President Uhuru Kenyatta assumes the high office under a cloud. A large section of the country does not believe he won the presidency in an open, fair and transparent election. This is true even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the president was validly elected and in conformity with the constitution.
His predecessor, now retired President Kibaki also came to office under a cloud having been hurriedly sworn in following an election in 2007 many believe he stole.
The major difference—and thank God for this—between the elections of 2007 and 2013 is that no violence ensued the latter election and this' much to the credit of Raila Odinga opting to challenge the elections in court, something he couldn’t do in 2008. The courts then were totally unreliable to render a judicious decision.
Although the Supreme Court has entered a decision in Raila’s case challenging Uhuru’s election, most people await the written opinion to determine whether the decision itself is right and valid under the constitution and law.
For now, many are giving the Supreme Court the benefit of doubt that they got it right but reserve final judgment until they review the written opinion in which the Court must address a number of key factual and legal issues. That said, an interesting question comes to mind and that’s simply, have we ever had free, open and transparent elections in Kenya?
Unless one just landed from outer space or is in total denial, the answer is simply, no. We have never had free, open and transparent elections reflecting the free will of the people since independence and even before.
What’s equally interesting is that in none of the elections preceding 2002 did anyone make much of the fact that the elections were stolen because it was an accepted reality then that the elections will always be rigged.
In 2002, Kenyans said enough of the rigging and no more a divided opposition and decided to unite behind retired President Kibaki with the help of none other than Raila in quashing then president Moi’s efforts to shove down our throats an Uhuru presidency.
What an irony that same presidency is now upon us! Many laughed at Moi and his failed project Uhuru but he is now the one laughing loudest and non-stop wherever he is and definitely will now be forever known as the professor of Kenyan politics.
Which raises the question, have we fully turned course and are now headed back to Kanu days? This is a question that can only be demonstrably answered by President Uhuru Kenyatta himself for he will have a lot to do with that or not.
To be sure, we have a devolved government structure which should make it extremely difficult to ever go back to Kanu days but note the key word here is “should” as there is no guarantee the devolved government will come to be as envisioned in the constitution.
Thanks to retired President Kibaki, rather than leaving a smooth transition to the devolved government, he created unnecessary points of tension in among other areas the illegal appointment of the commissioners now illegally holding office.
President Uhuru no doubt may be tempted to keep them as it’s nothing but a back-ended way of State House controlling counties beyond what is provided in the constitution.
With Jubilee having the majority both in the National Assembly and the Senate, there is a lot of mischief Uhuru can visit on the country, if he so choses but for the same reason he can also do good for the country. The choice is his.
President Uhuru has the opportunity and certainly can do enough good with his leadership to erase or at least minimise the stigma of having been questionably elected in a disputed election.
He is not alone in this category as other leaders have found themselves in office under a cloud of illegitimacy and struggled to shake the illegitimacy to the end.
A good example is former President George W Bush of the United States. Others have done some good and managed to shake the illegitimacy, for example, Rutherford B Hayes of the United States as well.
Hays was the beneficiary of the most fiercely disputed election in American history but historians credit him for having brought to the presidency dignity, honesty, and moderate reform.
Although Hays, a Republican, ran a relatively competitive campaign, many expected the Democrats to win. When the first returns seemed to confirm this, Hayes went to bed, believing he had lost. But this was not to be.
The popular vote was 4,300,000 for Tilden, the Democrat, against 4,036,000 for Hayes. Hayes's election depended upon contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. If all the disputed electoral votes went to Hayes, Hayes would win; a single one would elect his opponent Tilden.
Months of uncertainty followed. In January 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission to decide the dispute. The commission, made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, determined all the contests in favour of Hayes by eight to seven. The final electoral vote: 185 to 184.
When Hayes assumed office, he insisted that his appointments must be made on merit, not political considerations. He pledged protection of the rights of black Americans in the South, but at the same time advocated the restoration of state rights, which led to the withdrawal of troops from Southern states.
Having promised to serve one term, Hayes retired after the one term and is mostly remembered in bringing honor and dignity to the presidency and modest reforms.
President George W Bush, a Republican who many argue was appointed by the Supreme Court of the United States following a close election of 2000 in which his opponent had actually been declared the winner early in the day only to find out he lost—he really did not lose as he still contends because the court intervened and stopped the counting of votes in the state of Florida which paved way for George Bush to be declared the winner of that election.
There was bitterness, resentment and anger among Democrats and independents who voted for Al Gore, but there was nothing they could do as the highest court in the land had spoken and there was no further recourse they could pursue to remedy what they clearly believed was an injustice.
Sound familiar? Everyone who voted or supported Raila in 2013 elections will painfully say yes. President Bush was throughout his first term deemed a joke of a president besides being in office illegitimately and even when he was re-elected in 2004, he never could quite shake the illegitimate label.
Will Uhuru Kenyatta be able to shake the label of illegitimacy as did Rutherford B Hays and continue the country on the path of reform or would he serve one or two terms of no marked distinction other than something he would not want on his legacy?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment