A question of numbers: Uhuru's pyrrhic victory?

Kenyans were divided in today's electoral rerun with many choosing not to vote. So, what does this all mean for Kenya's future?

Today, Kenyans were part of one of the strangest elections ever to have taken place. In many places across the country, polling stations were empty and polling staff idle after what will most certainly be one of the lowest turnouts in Kenyan electoral history. Many Kenyans refused to vote, following the call from Opposition Leader Raila Odinga to boycott the vote. Others were simply put off by the excessive police presence and the threat of clashes with protesters. Even polling stations in the strongholds of President Uhuru Kenyatta recorded less votes than those cast during the first election in August.

All of this is a result of a lengthy saga between Uhuru and Raila, after the Supreme Court declared the initial August vote, which Uhuru claimed victory in, invalid due to irregularities. Following this, Raila had stated that he would not take part in another election unless certain conditions were met, namely that the top officials for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission were replaced. However, no changes were made, and, as a result, Raila withdrew his candidacy, leaving Uhuru to compete against several other contenders, none of whom had polled more than 1% in the first vote.

A hollow victory

Whilst today’s vote will certainly result in an Uhuru victory, it is a hollow one. With such low turnout, it is a sign that Kenyans have little faith in the electoral process, especially after a top IEBC official fled last week to New York after stating that this would not be a credible election. The next day, the CEO of the IEBC stated that he could not guarantee a credible process.

That means that whilst he may have won, Uhuru will lack legitimacy in the eyes of a large majority of Kenyans. Furthermore, he’ll lack much needed legitimacy in the eyes of international observers and press, many of whom stated prior to any votes being cast, that they did not believe in the credibility of what was to come.

A question of legitimacy

So, where to next? Does legitimacy matter to Uhuru? Probably not. His incendiary talk before this rerun pointed to a man who saw this whole episode as a minor speedbump on the road to another five years in power. But there are those around him that know that without widespread legitimacy, he can only rule by a heavy hand, something that would damage Kenyan economic interests, an upsetting situation for various Kenyans with powerful interests and a lot of influence.

For the opposition, the low turnout is a major victory following a stratagem that represented their only real choice to move forward. It was a risky one, but it has partly paid off, allowing them a chance to continue the narrative of a sham election, one that is supported by millions of Kenyans around the country, as demonstrated by today’s events.

The protests will continue, but they will be bigger and louder. The appeals to the Supreme Court will fly in, and the judges will be unable to ignore them (as several of them tried to do the day before the election, when they failed to turn up to court to hear a petition to postpone the election citing very dodgy excuses).

The elections are over. The people have spoken. But only two men can truly end this crisis. Uhuru has two options in response to the inevitable protests: first, he could respond with strongman tactics, use police force to crush protests, whilst encouraging his own supporters to stage counter protests. The result of such a strategy is grim, likely to ditch Kenya back to the events of 2008, when post-election violence resulted in at least 1000 deaths and 3 months of violence.

His other option is communication: he must sit down with Raila and attempt to negotiate a way forward. My prediction is that if he was to pursue a solution involving Raila, it would be one proposing a coalition government. Such a proposal would probably be advantageous to Uhuru: he may have to concede something but in the end he retains the majority of power. 

No deal?

Raila, too, will have his part to play in such tactics but it seems unlikely he would be willing to enter any coalition government especially with such support having been shown for him by a lack of participation in today’s election. The likelihood of his unwillingness to concede to a coalition solution  is further strengthened by the events of the past. He entered into a coalition government in 2008 in order to resolve the post-election violence — an agreement that arguably left him with little power. What he will settle for, I cannot say, but until they sit down in a room together, we will never know.

Through all of this, there is an encouraging factor. A tweet I saw today by a political analyst stated that what gave her hope was the nature of Kenyans. They all remember what happened 10 years ago, and whilst we have already seen sporadic incidents of violence in the past months, many will never forget 2007. Furthermore, Kenyans have a unique and humorous view of politics, one that encourages some light at the end of the tunnel.

Raila's political gamble: A weary exit or stroke of genius?

Raila Odinga has announced his departure from the Kenyan electoral re-run, in protest at the lack of change in the IEBC. So, is this the end for him or is there something more afoot?

It has certainly been a bit of a whirlwind for Kenyan politics in the short time since I posted my last blog, after the Kenyan eRlection in August. Events have taken a course that I feel sure even the best political analysts could not have predicted: first, after a petition by the National Super Alliance (NASA) led by Raila Odinga, the Supreme Court annulled the election result that gave the win to President Kenyatta, on the grounds that the poll had not been transparent. 

Then, after a fresh election date was set, and after failed calls by the opposition for the IEBC leadership to be replaced, Raila Odinga announced his withdrawal from the race, citing a lack of change in any of the regulations or people who manage the election. He also objected to a proposed Bill going through Parliament, which would prevent an annulment by the Supreme Court from happening again.

A historic moment

The Supreme Court ruling was a shock to all – the first time it has happened in Africa and only the second time anywhere. The immediate reaction was (somewhat patronisingly) applause by the West (as well as some embarrassed head bobbing by those EU and US observers who had declared the poll ‘free and fair’), jubilance from Raila supporters and anger from Uhuru fans.

In fairness, it was a historic moment: a court favouring a ruling that went against a sitting head of state. In many places around the world, not just Africa, that’s dangerous territory for a Supreme Court judge to wade into. But has it all been for nothing?

Having delivered a verdict which insinuated that, in one way or another, the IEBC had messed it all up, it seemed only logical for Raila to call for fresh IEBC personnel this time around. Was he ever going to get it? Highly unlikely. The court may have demonstrated its independence but that can only go so far. And with the same IEBC in place, and the same systems, you can understand his scepticism.

Time to gamble

But Raila’s next move, whilst being a major political gamble, is a stroke of genius. On the face of it, the whole thing seems like a great PR story: as tension builds with daily protests in the streets from both sides, and little political action to change any of the status quo, perhaps withdrawing is the best thing for a country that knows the consequences of ethnic tension, particularly after the 2007 election which culminated in violence that killed over 1000 people and displaced many more. His withdrawal, therefore, is in the interests of the people of Kenya.

On another level though, it’s a plan of political brilliance, from a man who appeared to have no real options. By withdrawing he achieves two things: first, he denies Uhuru and the IEBC any real legitimacy in the upcoming elections, his own withdrawal suggesting to the world that these elections will be no different from those held previously. 

Second, it allows him time to regroup. Whilst Kenyatta runs around campaigning, he can sit back and focus on other things (an intention made clear by his upcoming tour of the UK and US), and when Kenyatta wins the election, as he most certainly will, Raila can simply challenge the result in court again (assuming that the bill stopping another annulment has not been passed). Even without the Supreme Court, many Kenyans will find it hard to accept Uhuru, after a questionable election where the opposition had such little faith in the electoral commission that it saw no choice but to not take part.

The bottom line? By not running for president, Raila is changing the discourse, and controlling the narrative. It’s a move by a man who knows he has no other real choice. And a genius one at that.

As if to confirm that this, Deputy President William Ruto, Uhuru's running mate, made comments on Wednesday that seemed like an attempt to goad Raila into re-entering the race, a sign perhaps that his withdrawal had rattled them?

With Raila, it’s hard to imagine that this will be the end. Let’s not forget, he promised his political allies, many of whom are keen to take a turn at driving, to make this his last election and you’d imagine he’d go out with a bang.

So, what then? Calls for protests? Definitely. Almost certainly a legal challenge to whatever action the IEBC decides to take to move forward in this situation. But by controlling the narrative, the ball feels firmly in his court.

A constitutional crisis?

The news continues to roll in. The day after Raila quit, parliament passed an electoral amendment, which was boycotted by opposition lawmakers, stating that if one candidate withdrew from the re-run election, the remaining one would automatically win. At the same time, the High Court approved a petition by Ekuru Aukot, another presidential hopeful, to contest the upcoming ballot, although he has not definitely said he will run. These contradictory moves by the legislature and the judiciary will further complicate any way forward and could form the beginnings of a major constitutional crisis.

What we can be sure about is that this saga has a few more chapters in it and, looking back over all that has happened in the last two months, I’m not sure anyone can say what is coming next.