Kenya and U.S. Elections: Danger and Opportunity

Greetings from Nairobi. Thanks to all of you for keeping in touch and giving me feedback now and then. I really appreciate the input and guidance that many of you provided after my last message.

As you know, after 2 months of violence and instability in Kenya following the Dec. 27 presidential elections, I was feeling ambivalent about the possibility of continuing my research. However, I have decided to stay and feel confident and positive about the potential for peace and justice in Kenya. I have already invested so much in my research and relationships here in Kenya, and I feel that I am not taking any risks that those around me are not also taking. I feel protected by my friends and family in my local community here, and by the local government leaders with whom I am working. The Fulbright Program at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi has also been diligent about keeping in touch, and has assured me that we are all safe and should continue with our work.

One exciting development this week has been the invitation to attend the International Women’s Day reception on March 11 at the residence of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger. This will be an opportunity to meet with hundreds of women’s rights activists, community organizers and educators from throughout Kenya. As you know, I also attended a similar reception about violence against women in November, which led to incredible contacts and ideas and helped me to “take the pulse” of the Kenyan women’s movement. I look forward to meeting more colleagues and making more connections next week before heading back to my fieldwork site in Taita.

As a U.S. Fulbright Scholar, an activist, and student of international affairs, it has been fascinating to witness the process of international diplomacy and peacemaking over the past two months. As an American friend to Kenya, it has also been intriguing to compare and contrast the events following the contested elections in Kenya to what I have witnessed in my own country. I am working on an article based on these observations, and I hope that you will send me some input or editorial advice on the following section of this letter.

Please continue to take care and keep in touch. I look forward to communicating with you.

Peace and progress,

Cat Cutcher

*******************************

KENYA AND U.S. ELECTIONS: DANGER AND OPPORTUNITY

Kofi Annan has taught Kenyans that the Chinese word for “conflict” includes both “danger” and “opportunity.”

Kenya has experienced the worst conflict in its 45 years of independence after the announcement of the results of the presidential election on December 30, 2007.

Many lessons can be learned from Kenya about both the limits to and potential for democracy. They also point to the importance of diplomacy and peacemaking to diffuse violence and war.

Two months of violence and instability have the potential to either make or break this East African nation. While revealing the deep divisions in Kenyan society, they have also demonstrated the deep connections between Kenya and the international community, especially the United States.

ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT

Prior to December 30, the 2007 election represented the most free, fair and open election in Kenya’s history. The political campaigns were conducted in a climate of open debate and a free press that covered all of the political parties and candidates. Thousands of new voters were registered, including an unprecedented number of women and youth. International election observers flocked to the country and thousands of local volunteers signed up to assist in the electoral process. While there was some violence leading up to the elections, it tended to be isolated in the rural communities of the Rift Valley and Mt. Elgon. Many Kenyans believed that the 2007 elections would demonstrate that Kenya’s democracy had matured in an open and inclusive political climate.

However, everything changed after Kenyans went to the polls on December 27. There were widespread reports of disenfranchisement of voters, stuffing of ballot boxes, and violence at the polls. Opposition leader Raila Odinga appeared to be leading in the tallying of votes in the presidential election for several days, and six of the eight provinces declared him as the winner. . However, the results that were counted at the local and provincial levels were different than the results announced at the national tallying led by the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), which was appointed by the incumbent President. ECK Chairman Samuel Kivuitu announced in Nairobi on Dec. 30 that incumbent President Mwai Kibaki was the winner after receiving the majority of the popular votes. Kibaki was quickly sworn in as the President in a private ceremony in State House.

Since December 30, Kenya has been engulfed in waves of violence and destruction. Over 1,000 people have died and an estimated 600,000 people are internally displaced throughout Kenya. Rapes, mutilation, torture, and other forms of violence have left deep scars, trauma and divisions in society. Human rights have been violated and anxiety and fear have become commonplace. Ethnic tensions are on the rise, as the political crisis amplified deep differences and suspicions between different ethnic communities. The economy has been affected, with thousands of businesses destroyed, jobs lost, and livelihoods threatened.

During the past two months, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan led an impressive and difficult task of bringing the two parties to the table to negotiate a political settlement. Hundreds of international visitors, journalists and mediators have flocked to Kenya. The list of VIPs has included a host of leaders, including South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Ghanaian President John Kufuor, former Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa, former South African first lady Graca Machel, current Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, and current Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also visited Kenya to send a strong message of friendship and an insistence on peace and power-sharing on behalf of the United States.

The Kenyan negotiators from the two political parties had a long list of issues to address, and it was difficult to compromise on some of the key issues, such as the creation of a Prime Minister position for the opposition leadership. At one point the discussions reached a stalemate. The government Party of National Unity (PNU) insisted that the current constitution should be respected, while the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) insisted that the constitution no longer reflected the desires or realities of current Kenyans. In the last week of February, ODM started to threaten that they would call for mass actions and demonstrations again if progress was not made.

On Feb. 28, the peace process reached a climactic turn of events as President Mwai Kibaki and ODM leader Raila Odinga signed a peace agreement to share power between the two parties and to reform the constitution. The whole country seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief and Kenyans danced in the streets with hope for peace to return.

However, as an African proverb warns, “When the elephants fight, the grass suffers.” The conflict between the two political parties is just the tip of the iceberg. Many Kenyans believe that the real work has yet to begin. The elite deal of power-sharing between Raila and Kibaki is just a step toward a government that will be accountable to the millions of people left in poverty and suffering in the wake of a divisive election, and years of historical injustice. A great deal of work remains to heal the country from the recent devastation and violence, and to address issues of social and economic justice.

To ensure that Kenya remains united, the deep divisions of ethnicity, race, religion, gender, language, age and class remain to be addressed. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai states, Kenya is a nation comprised of many “micro-nationalities,” and tension often leads to an assertion of these ethnic identities and languages.

Of particular importance is the issue of land, as communities have been shifted over centuries of migration, colonial rule, ethnic cleansing, cattle raiding, and urbanization. As the displaced are resettled, care must be taken to ensure that they are not sent to areas where they will be again vulnerable to attacks, or encroaching on other people’s land. The issue of land distribution is critical as the country considers where the internally displaced people will be resettled. Discussions of economic justice reveal the deep privileges and disadvantages inherent in land ownership throughout the nation.

INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY

The international pressure on Kenya over the past two months has been staggering. The international community showed the best of its abilities in diplomacy and peacemaking. It has also revealed Kenya’s importance in regional stability for East Africa, its leadership on the African continent, and its strategic position as an ally in the “War on Terror.”

The peace process has been a delicate balancing act between helping to find a “Kenyan solution” and insisting on real change. The involvement of the international community has revealed many double standards, and the tension between respecting the sovereignty of the nation-state while also putting pressure on the government to recognize Kenya’s importance in global politics.

Kofi Annan assured Kenyans that the international community was not here to ‘impose’ a solution but rather to ‘insist’ upon one. The diplomatic efforts have called into question the reality of post-colonial (or neo-colonial) international relations. While Kenyans are deeply grateful to the international community for stepping in to negotiate, some are suspicious of the intentions and the results of this deal. Indeed, the very role of the international community in conflict resolution has been deeply examined, and the unequal power between nations has been revealed.

What pressure is appropriate for other nations to use in expressing solidarity or “insisting on” solutions? What role can other nations play when internal divisions make it difficult for countries to develop solutions and create peace? At what point is it appropriate for other nations to step in? And what are the intentions of nations that support peace and power-sharing in Kenya after turning away from war and genocide in other East African nations, such as Rwanda, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo?

The diplomatic corps in Kenya has been active in negotiations, with U.S. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger and British High Commissioner Adam Wood putting pressure on the Kenyan government to admit that the elections were flawed and to create a power-sharing, coalition government.

A number of Kenyan government leaders were suspected of inciting violence or blockading the peace process. They were issued warnings that they would be denied visas to enter the United States. They were told that the ban would be lifted if they would write an essay defending their position and explaining how they were contributing to peace in Kenya.

Martha Karua, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the head of the PNU government’s delegation in the peace process, responded to the ambassadors’ call for power-sharing and denial of visas to Kenyan leaders. She declared that Kenya is a sovereign nation and wanted to remind the ambassadors that they were “low level civil servants” who were just expressing their own opinion but were not eligible to express the policy of their countries. She also reminded other countries that Kenya is “not a colony” and that they should allow the government to solve its own problems. She declared that the opinions of these diplomats were completely “irrelevant.”

When U.S. President George Bush visited Africa recently, he avoided Kenya due to the current violence and alleged corruption of its government, and instead sent U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as an ambassador. Rice sent a strong message of “friendship” that insisted “there must be no violence” and that the two parties must agree on a “power sharing government.” While in Rwanda, Bush warned that the international community must act quickly to prevent genocide and violence in the future. The U.S. warned that unless a power-sharing deal was struck, there would be no “business as usual” between the two countries. The peace deal was settled by Kibaki and Raila shortly after receiving these strong warnings from the United States.

CLOSER TO HOME: US ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRATIZATION

Ironically, the closest example to the electoral problems and alleged corruption in Kenya may be found in the United States. In fact, we have a lot more in common with Kenya than we would like to admit.

When similar concerns about election rigging were raised in the U.S. elections in 2000 and 2004, they were swiftly swept under the rug. Did the Republicans talk about sharing power with the Democrats? Did the international community rush to the aid of the American people whose votes had been stolen? Are U.S. citizens confident that their votes will be counted in 2008?

No, and neither has the U.S. stopped insisting upon democratization abroad, while its citizens keep struggling to defend democracy at home.

In 2000, questions were raised in the U.S. presidential elections in Florida and the closest election in U.S. history. Concerns arose about “hanging chads,” the disenfranchisement of African-American voters, and the biased roles of Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who had been the co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida, and Governor Jeb Bush, the younger brother of George W. Bush. Bush was declared the winner after receiving 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida, out of more than 5.8 million votes cast. In spite of a recount, when Gore and the Democrats took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, the results of the election were decided by judges, not by voters. Protestors flocked to the streets to protest the Bush inauguration, and they were met with rubber bullets, tear gas, police batons, and arrest.

In 2004, the results of the U.S. presidential election were similarly contested, and all eyes shifted to the swing state of Ohio. Again, there was widespread evidence of disenfranchisement of African-American voters in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Absentee and provisional ballots were still uncounted when John Kerry conceded the presidency to George Bush the morning after the election. Voting machines were reportedly “hacked” or pre-programmed to deliver the result of a slim 51% majority for George Bush. These voting machines were created on a government contract by the Diebold Corporation based in Columbus, Ohio, whose CEO is one of Bush’s campaign contributors. Walter O’Dell, the head of the company, told Republicans in a 2003 fund-raising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The final decision about the contract for the voting machines and the final results of Ohio’s elections were directed by one man, former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Like Katherine Harris in 2000, Blackwell was also a Bush supporter and campaigner for the Republican Party. Despite widespread suspicion and evidence of election fraud in Ohio, Bush was declared the winner of the 2004 national election. Again, the second Bush inauguration was met with thousands of protestors in the streets of Washington, who were kept out by metal fencing barriers and an army of police.

Given, following the contested U.S. elections in 2000 and 2004, we did not see the extent of the violence that erupted in Kenya, or the massive displacement of American citizens from their homes. Indeed, the majority of the American people seem too comfortable and too unwilling to give up their privileges and their property to engage in oppositional politics.

The opposition movement in the U.S. may be gaining momentum, but it has not the organization or the militancy which was witnessed in Kenya. Over the past eight years, the American Left has become galvanized in its opposition to the Bush Administration, and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war protests were organized before the wars even started, and have continued to gain momentum as the wars drag on and as U.S. soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians die by the thousands. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens have gathered to protest the Bush administration’s policies, but the fear of the police and the power of our institutions are overwhelming to the majority of U.S. citizens. Moreover, a deep disconnection and mistrust has grown between the U.S. anti-war opposition activists and the formal opposition of the Democratic Party.

For the majority of Kenyans living on less than a dollar a day, many felt they had nothing to lose and everything to gain from engaging in mass action and demonstrations. They have also been joined by a large contingent of militant, unemployed and frustrated youths who are increasingly tempted to engage in crime and violence.

The dynamics of these two countries’ elections are all the more intriguing in 2008. Barack Obama is rising as the favored candidate of the Democrats and activists in the U.S. presidential race. Obama would be the nation’s first African-American president. Coincidentally, Obama is Kenya’s prodigal son, the child of a Kenyan man and a European-American woman.

Obama was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and has traveled extensively around the world. A photo of Obama was recently circulated in the U.S. media that was taken during his visit to Wajir, in the Northeast Province of Kenya. He was dressed in a turban and wrapped in the traditional garb of a Somali elder, a sign of respect and reverence for important visitors. This photo was used on the front page of the New York Post with the headline “Bum Wrap.” The photo was cynically used to scare Americans into thinking that Obama is an Arab or Muslim sympathizer. A recent interview with the Somali-Kenyan man who dressed Obama in this outfit revealed that he did so out of deep respect for the potential U.S. President and a beloved son of Kenya.

According to his supporters, Obama is articulate, inspiring, highly educated, and has the potential to unite the U.S. across our divisions of race, class, religion, gender, and politics. He also has the ability to reach out to nations around the world in friendship and solidarity, and improving the image of the United States as a partner with other nations in global leadership. Unlike his competitors, Obama is the only candidate who has consistently voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a statesman and a global thinker who has supported international diplomacy and peacemaking over war and violence.

The Kenyan press has been eagerly reporting the Democratic primary elections in the U.S., with a keen eye on Obama. A recent political cartoon in the Daily Nation depicted many Kenyans’ wishes to vote for Obama in the 2008 U.S. elections. The election of Obama is the dream of thousands of Americans and Kenyans who are seeking real change and a peaceful and respectful form of diplomacy between the U.S., Kenya and other nations.

Kenyans and Americans are joined today in friendship and in our hopes and struggles for democracy. Elections present both the danger and opportunity of democracy. We can all hope that the 2008 U.S. elections will be peaceful, free and fair. We owe it to Kenya and the rest of the world to truly practice what we preach.

*** Catherine Cutcher is a U.S. Fulbright Student in Kenya and a Ph.D. Candidate in Cultural Studies in Education at Ohio University. She is currently engaged in dissertation research on the Kenyan women’s movement.****