Kenya defied the predictions and held a peaceful election. Political scientist Felix Osok is happy, even though he sided with the election loser. He wants Norway to be clearer about its values.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
- As head of the Diaspora Network, and spokesperson for East Africa in the Norwegian African Business Association (NABA), how has it been following the elections in your second home country in the past week?
– Kenyans are perhaps one of the world's most politically interested people. Like most Kenyans, I have therefore followed the election via live online television and read online newspaper articles. I have also had close contact with people in both political camps on social media. I want to congratulate the Kenyan people on a relatively peaceful election. In Mombasa we unfortunately saw 19 people killed, but with the riots of 2007 fresh in our minds, this election is a confirmation that Kenya is still the haven of peace in the region.
– So you didn't fear violence as many did beforehand?
– I did not fear violence. Most Kenyans were in favor of a peaceful election and demanded that politicians take responsibility for this. At the same time, the politicians promised to go to court if they were dissatisfied with the election results. Foreign media, on the other hand, were very keen to report catchy headlines. Many in Kenya say that foreign journalists were "dissatisfied" due to the lack of tabloid reports on ethnic violence.
– What about the Norwegian media's coverage in advance?
– The same applies to the Norwegian media. A VG TV reporter in Nairobi says something that many Kenyans are cursed at, and which I do not understand: He asked among the 60.000 people who live there if there will be any noise after
the choice, which is denied. How can he VG then without sources "promise everyone that there will be noise in Kibera if Odinga loses" and that "all hell breaks loose". This is irresponsible journalism, if you ask me! This is how Kenyans are made to believe propaganda about the West's maneuver to "rule" the country. Electoral winner Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy President William Ruto knew precisely about this weakness and took advantage of it.
– How important was it that the election went so peacefully?
– You must remember that we got a fantastic new constitution in 2010. This was the first election after the new constitution came into force. There were not only presidential elections, but also parliamentary, governor and senatorial elections. In addition, two county representatives were elected, one of whom had to be a woman. I would therefore say that the election on 4 March is one of the most comprehensive elections ever held in Africa.
– The patriot Kenyatta (51) from the Jubilee Alliance was declared the election winner on 11 March by a narrow margin, and he takes over as president on 26 March as planned. Shortly after, he will appear before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in the post-election riots of 2007. His opponent in the election campaign, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, wondered if he planned to rule his country via Skype. What's up?
– This is sad for Kenya, it could harm the country internationally. The US Africa envoy, Johnny Carson, stated that Kenyans must choose their leaders freely, but warned that "every choice has consequences". That says something about the severity. I do not hide the fact that I supported Odinga, but also from a neutral perspective, it is going to be challenging for Kenya to have a leader who is indicted in The Hague. In addition, it will be difficult for all other countries that need a normal relationship with such an important country.
– Why did Kenyans still choose Kenyatta?
– It is complex, but to be honest, I am not surprised. Kenyatta and his election campaign deliberately chose to focus on the indictment and gamble on Kenya's independence from the old colonial powers, that Kenya should not allow itself to be dictated by the international community. I think it was just sad.
– But it is a democratic right to vote for someone who has not been convicted?
– Yes, it is a democratic right, but democracies also have their rules, just as freedom of speech has its limits. If you look at the new constitution, it says that you cannot stand for election if you are accused in a case. Therefore, Kenyatta and his vice president have actually violated the constitution even before he assumes the presidency.
– Norway has congratulated the Kenyan people on a peaceful election, but did not mention Kenyatta. What do you think about it?
– Norway is a small country, but at the same time a big country when it comes to values and human rights. I understand that it is a dilemma how Norway should relate to the new president. I probably wish they were a little more honest about this dilemma in their reaction and more clear about their values.
– What will happen to Kenyatta and the trial?
– I think the chances are high that he will try to have the trial moved to the International Criminal Court's branch in Arusha, Tanzania. It is also more natural. In addition, I think he will be acquitted because of the state of the evidence. In other cases from 2007, prosecutions have been abandoned because witnesses do not dare to appear, or have been threatened and killed. Unfortunately, this is also Kenyatta's case.
– Not only was the president elected on March 4?
– Quite right, there has been little focus on all the other elected officials. It is very gratifying that we have brought in new, young, well-educated elected representatives to parliament. The next three out of four places get completely new representatives. This is a victory for Kenyan democracy. ■
(This is an excerpt from Ny Tid's weekly magazine 15.03.2013. Read the whole thing by buying Ny Tid in newspaper retailers all over the country, or by subscribing to Ny Tid -click here. Subscribers receive previous editions free of charge as PDF.)
