The Kenyan capital Nairobi. Credit: UN-Habitat/ /Julius Mwelu

By Gabriel Odima
MINNESOTA, USA, Mar 27 2023 (IPS)

The dark road to democracy began with the manner in which the Kenyan Presidential election of August 2022 was handled. Today, the Church in Kenya is calling for dialogue between the ruling regime and the opposition. The issue here is not about dialogue, but the legitimacy of the President William Ruto. The situation in Kenya reminds me of a similar situation in Rwanda in early 90s.

In 1994, the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation and Africa Council of Churches sent a combined mission to Rwanda. The mission’s findings reported that ” the churches in Rwanda have been discredited by aligning themselves far too much with the former Hutu dominated regime and its tribal politics”.

According to the report, one member of the mission stated, ” In every conversation we had with the government and the church people alike, the point was brought home to us that the church itself stands tainted not by passive indifference but errors of commission as well”. Unfortunately, the church in Kenya today is aligning themselves with the ruling regime.

The Kenyan Tragedy

Seven months after Presidential election in Kenya, every organization, institution and government which had kept silent as if the Kenyan Presidential election were free and fair began to speak. The current crisis in Kenyan could have been prevented.

The attitude adopted by African Union (AU), the international community, governments, international press and human rights organizations after last year’s presidential election made the current situation in Kenya inevitable. In a democracy, except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her rights to assemble freely and associate with other persons or to impart ideas.

The Kenyan regime has to come to terms with this realty.

In the 21st century, the forces against the development and sustenance of democracy and the enjoyment of human rights by the citizens of Africa are strong and powerful. A political map of Africa to show states ruled by the gun and states ruled by the ballot, if made, will show only a handful of the latter. Such map will not. however, show the real human tragedy which the gunmen and their supporters and apologists have wrought the African peoples.

In Africa, oppressive regimes, and most of those regimes are illegitimate like the case of Kenya today, is the driving force of conflict. The use of the gun like the current situation in Kenya today is only a short- term remedy and also creates a chain reaction to the problem.

Promoting democracy in Africa does not only serve moral interests of the United States of America but it helps to prevent war, reduce the influx of refugees. Preventing wars in Africa and creating a peaceful democratic society is cheaper than fighting wars.

When General MacArthur conquered Japan, he wrote a new constitution for the people of Japan. This constitution became the pillar of Japanese democracy. The United States and other nations of Western Europe helped Japan build its economy.

Today, Japan is the leading economic power house in Asia. If this worked for Japan, a nation without natural resources, how about Africa with abundant natural resources? General MacArthur did not do it alone, but it took the commitment on part of the Japanese people to rebuild their nation.

In the case of Kenyan’s current crisis, it is important to address the issue Hon. Raila Odinga has raised about the server to bring transparency in the election process. Kenyan people need to address the issue of accountability, corruption and transparency.

The policy makers in Washington should revive an effective policy that will enforce political reforms and curb electoral malpractices across Africa. Overhaul bilateral relationships with individual countries and attached conditions to U.S. foreign aid.

Such conditions should include human rights violations, political reforms, electoral reforms, accountability, good governance and transparency. Washington should emphasize respect of territorial integrity of each nation. No country in Africa should have the power to invade another country for selfish interests. A civilized nation cannot engage in military coups, rebel activities, political assassinations and massive human rights violations.

The United States has a responsibility to promote democracy and good governance across the continent of Africa. For any democracy to develop and mature there should be accountability, transparency and an effective constitution which reflects the will of the people and allows political freedom such as (a) Freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media. (b) Freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition. (c) Freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organizations.

Rev. Gabriel Odima is President & Director of Political Affairs, Africa Center for Peace & Democracy, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 USA
E-mail: africacenterpd@aol.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A two-day forum in Nakuru brought together a host of state and non-state actors, who collectively, were mandated to ensure Kenya’s elections will be safe and free from violence. Credit: UN Women/Luke Horswell, January 2022

By Gabriel Odima
MINNESOTA, USA, Aug 22 2022 (IPS)

Once again, Kenya finds itself at a crossroads. The current events in Kenya illustrate how and why electoral malpractices and not democracy and human rights are the leading form of governance in Africa.

A large number of leaders in Africa, both temporal and spiritual, are not strongly committed to constitutional rule. Every time there is electoral malpractices, especially in Kenya, there are always politicians eager and willing to give homage to a fraud in exchange for appointments to offices.

What appears to be the hidden agenda is beginning to emerge in Kenya. The very sad events in Kenya have some similarities and connections with the events in the neighboring Uganda.

There is much blanket talk about peaceful transition of power in Kenya without addressing the Elephant in the room (the electoral fraud). The Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga former Prime Minister of Kenya has rejected the outcome of the Presidential election.

The fact that four Commissioners have come out and exposed the fraud at the IBEC, the body that is charged with conducting elections in Kenya is a smoking gun. Any attempt by the international community, international media and African governments to offer legitimacy to the Deputy President William Ruto before the Kenyan Supreme Court settles the matter is premature and a dangerous move for the country.

The current situation in Kenya reminds me of what happened in Nigeria. The scourge of democracy in Africa soon came into scene. The candidate who should have been sworn in as president, Mr. Masudi Abiola, was sent to jail by the military and died there on charges of treason simply for claiming victory in election which many in Nigeria believed Mr. Abiola had won. Former president Obasanjo, was among several politicians who were thrown in jail for questioning the electoral fraud.

Kenya should stand as a lighthouse for democracy in Africa. Many scholars argue that democracy is not the answer to Africa’s problems. To a certain degree, I agree with such statements that democracy alone cannot guarantee African nations’ happiness, prosperity, health and peace and stability.

In fact, modern democracies also suffer greatly from many defects. But in spite of the flaws, we must never lose sight of the benefits that makes democracy more desirable than fraudulent elections.

As for the assertion that Dr. William Ruto won the presidential election “itself stands tainted” the reality of the electoral malpractices is now known in its essence, namely that the Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga former Prime Minister of Kenya has rejected the results of the Presidential elections 2022.

The contradiction in the presidential results of 2022 demonstrates the misery of Kenyan electoral body (IEBC). This action by the electoral body (IEBC) not only haunts the establishment of democracy, but also creates a hostile environment which can lead to political instability and bloodbaths in Kenya.

There is a policy move to anoint Dr. William Ruto as President-elect in the Republic of Kenya. Such policy will fail the people of Kenya in their search for harmony among themselves should it accept the current presidential results as the sole voice of the people of Kenya.

To do so would be to flout international law, to ordain the electoral fraud, or exempt and favor those who messed up the presidential results with their mentors and collaborators.

The cause of democracy and the enjoyment by the citizens of human rights and freedoms have and will continue to suffer so long as the international community gives support and credibility to electoral fraud across Africa.

The commitment of indigenous African peoples to protect their interests in peace and through political parties has been impressive and must stand as a leading pillar and vehicle in any endeavor for transformation in Africa towards political development.

The first African political party to be formed in Africa south of the Sahara was the African National Congress (ANC). It was formed in 1912. Just as the Africans had pinpointed, then confronted, the inequities of the apartheid system of governance through their political parties, these inequities later became the concern of the international community.

In South Africa, the ANC (having been banned, its leaders imprisoned, killed and scattered in exile), was able, within a very short time after disbandment to assert itself as the voice of the oppressed and win handsomely the first non-racial multiparty elections in South Africa in 1994.

In agreeing to form a government of national unity, the ANC became a vehicle for transformation towards a milieu of unity, peace, stability and democracy in South Africa.

Finally, between the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa, Kenya has been and continues to be an island of peace, despite the challenges facing democracy in terms of electoral malpractices in Kenya.

Rev. Gabriel Odima is President & Director of Political Affairs, Africa Center for Peace & Democracy, Minnesota, USA

E-mail: africacenterpd@aol.com

IPS UN Bureau

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in 2015. Credit: UN Photo/Isaac Billy.

By Gabriel Odima
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Sep 27 2016 (IPS)

Uganda has and continues to play a major role in fueling the conflict in South Sudan. The recent events in South Sudan have brought that moral challenge into a very sharp focus.

The banishment of democracy from and suppression of the human rights of the citizens in South Sudan have persisted for the last five years since the birth of the nation. What appeared to be a hidden agenda is beginning to emerge in South Sudan.

These sad events in South Sudan have some similarities with events in Uganda. In 1981 thirty five years ago and fifteen days after elections in Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni plunged Uganda – where peace had returned following the fall of Idi Amin – to war. Museveni launched the war in what became known as the Luwero Triangle, a district adjacent to and north of Kampala, the capital of Uganda.

The war was a direct attack on democracy. It made the policy and work of the newly elected government in healing and reconciliation, development, rehabilitation, and transformation towards a culture of peace extremely difficult.

Like the case of South Sudan, the international community turned a blind eye. The continued support of Museveni’s rule in Uganda for the last 30 years raises very serious concern regarding the implications of U.S. foreign policy in Africa. The circumstance in which Museveni launched his war against the constitution and people in February 1981 exposed most clearly that he is a man of violent disposition who has a thirst for power in its most naked and atavistic form. Single handed, Museveni has exported this violent approach to South Sudan.  Indeed, all the subsequent wars which he waged in Luwero, Northern Uganda, Eastern Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo and South Sudan were totally unnecessary and cannot be justified.

During the Luwero war, Museveni and his army exhibited a very high degree of a most ignoble mendacity- not only as a war exigency but also as a means to conceal their crimes against humanity. They would, for instance, attack a village posing as government troops, cause much havoc, including massacres, and then on cue, the aggressors would hurriedly depart from the scene only for second unit of Museveni’s army to conveniently arrive to rescue the village from”government troops”. The second unit using a combination of persuasion and coercion would then cause the exodus of the villages to fortresses under the control of the insurgents after ransacking and destroying much of and in the village. The ignoble mendacity in the fact that at the time those atrocities were committed by Museveni’s army, road, foot paths and even  cattle tracks had been heavily manned by them and government troops were nowhere in the interior of Luwero District or in the village.

It became routine and an article of faith in Museveni’s subsequent wars in Northern Uganda, East, West Uganda, as well as in Rwanda, DR Congo and South Sudan, for atrocities committed by his army to be credited to his victims.

Those who are in the position to help the people of South Sudan to find and form a basis for harmony and rebuilding of South Sudan carry a very heavy burden and responsibility.

The Ugandan military regime, right from its installation in 1986 by the gun and bloodshed, has consistently, arrogantly and cynically suppressed and never permitted the citizens and their organized political parties to enjoy the freedom to hold opinions on political or public matters except the opinion of the regime. The fact that never, in the past, had the people of Uganda known so much death, oppression and repression as under the present military regime has been and is still being strenuously concealed by world leaders.

The cause of Democracy and the enjoyment by the citizens of human rights and freedoms have suffered in Uganda and South Sudan and will continue to suffer so long as politicians, church leaders and foreign governments and media give support and credibility to oppressive and repressive regimes established by the gun. The support and the credibility sometimes give the impression that the givers have removed the victims, that is, the oppressed citizens from the human race.

The general trend has been in many African countries for the Church leadership, politicians, the media and the international community to turn a blind eye on the atrocities in Uganda and South Sudan.

There are several reasons for the silence of these groups on democracy and observance of human rights in Uganda and South Sudan. Two of them stands out. The first is the tendency of both the spiritual and laity Christian leaders in a country faced with a difficult political or economic situation to accept wittingly or unwittingly a regime established by the gun and bloodshed. The second is the powerful influence of external forces namely, foreign governments, international media and human rights organizations when they give support and accolades to regimes established by the gun and bloodshed.

In 1971, the international media uniformly described Idi Amin repeatedly and for a whole year as “the gentle giant”. The evidence of massacres and terror by Amin’s soldiers was of no interest to the media until much later. Foreign governments also showed no interest in the evidence and Amnesty International, for instance, never reported even once throughout Amin’s rule of over eight years on the observance of human rights in Uganda.

In the case of South Sudan and Uganda, for instance, the military regime waged vicious wars to hold on to power and to ignore the lives of their citizens. There will be no peace in South Sudan as long as President Museveni of Uganda continues to play a role in fueling the conflict there.

The promotion and development of democracy and its attendant enjoyment of human rights by the citizen is under attack in Uganda and South Sudan not only by those holding the guns but also by the donors who provide funds indiscriminately. The donors know that no military regime in Africa, from Kampala through Juba is accountable to the people but still credit such regimes with accountability.

It is amazing and foreboding of hard and evil days ahead for Africa that although for the past 50 years, African countries have been largely ruled either by military dictators or single parties, opinions in the donor countries which have been in recent years strongly against single party rule are now shifting towards and in favor of military rule and against multiparty rule.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IPS’s editorial policy.

Excerpt: