IEBC must clear ‘reasonable doubt’ in voters’ mind
Just what makes election results so much disputed in Kenya? Put differently, what is it that always breeds the “doubt” that ultimately manifests into chaos every election cycle?
Commentators, election observers and experts have posited that the 2002 General Election is the only that largely passes as free, fair, credible and verifiable in Kenya’s history.
As we prepare for yet another “season of madness” and well aware of the importance of peace and political stability in Kenya, let us look back and diagnose our electoral challenges, especially in counting, tabulating and transmitting votes that make everyone so glittery.
Ordinarily, arriving at election results ought to be a simple process, yet it is this process that habitually drives this country to a standstill. It is this mathematical process that has caused death and destruction of property in past elections. It is the one process that often drives a lot of investors out of the country. It is thus calls for reflection.
Elections in Kenya, just like the entire system of governance, suffer a lot of historical baggage. The county always seems to be haunted by the ghost of the past where elections were just but a public relations exercise with a pre-determined outcome. This becomes clearer when you think of the likes of Kanu’s 1988 Mlolongo system that epitomised voter bribery and intimidation and threw away the principle of secrecy of the ballot. Elections those days were about those in power controlled by the police and the provincial administration. Regionalisation, tribalism and electoral violence were elements of elections. Sadly, some of these still inform our electoral process today.
One of the profound elements of the Constitution is the introduction of institutions and the rule of law. This was the idea behind the shift from the defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya, which was a semi-autonomous government agency, to the current Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission which is independent and ought to work without interference.
IEBC is, therefore, also meant to be impartial, effective, professional and transparent in their work. Related to this is fidelity to the rule of law. It ought to be strictly guided by law, regulations and customs in its mandate. In the case of Raila Amollo Odinga & Another v The IEBC &2 Others (2017), the presidential election was declared invalid and the IEBC ordered to conduct fresh one by the Supreme Court on the basis that the process was as important as the results. It is, therefore, important for IEBC to strictly follow set rules and procedures. Like in 2017, the IEBC still faces challenges with institutionalisation and the rule of law.
As much as it’s an independent institution, there are doubts as to whether it is efficient and whether it can hold credible, verifiable elections. The commission has been dogged with a lot of court cases. There’s a need for it to be straight as an arrow to alleviate the doubt.
There is a belief there exists a group of corporates or individuals who influence policy and run things from within a government—a belief that causes citizens to harbour the ‘reasonable doubt’ that their votes may not count. All governments practice secrecy mostly with regard to national security. There is a need to balance and have some transparency, especially with IEBC so as to avoid the ‘Deep State’ notion.
Politics always plays a part. A lot of people listen to and believe in the politicians who often cast doubt on election results depending on the politics of the day. While it’s easy to claim a higher moral ground and ask the electorate to think for themselves; it may not be practical. This perhaps calls on both the politicians and the electorate to give credence and assist the electoral body to grow.
— The writer is advocate of the High Court of Kenya
