Pete Muller for The New
York Times
Kenyans watched election
results reports on television at a shop in Nairobi on Tuesday. More
Photos »
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: March 5, 2013
NAIROBI, Kenya — Confusion and anxiety rose in Kenya on Tuesday as
results from the presidential election were delayed by electronic
breakdowns and officials announced a late-night change in tabulating
votes, leading several observers to predict that a runoff might follow.
Multimedia
Related
-
On Eve of Vote, Fragile Valley in Kenya Faces New Divisions (March 3, 2013)
Related in Opinion
-
Latitude: Precautionary Tales (March 4, 2013)
Steve Crisp/Reuters
Party officials with ballot boxes outside the Kenya
Technical Teachers College in Nairobi, where votes were being counted on
Tuesday. More
Photos »
Jerome Delay/Associated Press
Kenyans followed election results on television in
Nairobi on Tuesday, as votes were being counted around the country.
More
Photos »
Millions of Kenyans flooded into the polls on Monday and the voting
itself went reasonably well, most observers said. But serious questions
have begun to crop up in the tallying process, with unexplained delays
in electronically transmitting the results from the polling places and
public wrangling over which votes should be counted.
Given the deadly aftermath of Kenya’s last major election in 2007, which
was marred by vote rigging and then erupted in bloodshed, any electoral
breakdowns or disputes could tear at the public’s confidence in the
vote, an outcome many people fear could set off violence again.
“I don’t think the situation looks good,” said Joel D. Barkan, a senior
associate for the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington. “We are entering a quite
potentially messy situation here.”
Tensions were rising in the slums. Truckloads of soldiers in helmets and
padded suits chugged through the streets, eyeing the crowds warily.
Many shops remained closed, and Kenya’s police chief promptly banned all
demonstrations, saying Kenya had “no history” of peaceful protests.
As of Tuesday night, about half the votes had been tallied, giving a
relatively large lead to Uhuru Kenyatta, the scion of one of the
wealthiest, most powerful political families in Africa, 53 percent to 42
percent over Kenya’s prime minister, Raila Odinga.
But there was a wrinkle.
Kenyan election law says that the winning candidate must secure more
than 50 percent of “all the votes cast” and late on Tuesday night, the
election commission announced that it would include more than 300,000
rejected ballots as part of the total.
With the pool of votes suddenly enlarged, several analysts said that
both candidates would receive a smaller percentage of the total and that
Mr. Kenyatta might not clear the 50 percent threshold, forcing a
runoff.
Ahmed Hassan, the head of Kenya’s election commission, conceded that the
number of ballots rejected for stray marks and other irregularities was
“quite worrying,” though election observers said it was not
particularly surprising given the complexity of these elections. Voters
had six ballots in their hands, for national and local races.
“We feel the Constitution is very clear,” said Salim Lone, an adviser to
Mr. Odinga. “The spoiled votes have to be included as part of the
calculation.”
Mr. Kenyatta’s camp expressed displeasure with the decision, which may
mean a protracted court battle after the preliminary results are
announced, expected in the coming days. The risk, analysts said, is that
Mr. Kenyatta’s supporters might feel they were unfairly denied an
outright victory.
Partial results showed that once again, Kenyans voted overwhelmingly
along ethnic lines. Some areas voted 95 percent for the politician from
their ethnic group, while other areas, equally poor, with people in very
similar circumstances, voted 95 percent in the opposite direction.
“I guess we haven’t come very far,” said Maina Kiai, a prominent Kenyan
human rights advocate. “We still use identity as the only factor in
voting.”
Enormous efforts were made this time around to move voters away from
choices based on ethnicity and persuade them to consider other factors,
like the candidate’s résumé or policy proposals. The Kenyan news media,
considered among the most independent and professional in Africa, even
organized televised presidential debates, a first.
But in the end, the presidential candidates who tried to gain some
momentum on issues-based campaigns, like Peter Kenneth and Martha Karua,
got a minuscule share of the vote. It seemed that most voters still
felt that the leader from their ethnic group was the best one to protect
them — especially in an edgy environment where many fear a replay of
postelection violence.
“The ethnic vote is often the one based on fear,” Mr. Kiai said.
Kenya’s ethnic arithmetic favors Mr. Kenyatta. His ethnic group, the
Kikuyu, is the country’s largest, and along with the Meru and Embu,
which often vote with it, they represent 22 percent of the population.
He then chose William Ruto, a Kalenjin, to be his running mate, and the
Kalenjin are the third-largest group in the country.
Mr. Odinga, a Luo, chose a Kamba running mate, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka,
but their combined numbers are far below the Kikuyu-Kalenjin alliance.
Mr. Ruto has also been indicted on charges of crimes against humanity in
connection with the election violence in 2007 and 2008.
Kisumu, a city in western Kenya and Mr. Odinga’s ethnic stronghold,
which exploded in riots in 2007 and 2008 during the last presidential
election, was quiet on Tuesday.
“We’re just waiting,” said Christine Ololo Atieno, a seller of
secondhand shoes and a passionate Odinga supporter. “People are still
hoping that more votes will come in and things will change.”
Mr. Odinga says he was cheated out of winning the last election, and
many analysts say that Kisumu could explode again if there is vote
rigging and Mr. Odinga loses again.
No comments :
Post a Comment