Propaganda war peaks as rivals woo voters

As happens in close political duels, politicians are spinning out massive propaganda to win over voters to their cause during campaigns on the Proposed Constitution.

These range from chest thumping and claims of early victory in the hope of dealing a psychological blow on their opponents, to deploying messages to disorient and disillusion the ‘enemy’.

And in the heightened contest between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps, the truth can easily be the needle hidden in a haystack. When one side seems to be riding high, the other paints it as a ‘foreign-funded’ protagonist in a bid to raise the stakes for the foot-soldier, and win itself sympathy as the less privileged underdog set against the World.

The focus of the ‘Yes’ generals appears to be to cast the de facto leader of ‘No’, Higher Education Minister William Ruto as a ‘serial liar’, flip-flopper’ and a child of the privileged Kanu regime, largely interested in maintaining the current constitution.

To drive the point home, an advert aired on television shows how Ruto shifted positions since the Naivasha deal-making talks to the present, when it claims he has gone back on his earlier stand.

The footage running on television and YouTube cast Ruto as an unreliable politician, propelled by hidden interests, not necessarily those he gives on the public forum.

Doctored pollsters

But though the ‘No’ team has not turned to advertisements, it has declared its numbers are bigger than those seen at rallies, and that the opinion polls showing ‘Yes’ leading are doctored. It adds that the ‘Greens’ are being helped by foreigners — probably in a bid to alienate its opponents from Kenyans.

When the ‘Yes’ team argues the draft law will secure the life of a mother on equal footing as the baby she is carrying, the ‘No’ team paints the picture of mushrooming abortion clinics, claiming that the clause opens a window for termination of pregnancy on demand.

Assistant Minister Linah Kilimo who is in ‘No’ has, for example, worked up women at ‘No’ rallies by asking them: "Is there any woman who does not vomit or spit when pregnant?" When they answer ‘no’, she tells them the draft law will allow them to visit an abortion clinic and end the pregnancy if these happen.

She also cautions fathers to reject the document if they want to continue being referred to as "father so and so" in future. This is because in her view, in future there won’t be children to fulfil their sense of fatherhood.

Stirred emotions

When the ‘Yes’ team argues the land clause does not talk of rampant seizures, the ‘No’ side tells Kenyans in the villages they risk loss of their land to the State.

The ‘No’ team has also stirred national emotions by propagating the message that the proposed law will legalise gay marriages, a taboo subject in Kenya, and a union whose prospect is alien.

The ‘propaganda’ wars are not confined to one side. Which is why the ‘Yes’ team declares it has won, and the economy will grow, and government services brought closer to the people through Devolution and the county system.

On its part, the ‘No’ camp argues the draft law seeks to hem certain communities within the serfdom of colonial boundaries, and in effect the Sabaot and Kuria communities are up in arms because of ‘fear’ of Luo and Luhya domination.

In the proposed laws, they see a reversal of the ‘freedom’ they secured by way of own districts, and so many among them may vote ‘No’. In addition, the Reds argue that the tax burden on the public will be heavier, if the new constitution is passed.

Both sides have also traded claims foreign funds have been ‘poured’, just as it was claimed many times under the Kanu regime. In addition the Church has been accused of being funded by the conservative pro-life US churches, while its ambassador in Kenya Michael Ranneberger has been accused of being the rogue foreign ‘Yes’ prefect in Kenya — one to be seen in rallies receiving ‘No’ defectors to ‘Yes’.

Last week, Ruto took the sensitive land issue to the Coast, claiming the National Land Commission would sit in Nairobi and dish out land in the districts. According to Ruto, the poor will not be able to travel to the city to transact business and therefore the rich will have a field day acquiring land.

The "No" side also says the poor will be subjected to a land and house tax if the draft constitution a suggestion that the ‘Yes’ side hotly disputes.

The Greens have campaigned on the platform of reform and hope, telling the country the proposed laws will offer salvation, but the Reds say if the laws are passed, the future will be replete with instability.

The ‘Yes’ side argues that the Bill of Rights in the Proposed Constitution matches and surpasses that of Western countries, but the ‘No’ camp argues the draft law favours and propagates one religion — Islam — through entrenchment of Kadhis Courts. ‘Yes’ argues this is an innocuous fulfilment of a pre-independence agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar and the ‘No’ side, especially the Christian wings, responds with the claim that Mosques will sprout everywhere and threaten Christianity’s future.

In Mombasa, ministers campaigning for ‘Yes’ — Najib Balala and Amason Kingi — tell their electorate if they vote ‘Yes’, the multi-billion shilling earning Kenya Ports Authority will be managed by Mombasa County Council and not Central Government.

In Nakuru, the ‘Yes’ team has been accused of allegedly telling people that once passed, the envisaged Nakuru County will become part of Central Kenya.

In the past week, phone text messages have come in handy with top officials of the ‘Reds’ and ‘Greens’ using them to up their ‘propaganda’ war’.

The campaign has also moved to the social networking site Facebook and YouTube where recorded video messages from leaders are being passed around to ‘justify’ why they have taken their positions.