We’re miles away from key electoral reforms

Any democrat would agree that elections must not only be free and fair but must also be widely seen to be that way. An election does not become credible because its managers and those they declare as victors say it is; but because it has been conducted in accordance with the regulations and ideals of electoral impartiality. Similarly, election results cannot be doubted simply because those declared losers reject them. Evidence of fraud and manipulation must be the basis upon which any election result is invalidated.

Having actively participated in elections since 1997, I have sadly witnessed how piecemeal, spur of the moment and expedient reforms to our electoral system have culminated to the situation we find ourselves in today; where the more things change, the more they remain the same. After several attempts at electoral reform, we are still miles away from the threshold of fairness envisaged in a progressive democracy. We appear to be actualising the scepticism expressed by some communist ideologists that it is not those who vote but those who count and manage the vote who matter.

Replacement of Commissioners

It would be expected that from the infamous queue voting of 1988 to the ballot stuffing of 1992; from the IPPG reforms of 1997 to the tragic melodrama of 2007; from teargas Mondays in 2016 to the replacement of Commissioners in 2017, we would at least, in 2017, have an election whose figures add up and whose conduct does not raise more questions than answers.

In the just concluded election, two such questions involve the constant gap of 11 per cent throughout the transmission of presidential results to the national tallying centre and the failure of several stations to accompany their transmitted figures with the now infamous form 34A as required by the electoral procedure code.

Regardless of election results, identified loopholes must be sealed for posterity. A thorough and objective scrutiny of the challenges, failures and threats encountered in every election should be a legal requirement. This should be followed by legislation intended to ensure such pitfalls do not afflict future elections.

I dare say that since the return of political pluralism in Kenya in the 1990s, we have had only two credible elections, these being, the 2002 election that brought President Mwai Kibaki to power and the 2005 referendum that resoundingly rejected the so-called Kilifi Draft.

It was only during these two contests that all stakeholders largely acknowledged and appreciated both the process and results. The uniqueness of these two elections was the fact that each political party represented in Parliament in 1997 had one or more of their own nominated to the Electoral Commission. Collective collusion was therefore, arguably, thwarted.

The systemic failures of our electoral system which range from attempted system hacks to opaque transmission mechanisms; from bloated voter registers to unrealistic voter turnouts, may favour some but ultimately compromise our democratic credibility. To some extent, they also delegitimise the mandate of the elected. If we consider ourselves democrats, it should not be too challenging to desire and formulate reforms that guarantee authentic election outcomes appreciated by both victors and losers.

Immediate cancellation

As a voter, there are four situations that quickly invade the mind: First, it makes nonsense of the doctrine of fairness that the President still has the final say on who sits in the Electoral Commission. Such commissioners, being presidential appointees, end up vulnerable to executive cajoling.

Secondly, there must be zero tolerance on circumvention of electoral commandments. This can be enforced through the immediate cancellation of all results from areas where such breaches are recorded. For example, if certain documents must accompany results transmitted to the national tallying centre, those who lack them must be cancelled and the complacent election officials prosecuted accordingly.

Third, the Electoral Commission should live up to its title of being an independent body. Directives regarding electoral procedure should be the preserve of the Commission. When Cabinet Secretaries issue directives on elections, it does not only undermine the independence of the IEBC but also augments political impunity. Such executive mandarins should be reminded that the rules of a free and fair election cannot be enforced by loyalists of the ruling body politic whose job continuity depends on the outcome of the election.

Lastly, the ghost of vote tallying will persist for as long as we insist on handling this crucial operation with secrecy. Democratic transparency dictates that vote tallying and announcing should be an open process in which the media actively and constructively participates.

If you have ever watched American or British elections, CNN always calls the outcome way before the losers even concede. In our case, a Cabinet Secretary threatened media houses with closure if they dared to.

- Dr Oranga teaches journalism at the University of Nairobi.

jamestheoranga@gmail.com