Poll boycott narrative shouldn’t undermine truth on Uhuru win

As the “direct exercise of sovereignty” behemoth continues to pick up speed, and the government appears to be in virtual slumber, I want to address one of the misconceptions about the October 26 election which is partly the philosophical justification for the “direct sovereignty” proposition.

The exponents of the direct sovereignty argument have premised it primarily on the basis that the 38 per cent voter turnout in the October 26 election was evidence that the larger majority of Kenyans (72 per cent) refused to delegate their sovereignty to the winning candidate. It is then argued that by virtue of Article 1(2) of the Constitution, this “boycotting majority” is now entitled to exercise sovereignty directly since the President, having been elected by the “voting minority”, is illegitimate.