As violence continues to wrack Kenya, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD) has returned from the country with reform proposals designed to end the conflict and promote a more equitable electoral system.  NIMD also investigate the deeper causes of discontent within Kenya’s ethnic minorities and express their hope that Kofi Annan’s mediation efforts meet with success.

Below is an article written by Roel von Meijenfeldt and published by the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy:

On 22-23 January [2008] NIMD was in Kenya to meet with the leaders political parties and civil society representatives to discuss the political and humanitarian crisis. Roel von Meijenfeldt shares his opinion about the conflict in the following article.

“One of the key causes of the political conflict is the failure of Kenya's political elite to move democracy forward since 2002. Now more than ever, the political reforms promised at the time are crucial for restoring peace and legitimacy of authority,” according to Von Meijenfeldt.

The struggle for power following the elections reopened old wounds. A dangerous cocktail of manipulation by political vultures, criminal militias, unreliable security services, ethnic tensions, youth unemployment and poverty, and unresolved past inequities have turned Kenya into a powder keg. 

The voters cannot be blamed. Over 70 % of eligible voters cast their votes on 27 December [2007] in free elections for local, parliamentary and presidential elections. Long lines started forming at voting stations in the early morning. Kenyans chose change. Of the 210 parliamentary seats, 170 went to new representatives. Among the losers were 20 ministers from the previous Kibaki government.

Nobody is contesting the outcome of the parliamentary vote. Things only went wrong when the time came to count the presidential votes. But a recount, while possible, is not what Kenya needs.

The origins of the conflict between president Kibaki and his rival Odinga lie much deeper. After the 2002 elections, the entire political elite neglected to implement key political reforms. In 2002, Kibaki won with the promise to ratify a new constitution within 100 days, granting the parliament more and the president less power. A new electoral system was also promised, with greater proportional representation for the votes cast, as well as reform of the electoral commission. Finally, a certain degree of decentralisation was to take place, with more control moving to the regions.

Despite widespread support from Kenyan society for the text of the new constitution, the Kibaki government rejected the document. A constitution proposed by the government itself was in turn rejected by the people in a 2005 referendum. Attempts by the parliament to pass a number of minimal constitutional amendments before the 2007 elections were subsequently blocked by the Kibaki government.

What the lack of political reforms can lead to was made all too clear by the tragic developments of the past month [January 2008]. My discussions last week confirmed that politicians on both sides also realise this.

When it gained independence in 1963, Kenya combined the British electoral system with the American presidential political system. Votes are unequally distributed during elections. There is only one winner, the individual who gets the most votes in a given district. As there are many candidates per district, you do not need a lot of votes to win. All other votes are lost.  This means economically powerful (that is, wealth) groups can fairly easily ensure their candidates win, with less powerful groups being left behind. In a country like Kenya, with 41 ethnic groups, this can only mean trouble. The 'winner takes all' syndrome has led to mutual distrust within the political elite in other young democracies as well.

The mediation attempts by Kofi Annan and other former presidents from Africa currently represent the best hope of finding a way out of the political conflict. Speed is of the essence in getting the violence under control. The negotiations between the parties of sitting president Kibaki and his opponent Odinga are finally underway. The recent murder of one of the new opposition members of parliament will not make the process any easier. At the top of the agenda is ending violence and restoring security. Second on the list is finding a way out of the political impasse regarding the presidential elections, and third is finding a solution for the necessary political reforms. 

A group of 65 civil society organisations and a group of prominent Kenyan women have submitted proposals for a swift resolution of the political conflict. Both parties are being called upon to form an interim government with, in short, the following mandate:

1) reform the political system, the electoral system and the electoral commission based on the previously agreed upon principles and ratify a new constitution;

2) come to an agreement on decentralisation of power and means;

3) appoint a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to address past injustices and end the lawlessness of political violence;

4) resettlement of those who fled political violence and new land policies.

This should be achieved within a 2 year period, allowing sufficient time for the restoration of trust in the political elite and new presidential elections.

Only an outcome with clear agreements on structural political reforms will provide a lasting solution for the crisis in Kenya.