BY WAWERU MUGO

KENYA: On August 20, 1986, Kanu delegates made a resolution that would scandalise elections for decades to come.

The decision to conduct primaries by having voters queue behind the image of their favoured candidates – which was known as queue voting – set the stage for massive rigging. Voting malpractices had been witnessed in other elections but the decision made it possible to cheat on a scale never witnessed before.

It was a time when Kanu was flexing its muscles and tightening its grip on power. At the delegates conference held at Kenyatta International Conference Centre, President Moi left no doubt that Kanu was in charge. He even instructed party officials to compile monthly reports on security, work that would ordinarily be reserved for the Special Branch, the police and the provincial administration.

The decision elicited sharp criticism from some quarters, including the National Christian Council of Kenya (NCCK). Archbishop Manasses Kuria, then head of the Anglican Church, said the voting system was “un-Christian, undemocratic and embarrassing.”

Scared of voting

The thrust of the argument was that a good election should never reveal who one voted for. But under the queue system, people holding sensitive positions such as the police, party officials and even church leaders would be scared of lining up and revealing whose side they were on.

A week later, Moi dug in by declaring Kanu was supreme. He spoke at a rally in Mombasa where he said all Kenyans, including politicians, civil servants and church leaders were subordinate to the party. The queue system was the best for ensuring “fairness and justice”, said the Head of State. Those days, Moi’s pronouncements had the force of law.

There was no rescinding the “mlolongo” vote, as it was called. It would become the official mode of nominations in the 1988 elections.

There were no records on the number of people who queued behind a candidates photograph. How then, could one file an appeal? Under Kanu rules, officials were required to count people in the queue with “an audible voice”. Some did, others did not.

It later emerged that officials blatantly declared winners of their choice, regardless of the length of the queue. And then, there was one of the most controversial rules: anyone who garnered more than 70 per cent of the “votes” was declared elected unopposed.

More than 50 people won their way to parliament that way.

It was the perfect method of eliminating competition, as some Kanu stalwarts used the rule to have parliamentary seats reserved for them. It was simply a ticket to parliament without competition.

KANU members

Critics also argued that this rule snatched away the constitutional rights of non-Kanu members who were registered as voters because they could no longer cast a ballot once a candidate was declared as unopposed.

The irony is that only party members were allowed to queue in the nominations held in February, 1988, yet the rest of the population was expected to vote in the national poll held the following month.

Out of a population of 20 million people, only 4.5 million were Kanu members.

The election was characterised by low turnout and massive fraud.

However, after the nominations, Moi said the “process was conducted openly, fairly, peacefully and strictly in accordance with the democratic traditions of this country.’’ He swiftly rejected all appeals.

Among those who lost in the elections were giants like Vice President Mwai Kibaki, who was so incensed that he called a press conference at night and declared: “Even rigging requires some intelligence.” He was relieved of his vice presidency position in a reshuffle the same year and named to the Health portfolio.

Others locked out were Martin Shikuku, Charles Rubia and Kimani wa Nyoike. Shikuku was a sharp government critic who had spoken strongly against official corruption.

Magazine banned

“I’ve been singled out as being a Government critic,’’ Rubia told The New York Times at the time. “There is no opposition here. A lot of people boast that, although we are a one-party state, freedom of expression and speech is allowed. In practice, it is not tolerated and there is a lot of fear, with people looking over their shoulders to see who might overhear them and be offended.’’

Criticism was unacceptable. After the nominations fiasco, Beyond, a Christian magazine, was banned for criticising the primaries.

Editor Bedan Mbugua was questioned by the Special Branch, today’s version of the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS).

“First they say, let’s give power to the people so they can vote for the candidate of their choice,” Mbugua said in an interview. “But then they follow them and say, ‘You must vote for this or that candidate.’ Isn’t that a contradiction?’’

He added: ‘’We have taken a path to self-destruction, which many other African countries have taken.’’

In the national elections, the turnout was alarmingly low at only 32.5 per cent. This compares to 45.9 per cent in 1983 and 67.3 per cent in 1979.