American position renders a successful dialogue illusory

In the space of two weeks, a high official of the United States government has called on opposition leader Raila Odinga to abandon plans for his own swearing- in as “the people’s president”.

In the latest statement, the US has warned Odinga that swearing himself in would ruin his political legacy.

It is clear that Odinga is under pressure from his supporters too.

They are frustrated with the manner in which the recent election was run, and would like him to do something that would signpost a continuation of the struggle for electoral justice, which they feel the elections failed to deliver.

In this context, swearing himself in as president would increase his and their leverage, and provide them with a basis for continuing with the struggle.

OATH PLAN

However, the United States sees it differently, and regards Odinga’s swearing-in as a threat to the country’s stability, and of his leadership legacy.

Obviously, the US government has determined its view of the matter is the more valid one, and that the views of Odinga’s supporters, many of who support the swearing-in, are wrong.

It needs to be clarified that the United States is not the keeper of Odinga’s legacy and that, in a clash of preferences with his supporters, their views should prevail.

The US approach to the country’s public affairs is paternalistic, highly offensive and is unlikely to promote a solution to Kenya’s political crisis.

ICC ISSUE

In fact, it risks the same consequences as the “choices have consequences” remarks in 2013.

It will be recalled that, as Kenya prepared for elections in 2013, complicated by the candidature of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who were facing charges before the ICC, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnny Carson issued the “choices have consequences” statement, which was understood as a warning against electing the two to office.

Among their supporters, the statement had the effect of increasing the resolve to vote for Kenyatta and Ruto, if only to spite the US.

To Kenyatta and Ruto, the statement was evidence that the US had a preferred candidate in the election and that the ICC cases were a ploy by foreign powers to impose a leadership on the country.

Long after they were in power, and as the ICC cases progressed, Kenyatta and Ruto maintained the rhetoric, partly justified on the US position, that their trial was connected with a desire for regime change in the country.

ELECTIONS
The 2017 election has consolidated a pattern of controversy, uncertainty and violence that has come to characterise the country’s presidential elections.

While the controversies and violence of the 2007 election led to a new Constitution that was presented as a comprehensive reaction to the frailties of the country’s politics, the Constitution has failed to guarantee credibility in the subsequent two elections in 2013 and 2017.

In 2007, violence that affected all sides of the political divide became the subject of substantive concern as the country faced up to the failures in the elections.

By contrast, even though less in scale than in 2007, the violence in 2017 has largely been against only one side of the political divide, and has been a tool of regime maintenance rather than law enforcement.

POLICE BRUTALITY

Official denial of the 2017 violence has been successful and, as if to spite those it affected, the President has fortuitously congratulated the country’s security forces, heavily implicated in the violence, for the role they played in the elections, which he regards as commendable.

Across the political divide, it is now felt that the uncertainty to which elections subject the country is not sustainable and must be addressed once and for all.

There is a further feeling that 2017 is the watershed for addressing electoral anxieties.

However, important issues of detail will need to be confronted.

Questions of institutional design have largely been addressed in the Constitution.

Whether or not the design is appropriate might need revisiting.

IEBC
An equally important set of questions revolve around how the institutions that have been established work in practice.

The most significant of these would be examining the internal workings of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission with a view to determining how these have been supportive of the democratic aspirations of the country.

Because an examination of the IEBC would shine light on the internal relations with Jubilee, this is not a discussion that would be easy to bring to table.

Jubilee spent the last five years successfully shielding the IEBC from any form of scrutiny, in the end ensuring that the Issack Hassan commission left office with their secrets intact.

With Jubilee now so dominant, establishing a level of equality in any negotiation would be crucial to their success.

DIALOGUE

As the leader of the opposition, and a person whose personal story is at the centre of the grievances that one part of the country harbours, Odinga would be a key actor in any dialogue.

Going forward, the critical challenge will be how to bring about a level of equality as would, first, make Jubilee submit to dialogue and, secondly, make the dialogue meaningful.

Whatever the intentions, by hectoring the opposition, especially in the absence of a demonstration of sensitivity to the grievances held by the opposition, the US is showing the callousness that the opposition accuses Jubilee of, and is only reinforcing Jubilee’s intransigency, rendering a successful dialogue illusory.

In effect, the US seems to expect that Odinga should come crawling on his knees to the negotiating table where Jubilee will offer him a share of the spoils of office, which equates a happy ending.

BIAS

However, Kenya’s problems transcend the personal comforts of opposition leaders.

Threatening the opposition, the underdog, is attractive because it is easy.

If the US cares about Kenya, rather than just its own interests in Kenya, it must confront Jubilee and not just in private, and also publicly affirm the opposition.

Also, the US must demonstrate an understanding of, and give emphasis to, the grievances in opposition areas.

The two main ones are the political exclusion whose cure is not a share of the spoils but dialogue on how to improve inclusion through electoral reforms.

The second is political violence, to which opposition areas have been subjected, and which is a tool for maintaining the status quo.

[email protected]