Eyes on Kenya

Many articles in the Kenyan “blogosphere” (see chart below), local and international media have been written about the post-election crisis. The numbers reach into their thousands. This article tries to give an overview about good articles with background information on Kenya and the current political crisis. It is just a selection and we are sure that we may have missed many good ones. It is just the beginning and we will try to keep it updated, so if you see any good ones that would fit into this page, please use the comment function to add them.

(Topics in alphabetical order)

Constitution

The Draft Constitution of Kenya, known as the Boma’s draft, was adopted by the National Constitutional Conference on 15th of march 2004.

Economy
“The potential impact of economic sanctions on the Kenyan government” takes a closer look at the Kenyan economy and delivers useful statistics and numbers.

The Reuter’s fact box gives an overview about the “Aid to Kenya”, the CIA fact book delivers more economic figures.

“Eyes on the World Bank and Kibaki’s economy” takes a closer look at the economic program of Kibaki’s government and at the World Bank’s interest in Kenya.

Ethnic Violence

Antony Otieno Ong’ayo, a researcher at the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, gives “An overview of the underlying factors” of “The Post-election Violence in Kenya” at Pambazuka News. It is detailed and gives a great historic overview as well .

“Unearthing of the sources of tribal disagreements and ethno-politics in Kenya” takes a closer look at the historic background of tribalism in Kenya.

The US biased NGO Human Rights Watch published a report about the involvement of opposition politicians in the preparation of the Rift valley violence. “Kenya: Opposition Officials Helped Plan Rift Valley Violence” was published on January 24th 2008.

Health
The article “The effect of the Kenyan crisis on Kenya’s health system” tries to summarize the struggles to keep up the Kenyan health system in this time of crisis. It also refers to an article by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs IRIN “KENYA: Healthcare threatened by political crisis”

International Medical Corps addresses the issue “Risk of Long-Term Food Insecurity and Malnutrition” in Kenya.

Land distribution

The Africa Policy Institute published a report by Horace Njuguna Gisemba named “The Lie of the land: Evictions and Kenya’s crisis”. It takes a closer look at the history of land distribution and ownership in the Rift valley and disputes the often heard argument of “land distribution” as the underlying cause for the killings. It is controversally discussed at the Kenya imagine.

Media

Reuter’s alertnet posted an article by Joanne Tomkinson called “MEDIAWATCH: Kenyan media inciting ethnic hatred” on Februray 7th 2008. It deals with the local radio stations promoting ethnic hatred.

Humanitarian news and analysis (IRIN) also writes about “Spreading the word of hate” .

John Barbieri, an independent reporter and the founder of the US Coalition for Peace with Truth and Justice in Kenya writes about the “The poverty of international journalism”.

Simiyu Barasa, a member of the Coalition of Concerned Kenyan Writers, wrote an essay on “War journalism: Kenya’s newest tourist attraction” on the kwani blog. Barasa picks up the concept of “peace journalism” by the Norwegian Scholar John Galtun and shows how the local media tries to use their influence to promote peace and fails due to an international “war journalism”. He gives examples how cameras create stories and that media attention is only drawn by violence. This is done by the very same media cooperation which thought it was their responsibility not to show any cruel pictures after 9/11 and during the Iraq war.

The Foreign Correspondents’ Association of East Africa (FCAEA) strongly condemned the violation of press freedoms and intimidation of journalists on January 19t.

Political Parties
The Mukoma Wa Ngugi analysis on the differences within the Orange Democratic Movement and the different political approaches by its leaders. “Understanding the Kenyan Opposition” brings to light the differences between the activist-intellectual left, the Moi-ist retrogressives, and the populists within the party.

“Eyes on Kenyan Political Parties: A call for change” looks at the historic background of Kenya’s Parties and the lack of their political profiles.

In the publication “Political Succession in East Africa – In Search for a Limited Leadership” by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Dr. Katumanga Musambayi wrote the chapter: “After the floods – The Rainbow: Contextualising NARC’s election victory – Lessons learnt and the challenges ahead”. It was published in 2006 and gives an overview about the prior election in 2002.

Power-sharing

The full text of the power-sharing deal was signed by Kibaki and Odinga on February 28th 2008.

Religion
Despite the fact that the different religious communities play an important role in Kenya's society, we have not found any deeper analysis on the role of the churches to promote peace and their role in finding a conflict solution.

United States of America

Here we are still looking for a good article, that analyses the change in the US policies towards the Kibaki government.

Our early analysis on the “The role of the US Department of State in the aftermath of Kenyan Election” sees a change in US policies as the results of a learning process due to the mistakes made in the 2005 Ethiopian election.

Patrick Mutahi asks the Question”What is America's stake in this?” and explains their interest according to their “war on terror” policies.

Women's rights
The “Women’s Memorandum to the Mediation Team” was published on Pambazuka News. It was written by the “Kenyan Women's Consultation Group on the Current Crisis in Kenya” a group of women from various backgrounds who met to discuss a solution to the crisis. Among other important points it stresses the importance of women participation in the finding of conflict solutions adhereing to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325.

"Violence and women in Kenya" portraits the Kenyans Prof. Wangari Maathai, Dekha Ibrahim Abdi and Gladwell Otieno and takes a closer look at violence against female candidates in the pre-election period.

Again: If you know other background articles on the current situation in Kenya, please use the comment function or the "Contact Page" to add them. If you leave a comment you have the option to be notified for any further comments.

Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga had a surprise visitor this week — a high-ranking politician from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition.

Gernot Erler, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, was secretly flown into Kenya at the request of Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General who is mediating between Kenya’s warring factions to resolve a crisis sparked by Kibaki’s disputed re-election last December.

Annan had turned to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to ask for an expert to assist in talks between Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU) and Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). Steinmeier entrusted the job to Erler.

Gernod Erler

Erler’s task was to explain the workings of Merkel’s grand coalition between her center-right Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, of which the minister is a member.

My visit was a surprise to all,” Erler told German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung on the last day of his mission. “But then everyone was really interested and had a lot of questions.”

Erler said his job was to explain the complicated arithmetic underlying the power-sharing model in Germany and how such a consensus-based system worked. Germany’s grand coalition came into being after federal elections in 2005, ending two months of political uncertainty after Merkel’s conservatives won a wafer-thin majority.

“My job was to present the model so that the Kenyans can see if a similar system could work for them,” Erler said. The minister had also brought along an English version of Germany’s coalition agreement with him so that the Kenyans could spend time studying it.

The German Coalition

Of course, it is hard to find similarities between the Kenyan crisis today and the post election situation in Germany in 2005. With more than 1000 lost lives lost and more than 300.000 displaced persons, the gaps to over come are tremendous.

Still, in order to look for a conflict solution it is worth to look at the concept of a “grand coalition”, when it makes sense to and whether it lasts.

A “grand coalition” is usually not the preferred model in a parliamentary democracy. The only exception for many years is the oldest democracy in the world: Switzerland. Here, government positions were distributed according to the seats in the Parliament. It worked because of a unique democratic culture, in which the will of power-sharing and consensus decisions are high valued. The position of the head of government was rotated among the ministers. The system worked only as long as Politicians respected certain rules and it failed when the eccentric right wing populist billionaire Blocher broke the political consensus by campaigning with a brutal anti-Immigrants campaign. He crossed the line and forced the other Parties to unite against him. It showed how much the system was depending on the acceptance of democratic rules by Politicians.

The 2005 German general election ended up in a Parliamentary “deadlock” situation. The ruling coalition of chancellor Schröder’s SPD and the Grüne Party lost their majority. But Merkel’s CDU/CSU did not reach more than 50% together with their preferred partner FDP. The 614 seats of Parliament were distributed as follows: SPD 222, CDU 180, CSU 46, Grüne 51, FDP 61 and the Linke 54.

Right after the election both Merkel and Schröder claimed to have the mandate to form the government. Schröder claimed to be the head of the biggest Party in Parliament. Since CDU and CSU are partners, Merkel had was head of the biggest Party group (The CSU is a Bavarian tribalist version of the CDU).

The preliminary condition for the German grand coalition to work was that one had to step down from this position. It was for sure that chancellor Schröder would not take any other position in the government than that of Chancellor and the CDU/CSU would have never accepted a non CDU/CSU chancellor. In order to start negotiations SPD had to call upon Schröder to resign.

Another factor was Angela Merkel. She was much more accepted by the SPD as a chancellor of grand coalition than some other CDU/CSU politicians. Edmund Stoiber, who ran in the previous election for CDU/CSU would have not been accepted by the SPD.

“It is a Grand Coaltion, if it does not move in any direction .” (c) suika

Both Parties are currently not happy about the situation. Every controversial issue, every local election becomes a test how much the coalition can take. Even though the government has a comfortable majority in both Parliament houses, great changes have not been made and issues like the reform of the health system have not been toughed. Both partners announced they do not want to continue the coalition after the next general election.

A German like “grand coalition” is not a good solution, but sometimes may be the only possibility. It works only if both partners step down from radical positions and verbal attacks. It cannot be a solution for a long period and most important is that the crucial changes are made immediately.

One lesson might be learned from another German “grand coalition”. In 1968 protest grew against the SPD/CDU/CSU coalition and ended up in a the formation of the “Out of Parliament opposition” and the growth of a political civil society. This is something that might help the Kenyan political development as well.

Amnesty International urges Kenya’s leaders to ensure the human rights of Kenyan people are protected.

An international day of public and online action this month will demonstrate solidarity with the people of Kenya and call on the Kenyan government to protect people from politically-motivated and ethnic violence.

On 27 February, people can show their outrage at the continuing human rights abuses in Kenya in a series of events organised by Amnesty International; including an online Facebook action and a series of street demonstrations.

The disputed election of 27 December 2007 sparked an outbreak of fighting and a series of grave human rights violations. At least 1,000 people have been killed so far, while more than 300,000 have been displaced.

Amnesty International’s recent visit to Kenya found evidence of unlawful killings, the ethnically targeted forced relocation and burning of homes by armed militias, excessive use of force by security officials, sexual violence against women and girls, and violations of freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International has also documented death threats against human rights defenders and activists.

The death toll includes hundreds shot dead by police, who were deployed to quell the post-election violence and break up mass protests against the election called by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) opposition party.

Subsequent violence has seen increasingly organised attacks by ethnic militia and youth gangs against people of Kikuyu ethnicity, which has led to retaliatory attacks by Kikuyu militias and youth gangs.

There is particular concern at the ethnic dimension to the political violence and its possible long-term implications for Kenyan society.

Amnesty International calls on the Kenyan government to protect the people of Kenya, many of whom have endured unrelenting suffering in the last two months. Kenyan leaders must end the cycle of impunity that perpetuates the politically motivated violence in Kenya.

In Berlin, Germany there will be two discussion and information events about the current political crisis in Kenya.

The first one is organized by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, a political foundation associated with the party “die Grünen”. Guests are the journalist Marc Engelhardt (taz, Berliner Zeitung) and Dr. Gero Erdmann from GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Institute of African Affairs, Hamburg.

It will take place at the Heinich Böll foundation, Rosenthaler Str. 40/41, Hackesche Höfe on Februrary 20th 2008. It will be held in German.

The second event will be hosted by the Society for International Development -Berlin Chapter and it will take place at the “Afrika-Haus”. It is supported by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, a political foundation associated with the ruling party CDU. Invited are Ralph-Michael Peters, political expert of the Core team of the EU election observing mission in Kenya 2007 and former member of the GIGA research group “Democratisation and Civil society in Kenya”, Gideon Ochanda Ogolla, Program Officer of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation in Kenya and National Coordinator of the Institute for Civic Affairs and Development – ICAD, Nairobi and Kerstin Müller, MP and State-Secretary of the German foreign ministry. It will be held in English on the 28^th of Februrary 2008.

(more…)

The last part of the article “Eyes on the International Community concerning elections in Africa” about Uganda and the African-EU summit.

The Ugandan general election of 2006 took place on February 23, 2006. This was the first multi-party election since Yoweri Museveni took over power in 1986. Disputes started when Museveni changed the constitution in order to run for another term. His main opponent, the leader of the opposition party Forum for Democratic Change Kizza Besigye, was arrested on November 14, 2005 on allegations of treason and rape. The treason case included his alleged links to the rebel group People’s Redemption Army, whose existence is questionable and the rape charge referred to an incident in November 1997 allegedly involving the daughter of a friend. With only 3 months left before the election, most people believed in a tactical move to dispose a political rival. People protested the arrest, riots broke out and at least one Person was killed by the police (BBC).

Museveni during the election campaign (c) BBC

Nevertheless Kizza Besigye managed to get 37% of the votes, with Museveni winning the election despite getting about 10% less than in the last election. Human Rights Watch said that there were reports of ballot stuffing, multiple voting, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to vote in the Ugandan elections require urgent investigation.

The FDC cited several irregularities in the conduct of the polls, including the deployment of soldiers near voting booths, allegedly to intimidate its supporters. The party also alleged that many FDC supporters had been unable to vote because their names were not included on electoral rolls. EU observers noted problems with the campaign despite improvements in general. In their preliminary report, the observers said there was no “level playing field”, pointing to Dr Besigye’s arrest on charges of treason and rape last year. They also said state-media was biased towards Mr Museveni and his National Resistance Movement. The FDC did not acknowledge the result. Dr. Besigye tried to challenge the results in court but the Uganda’s supreme court rejected it saying there was no evidence that the results had been substantially affected by irregularities. The judges acknowledged that there had been problems but not enough to challenge President Yoweri Museveni’s victory (BBC)

Besigye supporters protest (c) BBC

Despite the criticism on the way Museveni was elected and the manipulation of the constitution to allow him an extra term, no major changes have taken place in the donor’s role and relationship with Uganda. According to a BBC article titled “Museveni: Uganda’s fallen angel“, a Ugandan political commentator Andrew Mwenda had this to say about Dr. Besigye “Besigye’s greatest contribution to this country has been to unmask Museveni and expose his true colours as a militarist who disregards the rule of law and shuns due process.”

It was thus no surprise that Museveni was the first President to acknowledge Kibaki as the President of Kenya. The Ugandan government has offered military help to secure Oil transportation through Kenya and there are never ending rumours that Ugandan soldiers are operating in Kenyan territory.

How should the international Community deal with questionable elections in Africa?

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party, said Western powers were themselves to blame for imposing colonial rule and then Western-style electoral democracy on Africa. “The Western ‘democracy’ transplanted to Africa is unsuited to local conditions and has sowed the seeds of disaster,” said a commentary in the paper. “The election crisis in Kenya is just one typical example. In fact, many African countries’ elections have sparked political turmoil.” (Reuters) China’s position is clear: Do not get involved in/ with some other nation’s policies as long as it is a reliable economic partner (in the Kenyan government’s case, one that gives away national resources without any direct benefits to the Kenyan people). From someone holding up values like human rights or democracy this is totally unacceptable, but at least the Chinese government is honest about it.

Mugabe at the EU summit 2007

How about policies of the Western countries? Since we discussed the US policies in a previous article, let us take a closer look at the éclat at the EU-African summit in Portugal last December. In her key note speech on human rights, German chancellor attacked the Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. With Mugabe listening, Merkel said the world could not stand by while human rights were “trampled underfoot”. “The situation of Zimbabwe is damaging the image of the new Africa.” Two months prior to this, Merkel had welcomed the Dalai Lama into the chancellor’s residency, causing a major upset with her social democratic coalition partner. This is because the Chinese government cancelled talks about improving of trade between Germany and China from the Agenda.

In this case she proved that she puts human rights issues above economic interests, and one can presume that this applied as well in her critique of Mugabe. Her critique provoked some strong reactions, mainly by the Senegales Persident Abdoulaye Wade, by South African President who stated she was “badly informed”. “Who could say”, he asked, “that rights were abused there more than elsewhere in Africa?”.
It would be to easy to dismiss such a reaction as a simple anti-colonial reflex. After all, the European-African summit was mainly about a highly criticized trade agreement which was strongly opposed by some African nations. In this context the Human rights issue can be misunderstood as just another argument to force a Trade Agreement on Africa.

To prevent such a view, the European Union has developed a straight and honest position in contradiction to China’s: That Human Rights weigh more than economic interests. Such a position is not worth the paper it is written on if it does not apply for all nations equally, no matter how economically powerful they are or what natural resources they may have. Let’s not forget that actions speak much louder than words. How much is Angela Merkel’s speech on Human Rights violations in Zimbabwe worth, when on day after the summit French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi finalized business deals worth several billion Euros, selling weapons, planes and a nuclear power plant to Libya, paying ransom for a Palestine medic and some Bulgarian nurses who had been tortured and despite having knowledge of their innocence sentenced to death by the Libyan state?

Read also Part I, II and III

Part 3 of the article takes a closer look at “success” of the 2005 elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

The 2006 “democratic” elections in the DRC were celebrated by the international community as a great success. There was little choice, it had to be a success, because it prooved that you can perform free and fair elections in a country torn apart by a civil war. The UN peacekeeping force (MONUC), which includes 17,000 troops at a cost of roughly $1 billion a year, was the world’s largest and most expensive peacekeeping operation.

The election itself was supported with $460 million by the International Community.

The German army, which is only allowed to operate in foreign territory since the 1990s celebrated their biggest image success back home by offering security during the election in the capitol Kinshasa. The peacekeeping mission was used to quiet down critiques on German military missions, missions which have since then increased in number and intensity.

There is a question of success in the literal meaning of the word. The Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS) led by Étienne Tshisekedi wa Mulumba boycotted the election after they had claimed that their members and supporters were not given a fair opportunity to register for the vote. Étienne Tshisekedi a former Prime minister, who had been a political prisoner under Mobutu and Laurent Kabila had gained popularity enough to challenge Kabila and Bemba. He was also the only candidate with a serious chance, not having been involved in the civil war. The UDPS defined as their main goal- a non-violent change to democratic rule, a goal which they knew had minimal chances of success in this election. Even Catholic leaders in Congo called for a boycott.

The people of Congo therefore had a chance to democratically elect their warlord.

Monitors expressed concern about the election process, including ones from the Carter Center. MONUC reported that on August 3, on the third day of “chaotic poll-counting, a suspicious fire at a major Kinshasa election center deepened concerns over the transparency of the results.” According to MONUC, while the election itself may have met requirements, “the process of collecting results from 50,000 polling stations had become chaotic.”

On August 5, thousands in eastern DRC were fleeing clashes between the DRC army and forces affiliated with General Laurent Nkunda. According to the The Independent, Nkunda, who is “widely believed to be in third place in the race for the DRC’s presidency,” stated that he will respect the results, but along with over 30 other candidates, expressed “determination to resist results which are perceived to be unfair.”

After celebrating their success, the International Community withdraw their election troops and with it the international attention. Bemba fled into exile. The daily mass killings and rapes in Eastern Congo have continued, but have vanished from the headlines of international media. Since the election was termed a success there seems to be little interest in following up the aftermath and consequences.

Part 3 will deal with the elections in Uganda and will summarize conclusions.

Read also Part 1 and Part 2.

The 2005 general elections in Ethiopia showed the ambivalent reactions by the International Community concerning Democratic elections in Africa. Two factors are of importance in understanding the relations between the “Industrial States” and Ethiopia. One is the “geo-strategic” role of Ethiopia at the Horn of Africa. Even though the invasion of Somalia came after the election, it has been the key ally of the US in the region. The second factor is the great involvement of the International community in aid relief. No other African country has received the amount of financial and food aid in the last 25 years than Ethiopia. One might presume that the total dependency on foreign aid of Ethiopia makes it easier for the International community to insist on democratic elections. But some say that the Ethiopian government blackmails the international community. While Ethiopia has enough money to fight several wars at the same time, it can not afford to feed their own people. Applying aid sanctions would essentially mean to directly kill people.

The European Union used their pressure on the Ethiopian government to proceed with fair and free multi-party elections (the third elections in Ethiopia's 3000 year history). The International community expressed its interest in the election by sending observers, including an EU delegation and the independent Carter Center. Fomer US President Jimmy Carter who personally led the team of observers pointed out that the opposition was granted access to the state owned electronic media. Some reports of intimidation and harassment were collected by the Carter Center.

Early results showed the opposition with a big lead, sweeping all of the contested seats in the capital Addis both in the race for parliamentary as well as local government seats. By the afternoon of the 16th of May, the opposition claimed it was halfway towards winning a majority in the national parliament with only about a third of the constituencies reporting complete results. By Late May 16, trailing badly in the preliminary report covering just under 200 seats released by the National Election Board, the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) announced that it had won more than 317 seats out of 547, while conceding that opposition parties won all 23 seats in the capital city Addis Ababa. The two major opposition parties, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) claimed on that same day that they had won 185 of the approximately 200 seats for which the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) had released preliminary results. The CUD lodged complaints in 139 constituencies, the UEDF lodged 89 complaints, while the EPRDF has raised concerns over irregularities in more than 50 seats. Including the complaints lodged by small parties, complaints concerning the results in 299 parliamentary seats were lodged.

By law, the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) was required to announce the official results on June 8. However, the vote tallying process was jeopardized when the opposition claimed that the Addis Ababa vote was rigged and during the evening of May 16, the Prime Minister declared a state of emergency, outlawed any public gathering, assumed direct command of the security forces, and replaced the capital city police with federal police and special forces drawn from elite army units. The NEBE, simultaneously, ordered the vote tallying process to stop, an order which was not rescinded for nearly a week, yet another action against which the opposition and the independent election monitors strongly objected.

On July 8, the NEBE released the first official results for 307 of the 547 national parliamentary seats. Of the 307 seats, the EPRDF had won 139, while CUD and UEDF won 93 and 42, respectively. Smaller parties and independent candidates won the remaining 33 seats. However, Berhanu Nega, vice-chairman of the CUD criticized the process on July 20, claiming that "The investigation process was a complete failure. “Our representatives and witnesses have been harassed, threatened, barred and killed upon their return from the hearings."

On August 9, official results were released, acknowledging that the ruling EPRDF had won 296 of the total 524 seats — about 56 % — enabling it to form a government, while its allied parties won 22 seats. The UEDF won 52 seats. Berhanu said his party, which had officially won 109 seats, was debating whether they would challenge the results in court. Repeat elections were scheduled for August 21 in 31 areas where either irregularities were reported or results were challenged.

Opposition parties decided to boycott the related August 21 elections in the Somali Region. The CUD withdrew 10 of the 17 candidates it was fielding in Somali region, but the Western Somali Democratic Party, the Somali Democratic Alliance Forces and Del Wabe People's Democratic Movement who had planned to field 43 candidates for the Federal Parliamentary Assembly and 273 candidates for the regional parliament in the regional capital of Jijiga, also announced that they would boycott this election.

On September 5, the NEBE released its final results, in which the EPRDF retained its control of the government with 327 seats, or 59 % of the vote. Opposition parties won 174 seats, or 32 % of the vote. The CUD alone won 20 % of the vote.

Protests against the results, led by Coalition for Democracy and Unity, began on November 1, 2005, and prompted more than 60,000 arrests. On October 18, 2006, the draft report of a 10-member public inquiry into election-related unrests was released to Associated Press (AP). It concluded that a total of 199 people (193 civilians and six policemen) were killed and 763 injured. The European Union's chief observer during the elections, Ana Maria Gomes, stated that the draft report "only confirms what we have said in our report on the elections," and "that indeed there were

massive human rights violations."

University students Protesting against the election fraud

According to Amnesty International, opposition party activists, leaders of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), journalists and civil society activists were brought to trial . They faced charges including treason, outrage against the Constitution and other capital charges. The 76 defendants included Hailu Shawel, the CUD president, Berhanu Negga, an economics professor, and Mesfin Woldemariam, a retired geography professor. In addition, 34 prominent Ethiopians in exile were charged in their absence. Five Voice of America radio journalists who were US citizens were among nine defendants discharged before the trial started.

All but three defendants refused to defend themselves on the ground that they did not expect a fair trial. All considered they were prisoners of conscience and sent a trial observer.

In the trial of Kifle Tigeneh, an elected member of parliament 32 other people and some defendants complained in court that they had been tortured to make false confessions. Berhane Mogese, a lawyer, was on trial with 22 others.

Despite the knowledge of election fraud and serious human rights violations the US Department of State immediately acknowledged the results which fuelled the anger of the opposition and led to more violence.

Ethiopia remains one of the main recepient of European aid, despite their tremendous military budget. Some improvements have been made in the development aid sector and it seems that behind the curtain, diplomatic pressure has been used to reduce corruption and improve infrastructure.

The democratic aspect of the election was sacrificed by the International community, at the altar of good partnership and influence in the region.

Hopefully there are some conclusions drawn out of the fiasco and the tremendous loss of credibility by the European Union and the US. The German Prof. Rolf Hofmeier, interprets the US State Departments U-turn towards Kibaki as an acknowledgement of the mistakes made in Ethiopia in 2005.

To read Part I please go to: Eyes on the International Community concerning elections in Africa - Part I: Malawi

Part III will deal with the role with the Internatioal Community and the elections in the DR Congo and will be posted in the following days

From the Human Rights Watch Internet-Page:

“Human Rights Watch investigations indicate that, after Kenya’s disputed elections, opposition party officials and local elders planned and organized ethnic-based violence in the Rift Valley, Human Rights Watch said today. [...]

A Kalenjin preacher in a village in Eldoret North constituency told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of December 29, 2007, a local ODM party mobilizer “called a meeting and said that war had broken in Eldoret town, so the elders organized the youth into groups of not less than 15, and they went to loot [Kikuyu] homes and burn them down.” [...]

Human Rights Watch spoke to numerous members of Kalenjin commmunities around Eldoret who provided similar accounts. In many communities, local leaders and ODM mobilizers arranged frequent meetings following the election to organize, direct and facilitate the violence unleashed by gangs of local youth. [...]

Many Kalenjin community leaders told Human Rights Watch that if the area’s ODM leadership or the local Kalenjin radio station KASS FM told people unequivocally to stop attacks on Kikuyu homes, then they believe the violence would stop. “If the leaders say stop, it will stop immediately,” said one Kalenjin elder.

[...] Human Rights Watch also collected accounts from several Kalenjin men present at community meetings where local elders and ODM mobilizers urged Kalenjin residents to contribute money toward the purchase of automatic weapons. [...]”

The following analysis is a four-part series about the involvement, perception, actions, and reactions of the international community with special reference to the West, regarding elections in Africa.

Part 1 covers Malawi, a critique and analysis of the present situation and the up-coming 2009 elections and raises the question about international involvement in elections of a sovereign state.

Part 2 covers the 2005 general elections in Ethiopia and its aftermath.

Part 3 covers an analysis of the 2006 elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the involvement of the international community.

Part 4 looks at Uganda and gives a conclusive analysis of the role, perception, actions, involvement and reactions of the international community in general towards election in Africa.

Part 1: Malawi

According to the Nyasa Times Blog (also quoted by the quite reliable Kenyan Jurist blog), Malawi’s President Bingu wa Mutharika has praised Kenya’s “President” Mwai Kibaki and insinuated at Malawi’s opposition parties promising to apply what he described “Kibaki tactics” during the 2009 general elections in order to hold on to power.

A source who attended Mutharika’s New Years party organised for his relatives and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials at Sanjika Palace on Monday, heard the President talking to Minister for Presidential and Parliamentary Affairs, Davis Katsonga and acting DPP Secretary General, Hetherwick Ntaba.

“After getting sloshed, the President was loudly heard telling [Davis] Katsonga and [Hetherwick] Ntaba that he is resigned to do ‘a Kibaki’ in 2009 polls,” said our source, opting for anonymity.

Since the source remains anonymous it is not possible to verify the information. But whether this is true or not, looking at the upcoming election in Malawi, we have express our concern about how democratic this election will be.

Bingu wa Mutharika during the genral elections 2004 (c) AP from bbc

President Bingu wa Mutharika chose Malawi Electoral Commissioners – charged with the task of holding a free and fair 2009 general elections – without consultations with the opposition parties, a move aimed at having commissioners who can easily be twisted by his orders.

The opposition Malawi Congress Party [MCP] and United Democratic Front [UDF] cried foul and obtained an injunction restraining Mutharika from swearing in the commissioners for clearly breaching a constitutional provision.

The High Court Judge Healey Potani is yet to pass a ruling on the matter.

If the High Court allows the President to proceed, Malawi is facing a similar situation like Kenya where the Electoral Commission was also hand-picked by the government and opposition already questioning a fair election before people cue to vote.

We all witnessed what happened after the the chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya Samuel Kivuitu announced a result that even he knew was not based on the vote of the people. And we cannot be hypocritically surprised if Malawi runs into a crisis.

To do a Kibaki

Of course, foreign institutions and governments have little rights to tell a sovereign state how to run their internal affairs. This is a sensitive issue, especially in a (post-)colonial context. But considering aid sanctions as justified in the case of Kenya, we have to ask the question about when to react to pull such sanctions.

It should be possible to openly address such issues between democratic partner nations. Unfortunately, there have been many cases in which industrial nations and International organisations have dealt with “Democratic” elections in a hypocritical way.

Lets look at some of the many examples of reactions to recent elections in Africa:

Part 2 covers the 2005 general elections in Ethiopia and its aftermath.