Five years ago, after a landslide victory put Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki in power, a vast crowd gathered in Nairobi's Uhuru Park to hear their new president vow to purge corruption.
The departing president's convoy was pelted with mud and former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi was jeered with cries of "thief" by Kenyans who had triumphantly flexed their electoral muscles. Some called it their "second liberation."
Two years ago, Kenya's voters demonstrated their independence once again, by giving Kibaki a bloody nose in a referendum to extend his powers.
The tragedy of Kenya's elections last year is that it nearly completed the revolution that began in 2002. A relatively youthful opposition, which cut across ethnic lines, was sweeping the board -- and the political victims included men like David Mwiraria, who was implicated in corruption, Nicholas Biwott, one of Moi's most feared allies and the former president's son, Gideon Moi.
There was talk of elderly hippos being overtaken by young cheetahs. It smelled like a new era.
Instead, it appears that a government caught napping by a groundswell of opposition support has tried to interfere with the result at the last minute. There are parallels across Africa.
In Ethiopia in 2005 the opposition made dramatic gains, but was denied power amid claims that the vote was tampered with after the polls had closed. Similarly, Nigeria's elections last year were criticized for large-scale rigging.
There is speculation in Kenya that the ruling party may have sought to manipulate the electoral commission before the poll, but reports by election monitors point to meddling with the vote tallying. Kenya has set the worst of examples.
The violence is even more dismaying. The government's claim that it is "well-planned, financed and rehearsed" by the opposition was exaggerated. Kenya is not Rwanda, and this is no orchestrated genocide. But there may be a grain of truth in the claim that the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has a role in the bloodshed.
Kenya, in common with many impoverished developing world countries, has plenty of young thugs available for hire.
David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at St. Antony's College, Oxford, said: "The ODM is causing as many fires to break out in as many places as possible so the government is kept on the run and forced to come to the negotiating table. Raila [Odinga] is saying he doesn't want violence. That may be true in his heart -- but not in his head."
Kenya's future lies with two men who were once allies. In 2002, Odinga, now opposition leader, helped Kibaki win. By 2005, he led a Cabinet rebellion against Kibaki, quitting power to call for a vote of "no" in the referendum.
Odinga ostensibly quit on a point of principle, but he was also frustrated at his lack of influence in government and felt he had been cheated. That history makes it unlikely that he will gladly seek a compromise now.
Kibaki unquestionably has a fine mind. He was top of his class at Uganda's respected Makerere University and a scholarship student at the London School of Economics. He was in a car accident and suffered a stroke on the eve of the 2002 election, forcing him to slow down. His skillful grassroots campaigning in the run-up to this election has tempered his aloof image, but he remains a distant president, even compared with the autocratic Moi.
Now 76, his style of government has been to surround himself with a trusted cabal. Some believe this clique is now egging him on.
Tom Cargill, Africa program manager at Chatham House, the international think tank in London, said: "The big problem is that Kibaki is being pushed more than he's pushing. On the other hand Odinga is getting old and knows this is his last shot. He feels outraged -- he thought he had it."
Five years ago, Kibaki was inaugurated as president in the park where Prince Philip handed power to Jomo Kenyatta in 1963, ceremonially ending British rule. After this election result, Odinga called for a million people to march on the same park on Thursday. A massive police presence kept protesters out of the center of Nairobi and prevented the gathering, but opposition leaders have said the protests will continue. Unless a compromise is reached, Uhuru Park could see blood and tears replace the joy of 2002.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS