The general election in Kenya has ended and the people’s verdict announced. But as has become the practice in some parts of East Africa, the losers have rejected that verdict. The reason for the rejection is also the usual – the vote was stolen. What is likely to follow is also predictable. There will be calls for strikes and boycotts by the opposition leaders. Violence, usually incited by the losers, will break out in some parts. Security forces will act to contain the violence and might use excessive force. This is what the instigators of violence want – to paint the security forces and the government as murderers. Calls for dialogue will follow as will demands for power-sharing with the losers. Kenyans have gone down this road before. Given the near universal verdict that the election was free, fair and credible, we will have to wait and see whether they will do so again. Whatever happens, there are a few things about democracy to ponder. First, the teachers of democracy seem to have forgotten some important lessons, either unwittingly or by design. Or perhaps the pupils were not smart enough to grasp the complexities of democracy, elections and all its other trappings. The lesson that seems to have been learnt most and perhaps worst is that elections are contests. True, of course, but contests of what? Of individuals, programmes, visions? That we never get to hear much about, except that there must be a contest. As it turns out it is usually of individuals loosely organised in what are called parties, but really tribal associations. Usually, the more the merrier and the noisier the better. It is even better if there is violence, blood flows and deaths occur. You see this is more exciting and essential for good TV footage and racy reporting, especially in the countries of the missionaries of democracy. It feeds a sadistic appetite for violence in some of these places, as long as it is far away, of course. I don’t know the reason for this. Perhaps it has something to do with the weather, attitudes to others or a moral void. Where elections are orderly and free of violence, they are considered boring and not worthy of valuable air time or newsprint. It becomes necessary to invent stories of chaos and conflict in order to justify coverage. That’s what happened in Rwanda’s recent presidential election. Even in the Kenyan poll, one noticed unease and disappointment among the western reporters that it was going peacefully. The other untaught or unlearnt lesson is that in a classical contest, there must be a winner and a loser, and more importantly, that the outcome must be accepted and respected. This is the nature of any contest. Of course, you enter a competition with the intention to win, but also with the openness that the decision can go against you. It is not possible to have one outcome only or that it must go your way. Whether this is because of wilful refusal to teach this element of electoral democracy or the pig-headed rejection of the lesson by some, the result has been very bad contests in parts of East Africa, especially Uganda and Kenya. Another lesson not taught is that democracy is not essentially adversarial and confrontational. Better results can be obtained through consensus. Indeed this is what defines democracy. Even contests can be consensual where contestants agree on what is best for the country, resolve what they differ on and present a joint project to the people for their final decision. Democracy by consensus is premised on the ability and willingness to listen to the other and distil the merits from each other’s viewpoint and then forge a common position consistent with the national interest. If you must disagree, it will be on the basis of knowledge and understanding of alternative views. But what have some people chosen to learn? They have chosen to be deaf to other voices. They want to hear only their own. They trust only their own counsel. They disregard the fact that the country belongs to more than an individual or a group. That’s the danger of contests of this nature. They are exclusionary. You get a winner who takes all and a loser who gets nothing. The loser makes sure the victor does not succeed, however good the programme or intentions. That is what is understood to be the purpose of the opposition. To realise this purpose, they usually have four options. First is to challenge the outcome of an election and have it nullified. If they cannot do this, they resort to violence to make the country ungovernable and force a power-sharing arrangement. If neither of these works, and they are resigned to being a “loyal” opposition, they work to make the government fail so as to dislodge and replace it at the earliest opportunity. The final option is to wait for their time and undo the work of the previous government. The unfortunate outcome of all this (for ordinary citizens) is to have the country in perpetual campaign mode or in paralysis. Neither is good and no one would wish it for a neighbour. Coming back to where we began, the will of the people of Kenya must be respected. Their lives matter more than the egos of individual politicians. There is no shame in defeat, but rejecting a valid decision of the people can lead to ignominy.
