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests