 |
|
In Kenya, a key role for foreign observers
International observers have been criticized for doing too little – and too much – in the wake of Kenya's flawed Dec. 27 vote, which touched off a wave of ethnic killings.
By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitorfrom the January 7, 2008 edition
Page 1 of 2
Nairobi, Kenya - If ever there were a vote where foreign election observers made an immediate and significant difference, it was Kenya's Dec. 27 presidential election.
But in a vote as tightly contested as Kenya's, any allegations by the hundreds of unpaid international volunteers who fanned out across the country to watch for fraud, vote tampering, or intimidation can make a huge difference in the outcome – and have explosive consequences.
Given the ethnic violence that engulfed much of Kenya in the wake of the disputed vote, some experts are suggesting that foreign election observers overstepped their role by proclaiming doubts about the process before the final tally was announced by Kenya's electoral authorities. Others say the observers didn't go far enough in their condemnation of alleged irregularities.
"We are always mindful to stick to the narrow mandate, and comment only on the election process," says Alexander Lambsdorff, the chief election observer for the European Union (EU). "I want the facts to speak for themselves."
Narrow mandate or not, Mr. Lambsdorff issued strong comments about the flawed process of the Dec. 27 vote, noting irregularities such as differences of vote counts reported at polling stations and those reported by the Election Commission and EU polling observers being refused the right to view vote counts at certain polling stations.
Lambsdorff stopped short of calling the Kenyan vote "rigged," but he has said he has "doubts" about the final result that declared incumbent President Mwai Kibaki the winner.
Observer comments spur action?
It is comments like these that have forced Kenya's election officials to disavow the election results, thus undermining the legitimacy of Mr. Kibaki, and forcing the country's leaders to consider the unthinkable: negotiations.
"Both sides stole these elections," says Wafula Okumu, a political observer in Nairobi, and head of the African security analysis program for the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa.
"What gives me concern is that the way the election observers reported their findings may have exacerbated the problem, because they appeared to portray one side's concern," he says. "If Kenyans had known that both sides were culpable, that could have eased the tensions."
Over the weekend, Raila Odinga, the populist opposition leader who narrowly lost the disputed vote, called for more rallies across the country, but also indicated he was willing to share power with the government he accuses of stealing the election.
Mr. Odinga rejected Kibaki's offer of a "unity government" but said he was willing to consider a power-sharing agreement guaranteed by the international community.
Still, his call for protests on Tuesday – despite a government ban imposed during the unrest – is sparking concerns of fresh violence.
That Kenya's elections were flawed, by now, has become common knowledge. Even the head of the Election Commission of Kenya admitted last week that he had been put under pressure by Kibaki's ruling party, the PNU.
RSS feed
