Let us make 2013 the year of renewal for Kenya

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 30 December 2012

As we come to the end of 2012, I take this opportunity to wish readers of this column a happy and prosperous 2013. When the current year began, many of us expected that it would end with a new occupant in State House and new representatives in the various houses at the different levels of government. This hope has now been postponed, and we are hopeful that next year we shall realise this eventuality.

Looking ahead to 2013, there is a lot to be optimistic about, but there is also a lot to be cautious about. Even as we wish each other a happy and prosperous new year, we will do well to keep in mind that events early next year will determine the future of this country.

This time five years ago, we were in the throes of a violent eruption related to general elections that were allegedly stolen. For two months we remained in a state of uncertainty, and many feared that our country had finally arrived at its Waterloo.

One hopes that this will not be the case next year, although all indications are that Kenyans’ short memories are facilitating a potential repeat of the events five years ago. Tribal coalitions have already been repackaged and polished ready for service at the next General Election, despite all outward appearances of ideological connection and goodwill for the country. The same politicians who have been contending for decades will face off again in under three months’ time, with their disputes remaining essentially unchanged.

Peering into the future, one is confronted with a bleak choice. It is fairly obvious that whoever will be elected president next year is unlikely to provide a clean break with the past. Most of those offering themselves up for positions at the next election have been in government before, some for significant lengths of time. During their stints in government they have made little effort to implement the “reformist” agendas they are now promising Kenyans.

The only redeeming feature concerning next year’s election is that the laws are now a little harder to break with impunity, and punishments are much more severe than in the past. If Kenyans maintain fidelity with the Constitution, then the future is much brighter than we anticipate. The problem with Kenyan politics has been our unhealthy obsession with personalities rather than issues. We remain ready to fight and kill each other on behalf of politicians who do not care much about the common citizen.

The new Constitution represents an attempt to shift focus to issues that matter in the development of our republic. Kenyans must seize this opportunity to strengthen institutions and seal loopholes to such an extent that even if a chimpanzee were to be installed in State House, the country would continue running just fine.
It has been my contention that laws are not made for law-abiding citizens. Laws are made to prevent outlaws from having free reign and harming those that are just going about their business peacefully.

Similarly, institutions should be structured not only to be run by “good” people, but also to survive the tenure of the evil ones as well. Let us take this opportunity to make 2013 a year of Kenya’s renewal by focusing on institutions rather than personalities. 

Dr Atwoli is secretary, Kenya Psychiatric Association and senior lecturer, Moi University School of Medicine. lukoye@gmail.com; Twitter @LukoyeAtwoli

Electoral team’s numeracy must be above reproach

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 23 December 2012

Just a day before the voter registration deadline, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) published a tally of the registered voters by December 16, 2012. Insofar as it was intended to spur voters to register in larger numbers before the closing day, it was a great strategy. It energised politicians who only see Kenyans as voting bundles that are counted by tribe or region, and they went all out to beg their perceived supporters to go and register.

However, worrying indicators of the IEBC’s facility with numbers emerged from a quick analysis of the figures presented in the document. No matter the explanation for them, these observations have a serious bearing on the outcome of the next General Election, with the potential of causing major conflict unless they are addressed.

Upon downloading the document from the IEBC website, I decided to do a simple numbers check. I randomly selected a few counties in the Rift Valley where I live, and added up the respective numbers of registered voters and the estimated voting population as presented by the IEBC. I then compared my calculated totals with those in the IEBC document.

The first county in which a discrepancy was immediately apparent was Samburu. The county’s three constituencies had respectively registered a paltry 34pc, 32pc and 17pc of the estimated voting population, and yet the county total was given as 51pc.

Obviously, this was impossible.

Adding up the numbers of expected voters from this county, it turned out that the estimated number of voters was understated by over 90,000. The real total percentage registration performance in Samburu County as at 16th December was therefore about 27pc, among the lowest in the country.

Similarly, although only one constituency out of the six in Uasin Gishu County had registered less than 70pc of the estimated voting population, the county performance was given as 64%. Closer examination revealed that the total estimated voting population was overstated by over 120,000, thus distorting the actual percentage performance in the county. The correct percentage performance for Uasin Gishu County would have been 90pc, rather than the stated 64pc.

In Nandi County, the total estimated voting population was significantly understated, yielding an actual percentage performance of 53pc instead of the IEBC’s 63pc.

The core business of the IEBC, as has been stated many times in the past, is counting voters and votes. If the commission demonstrates even a small degree of human error in the process of counting voters or votes, the confidence of voters in the electoral process is irrevocably eroded. Indeed, it is often argued that the former electoral commission’s failure to accurately count both the voters and the votes played a significant role in the violence after the 2007 elections.

The errors unearthed in this analysis are of such a magnitude that the commission needs to put in place a mechanism to proof-read any tallies they produce before releasing them to the public. Further, it is the expectation of any right-thinking Kenyan that heads ought to roll in the responsible department, in order to demonstrate the seriousness with which the commission takes these kinds of errors.

As far as elections are concerned, Kenyans expect the IEBC to be, like Caesar’s wife, above reproach. Kenyans must be reassured that the IEBC can actually count! 

lukoye@gmail.com; Twitter @LukoyeAtwoli

Sovereign will cannot be unconstitutional!

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 16 December 2012

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the one third minimum gender requirement for elective bodies will be realised progressively, and appeared to give an August 2015 date as the deadline by which legislative and policy steps must be taken to achieve it. In my opinion, this was a ruling that reflected the situation on the ground, even if it can be argued that the judges neglected to go as far as either party would have liked.

A commonly held view was that there would be a constitutional crisis if Kenyans did not elect sufficient numbers of either gender to Parliament, given that the constitution binds us to ensure that our supreme legislative body obeys the gender rule. This raises fundamental questions on the role of constitutions in the governance structures of constitutional democracies.

In my view, a constitution is a statement of intent from the sovereign. In the past, this sovereign would be the monarch whose word was law and had to be obeyed by everyone in the realm. It would be useful to consider a scenario in which a sovereign chooses not to obey an edict he has issued. What would law enforcers do? Would they attempt to compel the sovereign to obey the “constitutional” edict? How would they effect this?

My contention is that the sovereign does as the sovereign pleases, and it is not possible to enforce any law against such a person. In our own constitution, we declare ourselves collectively to be the sovereign. We make and give the constitution to ourselves and to future generations, the same way a sovereign would make decrees to govern the people for all posterity.

Keeping in mind that we cannot compel the sovereign to act in any particular way, is it possible to declare any sovereign action “unconstitutional” or even unlawful? Elections are the most powerful expression of our sovereignty in which we delegate legislative authority to a Parliament we have elected ourselves. Whoever we elect to Parliament represents our sovereign will. In my view, it is therefore ludicrous to argue that a product of a free and fair election could be anything but constitutional!

How, then, can we reconcile our sovereign intention of having fair gender representation in elective bodies with the reality that elections are unpredictable affairs where the people could elect anyone?

In my opinion, we should focus on the process leading up to the election itself. The problem with elections, however free and fair, is that the voter’s choice is restricted to candidates presented by the electoral commission. The commission, in turn, relies largely on candidates presented by political parties. The processes involved in selecting these candidates can be tweaked by legislative or policy measures to ensure that both genders are represented equally among the candidates. This will ensure that the voter has a fair chance of electing either male or female candidates, increasing the probability of achieving the gender requirement.

The electoral commission ought to make rules compelling political parties to have equal representation of the genders among their candidates, and further, to have party lists with such gender representation that it would be possible to nominate only candidates of the “minority” gender should the need arise.

This, in my view, can still be done before the next General Election. 

Dr Atwoli is secretary, Kenya Psychiatric Association and senior lecturer, Moi University School of Medicine. lukoye@gmail.com; twitter @LukoyeAtwoli

Pre-election coalitions represent the Kenyan mindset

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 09 December 2012

Last week we witnessed a spectacle that would be funny were it not for the implications it has on Kenya’s future. Beginning two days to the deadline imposed by the Political Parties Act on the formation of pre-election coalitions, and continuing up to the deadline itself, politicians outdid themselves in the art of crafting alliances.

Within those two days, some of the politicians had held talks with dozens of “like-minded” colleagues, most of whom they had previously sworn never to talk to even if they were left alone in the same room. Many took only a few hours to move from one end of the political spectrum to the other, seeking assurances on their own political futures.

Apart from soaring rhetoric, none of the coalitions have indicated the reasons why they came together, and what they intend to achieve once they win power. We are only being bombarded with platitudes full of empty promises of peace and prosperity. To the objective observer, it seems clear that even without stripping away the thin veneer of pseudo-ideological differences, these coalitions are actually agreements between individuals keen on capturing and retaining power.

The tragedy is that they are presenting themselves as representatives of political parties, and even worse, of their own ethnic groups. This way, it is becoming easy for the voters to tie the personal fortunes of these coalition-builders with their own individual fates, and those of their tribes. The result is utterly predictable. After the 2013 General Election, one “coalition” will win the election, and the others will lose.

Due to the non-ideological emotions being whipped up as the politicians seek coalitions, it is foreseeable that the losing group will raise complaints about the legitimacy of the election. No matter how genuine the complaints will be, supporters of the group will gang up and attempt to stage protests, some of them turning violent. It is possible that the coalescing tribes will think to punish the ethnic “others”, either before or after the elections, by forcefully evicting them from “their territories”, Kenyan code for ethnic cleansing.

If the above scenario sounds familiar, it should be! This is exactly what happened five years ago, with politicians coming together to win and retain power and, in the process, representing themselves as tribal king-pins who could not lose in a fair contest. The result was an election in which victory was claimed by all sides and the rest, as they say, is history.

Perhaps it may do Kenyans well to remind them that the two main “coalitions” presented to the registrar of political parties are not new, and can be traced back 10 or more years ago. The main protagonists in one group were the face of Kanu in the 2002 General Election that was won by Narc. The second group comprises the key members of the victorious Rainbow Coalition, only missing the then presidential candidate, President Mwai Kibaki.

It is my contention that the average Kenyan does not seem to learn from adversity and that, unless something drastic happens, we are due to repeat history in a very tragic manner. Obviously the coalitions being crafted represent the mindset of the average Kenyan, a mindset that has rigged the country onto a one-way track to oblivion.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not. 

Dr Lukoye Atwoli is the secretary, Kenya Psychiatric Association, and a senior lecturer at the Moi University’s school of medicine lukoye@gmail.com; twitter @LukoyeAtwoli

PEV a result of our individual votes

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 02 December 2012

Recently, I have had occasion to consider the meaning of the individual vote. It has been argued in the past that one vote is really meaningless and can only go so far in effecting change in society. Similarly, a position is often canvassed that, in times of crises, a single individual cannot do much to stem the hysterical tide, and is often swept along by the masses.

Using the example of post-election violence that rocked our country five years ago, many have argued that despite their best intentions and clear visions of how to react to disappointment in a civilised manner, they could not do much to limit the effect of the violence in their immediate vicinity. Some indicated that they got in touch with those of their friends they thought could make a difference, but the answer they got was a uniform one – “You will probably be spared because you are my friend. But keep your opinions to yourself”.

This argument often wins the day, and the discussion often ends with a shrug of the shoulders in a manner to suggest that not more can be done.

However, this position is not entirely accurate. Psychologists have conducted a series of experiments whose conclusions suggest that although people tend to conform to group norms and beliefs, even if this opinion is at variance with their own beliefs, this spell is often easily broken by at least one dissenting voice.

In one experiment, a group of students were told that they would be asked an obvious question, and that they would give a wrong answer in order to deliberately mislead one of them who was not present at the time. Later, the student who was not present when the instructions were given agreed with the group when they gave the obviously wrong answer.

In a slightly different experiment, after one member of the group gave the correct answer, the “ignorant” one followed suit. Clearly, then, when a large group agrees to do something outlandish, it may take only one dissenting voice to stop them in their tracks.

In my view, therefore, most of what happened in this country after 2008 was a direct result of each of our individual votes. Everything the coalition government has done or failed to do is a result of our preferred choices at the last General Election.

The failure of government to implement agreements it reached with various parties can be traced to each and every vote that was cast in 2007. For instance, medical students at my university were meant to have completed their examinations and to graduate before the end of this year, but this will not happen because lecturers went on strike and had a dispute with the government regarding their salaries and allowances.

Doctors, nurses, teachers and other government employees have recently gone on strike as well, resulting in immense suffering for Kenyans. This suffering and trouble can be traced to decisions made by each and every Kenyan in the polling booth. In short, every vote has consequences, and some of these consequences are deleterious even to the voters themselves.

It is, therefore, imperative that as we make our electoral decisions nationally and in our counties, we keep in mind the very personal results of our decision. 

Dr Lukoye Atwoli is the secretary, Kenya Psychiatric Association and a senior lecturer at Moi University’s school of medicine lukoye@gmail.com; twitter @LukoyeAtwoli