Editor,

RE: "Africa polls: Why glorify Western validation?” (The New Times, August 12).

Right-o! Unfortunately they have us so divided and conditioned that their 'seal of approval' of our democratic processes has become all but mandatory if we are to escape the danger of inter-community violence.

While that possibility was remote to non-existent where Rwanda's elections were concerned, the same could not unfortunately be categorically stated where our brothers and sisters in Kenya are concerned.

The unanimous and categorical validation by all the foreign and local observers of the process and the outcome of exercise as being open, transparent, fair and reflecting the will of the Kenyan electorate helped keep partisan demons under control.

Thus, in this particular case I am glad they were there, even as I, like you (Ali Rukariza), am in principle opposed to giving our 'former' colonizers and continuing exploiters any validational role in our democratic exercises.

Mwene Kalinda

--

Mr. Rukariza, you'd be well served by first reading about the importance of neutral observers in polls all around the world. From my perspective, I think the voice of the African Union, the European Union, the Commonwealth, Carter Center...have observed and given credibility to the electoral process and served to calm even the supporters of Mr. Odinga.

The opposition is not going to court, and for good reason. The country is largely more peaceful than many expected, and for a small measure the observers' seal of approval has helped. The AU can send observers anywhere no one has refused but we lack the will and capacity at the moment.

Davy

–

Please note, Davy, that while both the EU and the US, in the guise of Carter Center, fielded their own respective observer missions for the Kenyan elections, the monitoring teams that made the greatest impact as far as I am concerned were local Kenyan civil society observer teams, especially the Elections Observer Group (ELOG), with the largest presence on the ground.

Equally critical in giving the seal of approval to the presidential election process, its transparency and the validity of its outcome were African or African-led missions: The AU team, led by former South African president Thabo Mbeki; the Commonwealth mission headed by former Ghanaian president John Mahama; the ICGLR team under Ugandan parliamentarian Makumbi Kamya; and the EAC observers led by Prof. Edward Rugumayo, former Speaker of the Uganda Parliament.

All these teams were unanimous in recognizing the transparency and fairness of the way in which Kenya's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) had carried out its work, even as they acknowledged some flaws in the IEBC's systems that need to be resolved for the future. They also urged the losers to try to obtain redress solely through legal challenges and avoid any incitement to extra-judicial means of contestation.

Thus while non-African foreign observers' views were no doubt helpful in taking the sting out of a potentially flout situation and ensuring any contestation of the results will mainly follow legally laid-down avenues rather than through violence, credit does not go only (or even mainly) to non-Africans; local and African monitors were in the majority and more present on the ground and applied their weight to ensuring that Kenyan political actors understood neutrals recognized the legitimacy of the process and the fact that the IEBC had discharged its constitutional mandate in accordance with the law.

Mwene Kalinda