It’s unfair to blame middle class for weak nominations

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 27 January 2013

During the recently concluded political party nominations for various positions across the country, an idea emerged that is now gaining so much credence as to acquire the appearance of veracity. This is the idea that the Kenyan middle class failed to use its influence to get good leaders nominated for the elections, resulting in a choice restricted only to under-educated, uninspiring fellows.

This idea emanated from the observation that Kenyans on social media were almost unanimous that the likes of Ferdinand (Clifford) Waititu, Mike Sonko and their fellow travellers have no place in the governance of any unit in a modern state. Despite this unanimity, Kenyans went ahead and gave these individuals overwhelming support in the party primaries, ensuring that at least some of them will win in the forthcoming General Election.

Bolstering this argument is the perception that the social media set represents the Kenyan middle class, and that this class is sufficiently populous and influential to determine the direction the vote will take. These are perceptions that cannot stand close scrutiny.

Firstly, social media is now available to Kenyans of all classes, seeing as the Internet is accessible to almost anyone with a mobile phone in this country. The sentiments being expressed on social media must, therefore, not be assumed to be largely (or exclusively) those of middle class Kenyans, but those of Kenyans with Internet access.

Secondly, the assumption that cities like Nairobi (and perhaps the entire country) are made up of largely middle class families is completely fallacious. Nairobi is a city of the poor, and Kenya, as we all acknowledge, is a largely poor country. Assuming that the middle class vote would have made a difference in the nominations, or even in the General Election, is therefore very presumptuous.

For instance, perhaps two thirds or more of the Nairobi population lives in extreme poverty, and only a tiny minority constitutes the true middle class. It does not make sense to expect that this minority group in Kenya can influence the opinion of the majority poor. In any case, their needs and aspirations are on opposite ends of any social, political or economic spectrum.

Finally, the assumption that the middle class is so influential that all it takes for them to make a difference is to “educate” everyone else and show up at the polling station is equally fallacious. Influence, that intangible thing, does not necessarily follow wealth.

While it is true that the middle class usually has the most to lose under incompetent leadership, it is not always true that members of this class understand or even care about this fact. Often, those that understand and care are a minority, and their influence can only go so far.

The long and short of it is that it is grossly unfair to blame an economic minority for the “failings” of the majority. If the leaders nominated by the political parties are weak and incompetent, it is the leadership of political parties that should be blamed for allowing them to run in the first place. Parties have the responsibility to vet and select aspirants in a manner that ensures that no matter which one of them wins, the country would remain in good hands.

However, like the man said, we always get the leadership we deserve. 

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

Politicians must denounce their violent supporters

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 20 January 2013

As we enter the home stretch towards the epochal General Election in March, many events are taking place that give the lie to the assumption that we are a functioning democracy. Some indicators have already emerged that we are most likely just paying lip-service to the concept of democracy while secretly wishing we could rig the system such that no matter what happens, our preferred candidate comes out on top.

Firstly, campaign violence is rearing its ugly head again. People are being attacked, maimed and even killed in the guise of campaign activity. Five years ago I argued in the Daily Nation that giving crime labels such as “political violence” only “legitimises crime and allows people to carry out barbaric acts without fearing the repercussions”. In that article, I was warning about the risk of escalation of conflict beyond that which is manageable if we allowed politics to be the excuse for violence.

I argued for the “strict, impartial and severe application of the law” in order to deter hooligans who wore political masks and went out to harm others, knowing that their political god-fathers would raise a ruckus if the law took its course. I regret that I have to repeat this warning as we march towards the elections.

Secondly, political arguments are becoming more and more shrill, with the tribal essence driving it all becoming more and more evident. 

Tribal innuendo

A recent opinion poll resulted in the CEO of the polling company being called a tribalist because her polls showed that a candidate who might share her ethnicity was leading. The resulting insults and both sexist and tribal innuendo would make anyone who knows how violence is prepared cringe.

We know from history that before all-out violence breaks out, the potential perpetrators must be psychologically prepared for it. This is often done by gradually softening them and reducing the innate human aversion to shedding human blood, often by portraying the potential targets as something less than human. It begins by showing examples of evil people within the target group, and both personalising and magnifying the potential harm posed by them. 

The message

Next, their evil deeds are compared to the behaviour of animals and, gradually, the message is subtly passed that it is okay to attack them whenever one gets an opportunity. Once the ground has been prepared thus, it takes only a small infraction for the potential perpetrators to be aroused into “righteous anger” that sends them into a genocidal frenzy, which eventually begins to feed off itself.

The perpetrators go about their grim business without a care, and if you confront them later, they may either explain it away as something that was necessary at that time, or they may just exclaim that they did not know what they were doing then.

The emergence of tribal “Councils of Elders” that give political edicts with threats of damnation to “their people” will only serve to legitimise any dehumanisation of the opponent, changing elections into a matter of life and death for most of those involved. For the sake of our children’s future, we must stop this jingoistic nonsense.

I challenge all the political party leaders to denounce any of their supporters who engage in violent acts, and to allow law enforcers to do their job. 

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

So. I've been away for about three weeks, and during this time I was unable to post anything on the blog. Coming up as three postings to cover the period I was away!

How subliminal messaging could win election

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 13 January 2013

In many countries across the world, elections are won on the strength of issues canvassed by political parties and candidates. In Kenya, however, this has never been the case in the past, and it is largely unlikely that serious issues will play any role in the forthcoming elections.

It remains intriguing how Kenyan elections are won or lost, but a few factors have come to be appreciated as key determinants. Ethnicity or kinship, wealth and gender seem to be deciding factors whenever a Kenyan voter stands in the polling booth. These factors are well studied, and politicians are busy developing their strategies based on them.

There is no doubt that they will determine the main winners and losers this year as well. However, a new factor is emerging that may influence the so-called “swing” voters. Subliminal messaging, or crafting messages in a manner that is not so obvious, will influence the undecided voters at the very last minute. Let us examine some examples of this.

Firstly, let us consider the naming of coalitions. Competing coalitions have given themselves names that are aimed at influencing voter perceptions at levels other than the conscious analytical mind. These names speak to either perceptions of ubiquity, or strong emotional needs in every human being. 

Package itself

In our 50th year after independence, at least one of the coalitions has taken advantage of this happenstance to package itself as the team whose time has come, with undertones of religious determinism and entitlement. The fact that all government leaders across the political divide have had to mention this anniversary somewhere in their speeches only serves to illustrate the point – they are embedding the message in the minds of their listeners that they don’t mind the holders of that name winning an election this year.

Another coalition seems to have been named to appeal to those of us who were completely freaked out by the civil unrest following the last General Election. However, there’s more to this than meets the eye. This coalition, headed by a candidate from Western Kenya, has been fronted as a forum in which voters from Western Kenya communities may exert their influence.

Indeed, the coalition has been campaigning in the region flaunting their strength, power and unity. Interestingly, among many of the local dialects, the coalition’s name means “strength, power or authority”. Perhaps the undecided Western voter will choose the coalition whose name rings a subconscious bell in their mind.

Finally, one other factor that has been studied in other elections also unconsciously influences the undecided voter. Multiple studies have demonstrated a “ballot order positional effect”, a phenomenon whereby candidates placed at or near the top of the ballot tend to win elections more often than those whose names appear in the bottom half. This effect is amplified when the lists are long and multiple positions are being contested, as is certain to be the case in our forthcoming elections.

Given the amount of confusion among the voters concerning the various candidates and their coalitions, it is very likely that the subliminal factors mentioned above will influence voter behaviour. Unless the electoral commission takes steps to ameliorate some of these effects, it should be easy for observers to predict the outcome of the election based on the percentage of undecided voters. 

lukoye@gmail.com; Twitter @LukoyeAtwoli

Implications of constitutional 'sanity' requirement

By Lukoye Atwoli
Sunday Nation 06 January 2013

Article 83(1) (a) of our Constitution provides that “A person qualifies for registration as a voter at elections or referenda if the person is not declared to be of unsound mind”. Further, Article 99(2) (e) disqualifies a person who “is of unsound mind” from being elected as a Member of Parliament and, by extension, from vying for any elective office.

These caveats are intriguing in several ways, and one would be interested to find out the thinking that informed the drafters’ decision to bar people of “unsound mind” from political participation. This is more so given that the same Constitution in Article 27 outlaws discrimination including on grounds of health status, and Article 28 grants that “Every person has inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected”.

With regard to the constitutional prohibitions on grounds of sanity, one is struck by the difference in language referring to either registration as a voter or eligibility to vie for political office. In order to be registered to vote, one needs only not to have been declared to be of unsound mind, while to vie, one needs to be of sound mind.

The difference, though nuanced, may turn out to be significant. For instance, questions arise as to whether all aspirants therefore need to be seen by a psychiatrist who will then certify them not to be of unsound mind.

Indeed, a few days ago, a colleague of mine indicated that he had been approached by some aspirants seeking a “certificate of soundness of mind” in order to be eligible to vie for various posts.

As far as I know, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission does not have any regulations on this requirement, leading to the prevailing confusion. Does the Constitution require one to demonstrate “soundness of mind” before becoming eligible to vie for political positions? How frequently should such an examination be done?

As far as registration to vote is concerned, a declaration that someone is of unsound mind would be sufficient to block them from registration. In other words, the Constitution bars people with declared mental illness from registering as voters. The implication, however, is that someone must accuse a prospective voter of “unsoundness of mind” before a mental examination is required. This seems to differ from the aspirants’ requirement, in which case “unsoundness of mind”, whether declared or not, would disqualify them.

Unfortunately, “unsoundness of mind” is not defined in the Constitution or in other written laws. Does this mean that all aspirants must get a “certificate of soundness of mind” before nomination? Of what use would such a certificate be?

In actual fact, “soundness of mind” is often a fluid condition, and can only be ascertained in reference to a specific request at a specific time. For instance, one can be of perfectly sound mind three months before an election, and be completely out of it on Election Day.

Secondly, where does such a requirement leave those who have been diagnosed with chronic mental disorders but are currently stable on treatment and follow-up?

In some jurisdictions, all aspirants are expected to undergo medical examinations, including mental examination, before being cleared to vie for high office. Once elected, periodic examinations are also mandatory.

Perhaps this is what the drafters of our Constitution intended? 

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