By: Crispy Kaheru
We are both privileged and unprivileged to live in these interesting times where electoral politics seems to be taking the angle of an elitist pass time for a cabal of a wealthy few.

As at October 2010 when the Electoral Commission opened for nomination of directly elected MP candidates, Uganda had a population of about 34 million people with 50% of this population being above 18 years. Mathematically, this means that well about 17 or so million citizens qualified by age as potential candidates to run for elective offices.

However, out of such an enormous figure, only about 1,700 individuals offered themselves to run for the available 380 parliamentary seats. This represents only 0.01% of the potential candidates and about 0.001% of the total population.

Various reasons may have contributed to this glut. According to a friend who ran for an MP position in the Western region, one requires about three hundred million shillings to run a descent successful campaign. To many Ugandans, these figures are surreal.

Little wonder therefore that electoral politics has recently been regarded to as a game the rich play with poor people’s minds and money. During the Kampala mayoral race, one of the candidates confessed on radio how she had spent three hundred million shillings daily for all her campaign period. Whether this was a slip of the tongue or not, it left many impoverished listeners with a sense of deep confusion and despair. Due to such occurrences, the threshold of a good leader still remains widely contested; are they those who have a lot of wealth or good character? Is leadership about content or appearances? If indeed democracy runs on financial might alone, then it is a hoax and if this hoax reduces large swathes of citizens to electoral voyeurs, then it is definitely a fraud.

Against this background one would have the audacity to ask, whether crude capitalism hijacked the essence of electoral democracy leaving money the master over moral; conscience and virtue. How then do we as a nation move on with deeper humanistic convictions; principles and values? Strong structures world over have not been constructed by money but by conscience. Money and its value must be made to remain an enabler and not the core.

Very interestingly though, it’s all not lost, in previous elections, we have seen some out of the ordinary scenarios where the marginalized have competed with the wealthy and the marginalized persons have won. Parliament as it is today is over 60% youth which indicates a clear investment in future leadership. The question that arises is therefore one of quality not wealth or age bracket. The activism and vibrancy in parliament seems to be youth driven. Probably this silver lining dispels the growing adage that electoral politics is a game of those who are ready to invest in colossal sums. This further reinforces the fact that it is more to do with content, beliefs and conviction.

The duty is on us to repossess our country’s political glory. The challenge calls for daring actions to re-humanize our politics. Electoral politics should not be about demarcation, exclusivity, classification and conspiracy but should be something that fosters inclusivity, transparency, accountability and respectful.

   By: Crispy Kaheru
Lately, my colleague and Political analyst, Gwada Ogot has engaged me in serious discussions on the degenerating trust and confidence in public institutions representative of democracy not only in Uganda but in many of the post 1950 new states. In Uganda specifically, the past and current political developments undertone citizen’ dissatisfaction with, and lack of confidence in, the functioning of most government institutions. Prior to the 2011 general elections, sections of society rejected the composition of the Electoral Commission (EC). These sections of the public branded the Commission as an incompetent, partisan institution and highlighted it as incapable of presiding over a credible and fair election hence passing a vote of no confidence in it as an electoral institution.

At the peak echelon of political activity, the opposition’s indifference on the election results of the February 18th, Presidential elections and the subsequent move by the Inter Party Cooperation (IPC) not to petition court challenging the outcome of the poll despite their rejection of these results, was a statement of loss of trust in the Ugandan court. This is also observable in the general lethargy of the public towards reporting cases or crime to government institutions which also implies that people have lost hope and trust that those institutions they report to, will handle the reported cases objectively and conclusively. Most times these fears have been created by the precedence that has been set. For instance, when Parliament usurps the powers of the judiciary to exonerate key political figures implicated in the CHOGM corruption scandal, should the public trust that Parliament is well aware of its core mandate and delivers on it? Or what should the ordinary person think when Parliamentarians seek to overwhelmingly increase their emoluments amidst biting economic downturn that is taking a toll on the ordinary citizen whose salary or income has remained the same or even gone lower? Public’s increased faith in ?private’ schools and health facilities, are also be telling about citizens’ diminishing trust in the quality and effectiveness of some of these government aided facilities and services.

The recent walk-to-work campaign was a demonstration of lack of confidence in the country’s dialogue mechanisms. Actually one would say that the walk-to-work campaign was also a mark of skepticism in the executive’s capacity to respond to the prevailing economic quagmire. Consequently, the dotted army presence on the streets of Kampala to manage public order could also be looked at as a vote of no confidence in the Police Force which should essentially be managing public order.

Would someone be right to think that the increased muffling of the media against reporting on government’s actions especially in response to public demonstrations means that the government itself has lost confidence in its very actions?

Those who should be working to restore public confidence in government institutions and systems sometimes end up exacerbating the problem by either their personal actions or inactions. This is easily seen through key political figures opting to receive medical attention from foreign hospitals; sending their children to foreign schools; or even running offshore bank accounts.

An erosion of confidence in the major institutions of society is a far more serious threat to democracy than a loss of trust in individual politicians. We thus need to pay a great deal of attention to it and act immediately.

The challenge that we therefore need to collectively confront is that of building stronger, impersonal, and broadly based institutions. My personal fear is, individuals with low confidence in institutions turn out to be more apathetic towards participation in political processes and could easily fall prey to the use of violent means to realize their political goals, economic and social affluence.

   By: Gwada Ogot
Joseph Stalin once said, ‘It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Stalin’s statement raises pertinent questions about the objective conduct of elections. In the last one year alone, the East Africa Nations of Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda have all held elections including the birth of a new state – South Sudan.

This is so because only effective management of elections can determine the credibility of the process and secure outcome. Key factors are impartiality, integrity, transparency, efficiency, and independence.

As international thresholds, these ethics are customized by national legal frameworks and good practices. While historical and cultural factors inherently persuade the evolution of regional electoral practices, they are area specific and increasingly comply with binding global innovations.

In the global village we live in today, adherence to universally set values is multi rewarding. Conformity to values validates elections and spare government the sharp radars of international pressure and possible ostracizing as a pariah state or banana republic.

Almost universally, Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) are constitutionally constituted to fulfill specific electoral needs with pegs to as much Independence as is practically achievable.

The principle of independence remains vital to ensuring that Electoral Commissions do not bend to governmental, political, or other partisan influences in regard to decisions and actions, a matter which in essence interrogates the character of Electoral Commissions and Commissioners.

As a classic case, in Ghana, during the 2009 elections, a mere 0.7% separated the two main presidential contenders yet in spite of the close contest, peace prevailed during and after the elections — which has transformed Ghana into a democratic Mecca.

In June 2010, Guinea too held a closely contested presidential election after decades of authoritarian military rule. In spite of its history of military headship, the nation emerged intact, courtesy of the relatively well managed election.

This viewpoint raises both formal and normative matters which reflectively draw from Stalin’s point of counters and voters.

A standard gauge is the fluid and unwritten laws of perception which means that the election must not only be free and fair but be seen to have been so.

The case of Kenya in 2007, starkly contrasts the Ghanaian and Guinean successes. At the odds of a close electoral contest, the nation broke into a short but costly civil war even before the announcement of the results, deriving purely off negative perceptions.

In Ivory Coast, President Laurent Gbagbo blatantly refused to hand over to rival Alassane Quattarra after the December 2010 elections. Reason- one electoral body had declared him winner while another declared his rival winner.

Gbagbo Interview

In Ghana and Guinea, those who counted the vote respected or appeared to respect the will of the voters while in Ivory Coast and Kenya those who counted the votes swallowed the Stalinist perspective hook line and sinker.

Yet rationally, no Electoral Commission can be independent in every characteristic.

In Uganda, like many other countries, the financing of Elections and appointments of key personnel to the Electoral Commission is almost solely dependent on government. While constitutional requirements demand that parliament vets such appointments to ensure a relative degree of transparency, the banal considerations of parliamentarians in undertaking such crucial decisions repeatedly falters the process.

Conventionally, across the board, focus is laid more on the structures of electoral institutions ignoring requisite personal character attributes. This skewed focus purports that policy construction alone is sufficient to indemnify Electoral Commissions from partisan influences.

As the East African region closes its current electoral season, the handiwork of those who counted the votes is all that will primarily determine not only what, but how the next few years will unravel for the region.

It may sound like a bad joke, but the sad truth is that Africa’s short-lived experiment with democracy faces hard times.

From Nigeria to Zimbabwe, Kenya to the Ivory Coast and Uganda to Cameroon, the writing is on the wall. The experiment with democracy has sadly taken a dangerous nosedive.

Recent political events point to a crisis of honest, committed and democratic leadership. This ironically, is in spite of the advancements in education and intellectualism. It is also in spite of the influences of globalisation and the new understandings that have evolved about state power and how it should be managed for the benefit of society.

The continent’s so-called democratic leaders are openly subverting the people’s will and disregarding national constitutions as they continue in the bad ways of wild corruption and unaccountable leadership. The celebrations that heralded democratic change in the 1990s have gradually faded into muffled cries of despair. Increasingly, ordinary people find themselves removed from the centres of power, marginalised and reduced to helpless onlookers as political leaders; their friends and families enjoy power.

It is simply absurd to see Zimbabwe helplessly held to ransom by Mugabe’s adamant refusal to accept an electoral verdict handed him by the people through an open and fair election process. The 84-year-old is not about to give up the reins of power even as his country sinks deeper into economic ruin.

The recent elections in Zimbabwe revealed that African politicians demonstrate little or no sense of dignity and respect for political transition. And since they bring little or no dignity to public office, they are mortally fearful of transitions.

In Kenya, the results of a presidential poll last December were manipulated. The electoral commission remains in office despite calls for them to step down and allow for thorough investigation into the vote tallying process. Recent calls by civil society groups, for Kivuitu and his team to resign have fallen on deaf ears.

In Uganda, Museveni forced himself into a third term despite the country’s constitution providing for only two terms. His close associates have since continued to campaign for a life presidency for him.

Elsewhere in Cameroon, President Biya is seeking to extend his term. He has been in power for the last 25 years, within which period he suppressed any dissenting voices.

Early this year, the country’s security forces crushed protests against his bid to stay in power. Opposition voices have been hunted down and crushed or intimidated into silence as Biya and his cronies continue to savour the trappings of power.

In Nigeria, former celebrated president Obasanjo now faces charges of abuse of office during his term. A court was recently told that he slept with his eldest son’s wife in exchange for lucrative government contracts. These and many other cases clearly illustrate the depth to which Africa’s political leadership has sunk.

In all, the recent events in Kenya, Cameroon and Zimbabwe also illustrate another baffling side of African politics. That the more we talk about change the more things remain the same or probably get worse. The signing of the power sharing accord between Raila and Kibaki last February was seen by many as heralding a new beginning. However, recent developments point to reluctance, particularly on the part of the Party of National Unity, to share power as clearly spelt out in the national peace accord.

Into the first decade of the 21 Century, contrary to expectation, Africa is reluctant to make bold steps towards strengthening democracy. Instead it is taking calamitous steps back into the Dark Age of misrule, lack of accountability, despondency and totalitarianism. Its leaders have forgotten that they preside over whole countries and communities and not just a few cronies and friends intent on eating off the state.

The fear is that the new century may be lost for Africa, if its leadership will not quickly embrace new values that are in sync with the dictates of the modern world. The 21 Century global reality has no place for visionless leadership. Africans will need to raise their voices against complacent and non-democratic leadership if any change at all is to come.

About The Author: Wilson Ugangu — is a Kenyan journalist. Wilson is a former fellow at the Consumer Union, Washington office and Coordinator of the Media Diversity Centre in Nairobi.