Saturday, February 16, 2013

Fear of ‘consequences’ if Uhuru wins elections has impact on voting


By Mwaniki Munuhe and Lilian Aluanga
NAIROBI; KENYA: The fear of sanctions and other ‘consequences’ could prove decisive in how the Jubilee presidential candidate and his running mate fare on March 4.
As the two present the strongest challenge to frontrunner Raila Odinga from the CORD Alliance, this question could determine Kenya’s next president.
An opinion poll released on Friday reveals Raila has a lead of just three per cent over Uhuru Kenyatta, who has just learned the courts will not block his bid.
Uhuru and William Ruto face trial for crimes against humanity at The Hague alongside two others in less than two months’ time.
As a result, some foreign envoys have warned they would give them the cold shoulder if they were to win. Their rivals have interpreted this to mean economic or other sanctions, sparking heated debate on the presidential campaign trail.
“The word sanctions has never been used by us,” the Head of the European Union Delegation to Kenya Lodewijk Briet said recently after a meeting with Foreign Minister Sam Ongeri. “Why would there be sanctions?”
However, reminders by a senior American State Department official that “choices have consequences” make it clear there would be a price to an Uhuru presidency, even if sanctions were not considered. Confusion over what ‘punishment’ is likely and whether it would target the nation or the two ICC accused is now a huge perception headache for Uhuru and Ruto. This is in addition to concerns over whether they would govern effectively in a first term during which they face trials at the International Criminal Court.
Glimpse to voters
Pre-trial meetings with International Criminal Court officials on Thursday gave voters a glimpse of how the ICC could be a distraction for the Jubilee team on the campaign trail and in office. The campaign has also been knocked off message over the ‘consequences’ debate. Uhuru, however, says they can cope with this problem and Jubilee will rise or fall on other merits.
“This (threat of diplomatic isolation) is not putting off the voters at all,” he told an international newspaper recently. “They are looking at our agenda, at the issues. That is how they will make their decision.”
A Consumer Insight poll conducted for a local media house earlier this week suggests close to two in three voters agree. However, the proportion of those who think Uhuru should not be on the ballot – 40 per cent – is large enough to dent his chances of getting to State House in the first or second rounds.
The ICC question has sparked a war or words that could lock up the race. It is based on the implied threat that a Jubilee victory would automatically lead to sanctions targeted at the whole country, not just at the two individuals.
“International support (for the economy) will not be forthcoming if Kenyans elect people with cases to answer at The Hague,” Amani presidential hope Musalia Mudavadi has said. He and some CORD alliances officials have suggested that this would be devastating to economy.
Impact prediction
An International Monetary Fund official asked to predict the impact of any economic sanctions this week disagrees: “I don’t see a direct impact on growth.” Domenico Fanizza pointed out Kenya’s economy is domestic-driven and had weathered stronger shocks such as the global economic crisis. Jubilee officials say this is a futile debate since sanctions would only be sought or imposed if Uhuru and Ruto refused to co-operate with the ICC. The two insist they have no plans to stop co-operating with the Hague-based institution.
It is unclear just what measures foreign partners would take if the two won the election and did exactly as they promise to do. The European Union, including the United Kingdom, and the United States have said they would limit diplomatic interactions with the Jubilee pair to “essential contacts only” if they win on March 4.
Unspecified sanctions would be sought if Uhuru and Ruto then decided not to co-operate with the ICC.
This could mean sanctions against the individuals or the country.
Jubilee officials say the ICC issue and the remote threat of economic sanctions will have little impact on their campaigns.
Decision made
“People have already decided who they will support in the elections,” says The National Alliance party national Chairman Johnson Sakaja. “Bringing up this (ICC) issue now will have no impact.”
Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa country director Felix Odhiambo says the ICC issue could serve as a double-edged sword.
“It has the potential to galvanise support in areas perceived to be the indictees’ strongholds,” he says. “On the other hand, it could undermine Jubilee campaigns, especially in case of a runoff.”
Haki Focus executive director Harun Ndubi says the issue could sway middle class voters in urban areas, but doubts it matters to rural voters. It may have an impact on campaign performance, however.
“The candidates must take time to prepare for the trial,” says Ndubi. “Even the act of physically being away from the campaign trail to attend the status conference has an impact. There are also conditions the ICC imposed on the suspects’ conduct. This restrains them on what to say in public on the issue.”
“Over 115 countries are party to the Rome Statute,” says International Centre for Transitional Justice official Njonjo Mue.
“The movements of a president indicted by the ICC (and sanctioned for not co-operating) would be limited. We also need to ask who will finance the costs of frequent travel, considering the protocol that accompanies a Head of State. These cases could take years to conclude, while being president is a full-time job.”




No comments:

Post a Comment