IEBC needs self-examination, not self-praise

Kenya: One year and two months after conducting elections under the 2010 Constitution, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) meets in Mombasa this week to conduct a postmortem on the way it conducted the 2013 General Election.

Though the commission has received a lot of flak for the manner in which it conducted the elections, Chairman Isaack Hassan still puts a brave face over the electoral body’s performance.

The number of petitions filed for a single election, 188 in total, indicates the level of disaffection with the manner in which the elections were conducted.

In his speech to the participants at the National Post-Election Evaluation Workshop, Mr Hassan appears to draw strength from the approbation he says neighbouring countries have given the IEBC for its conduct in the elections and names Nigeria, Uganda, South Sudan and Tanzania. These countries, with the exception of Tanzania, do not espouse the principles of democracy we hold dear in Kenya. The accolades that the IEBC should be seeking or basking in are those of Kenyans who participated in the elections and witnessed what happened.

Whereas some observers like the EU and the Carter Foundation may have given the thumbs-up, praise and adulation has been less forthcoming.

 In fact, it should worry the IEBC that it is mainly those who won who are praising it the loudest. For the election, no doubt, left a bitter taste in the mouths of many considering that the winners constitute 51 per cent of the votes cast. The other 49 is still grumbling.

When all is said and done, the workshop should endeavour to address the issues raised by the Opposition and other parties instead of sweeping them under the carpet. Notably, the issue of openness must be placed into perspective. The secrecy with which IEBC handles election material, even failing to produce some in court leaves a lot to conjecture, a fact that feeds into the many wild allegations of impropriety on the part of the IEBC.

Elections, like any other competition, are held under an aura of suspicion and time is a crucial factor. When the IEBC takes a whole year to announce the official results of an election, it sets itself up for condemnation because people will always believe that the outcome was doctored. Kenyans will never know whether the elections were compromised or not, following the failure of the EVIDs, but they will always entertain some doubt from the way issues featured prominently.

Granted, holding six elections in a single day was not an easy thing and the prevailing uncertainty on the election date did not help matters. In future, IEBC must endeavour to procure equipment much earlier and subject them to at least six months of extensive tests. Procured items must have been tested and proven effective before to preclude high incidence of failure at the most critical time. Further, the IEBC should embrace openness in the manner iut does business.

Whenever records and other documents, especially the voter register are needed, they should be produced on demand to allay fears of unfair play. Mr Hassan’s observation that they were not perfect and they could always learn from their past experiences offers hope that serious remedial measures have been considered and will be actualised soon. By the time the next electoral cycle comes around, IEBC’s state of preparedness must be fail-proof.