We're back to 1997 all over again

Kenya’s politics has this stubborn tendency to repeat itself, as if it cut a deal with the Devil called history. The events of today are no different from the tense period preceding the 1997 presidential election and the national polling body and a raft of minimum constitutional reforms are at the centre of the two main rival parties.

Five things are key to the ongoing debate in relation to the period we have just talked about; the pressure for dialogue is springing from the diplomatic boardrooms of the US and European States with representation Kenya. Secondly, the religious leaders are offering to play the role of mediator and facilitator.

Thirdly, the incumbent is throwing tear gas and bullet parties along the streets generously and with glee, through the clownish police officers that are no different from the violent protesters because they too use stones and sticks. The only difference in the approach of dealing with the demonstrators is the deployment of the instruments of oppression that were in popular use by the Apartheid government of South Africa in fighting ANC supporters.

But one thing is for sure, the position taken by the Opposition and the incumbent follow the same fault line, with electoral reforms being at the centre of the new fight that is not dissimilar to laying thorns on the paths we shall walk on to the polling booths next year.

In fact, the outcome of that election may again be determined like that of 2007 and 2013 on the basis of the pronouncements, fears and mental images politicians have implanted in us. This would even determine how we shall vote and receive the verdict of the national tallying and it may not matter much if it will be presided over by a new team.

The fourth factor is the commonality of the grievances against and for the electoral commission, with the politicians on both sides agreed that the current crop of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission have to go, but divided on the extent of electoral reforms to be carried out thereafter and the formula for picking a new team.

Within this factor are three ‘monsters’ the politicians are not honest enough to bring out. There is the reality that if a new IEBC team is not picked, there could be a constitutional crisis next year were we to have a run-off to determine the presidential election.

This is because the term of the current team will end shortly after elections and before the stipulated period for a run-off. Problem is that the term can’t be extended because they will all have served a second term and would be ineligible.

The other ‘monster’ will be the formula of picking the new team because as it is, the old rules, which have not been amended, give the President and the Prime Minister two slots to fill in the seven-member selection panel that would pick the team, and the other three to civil society, Judicial Service Commission and the last to the East African Professional Society.

That would obviously mean that in the absence of a PM, given the position was scrapped, the Presidency (meaning Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto) can claim the four slots, leaving Raila Odinga and his group empty-handed.

You understand now why Mr Odinga and his group want dialogue encompassing the international community, religious groups, civil society, professional groups and political parties to hammer out this armistice and carry out minimum reforms.

If you do, then you remember the role the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) played to defuse tensions in the country in 1997. At the time the war-cry of the Opposition was first, “No reforms, No Budget’, and finally, ‘No reforms, No Elections’.

Which brings us to the fifth factor, which is the fact that the Opposition, frustrated by Kanu’s ‘tyranny of numbers’, decided to go for a solution brokered outside Parliament and involving more parties than just politicians. Though numerically the gap between Kanu and the Opposition wasn’t as wide then, Kanu the party and the Executive and all its machinery including the public broadcaster (KBC) were one and the same thing.

The reason we started off with the stubbornness of history is that in the 1997 phase and all the previous pro-reform fights, there was one common denominator; Mr Odinga. Though Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto were not yet in Parliament, they joined Parliament through Kanu.

Mr Ruto was elected in the subsequent election, but Mr Kenyatta came through a nomination ticket snatched from Mark Too, who had taken up the name ‘Bwana Dawa’ for his emissary missions to ‘tame’ stubborn Kanu critics like Kipruto arap Kirwa.

My take is that the events may follow the same path as 1997, not because Mr Odinga is at the centre of it, but because the religious groups, civil society and international community, are in the script with clearly defined roles. Then over and above this, there is absolutely no reason to expect that anyone in Jubilee or Cord will shed tears because of IEBC team being sent home.

No, both groups want a fresh team for different shades of “credible’ election!