False Comparison: 2000 US Presidential Election Debacle and 2007 Kenya Election Foul-Up 

By John Mulaa

There is a myth abroad in Kenya that the 2000 US presidential election debacle remotely resembles the 2007 Kenya presidential election in essentials and outcome. The grinders of this myth readily point to the disputed US election and its eventual determination through the courts as the course of action ODM in Kenya should opt for. Al Gore, they are quick to reiterate, did not threaten mass action, rather he meekly walked away when the system decided for his opponent, George Bush.

The first fundamental difference between the two situations, aside from the crude manner the Electoral Commission of Kenya handled the whole affair, is the significance of the Kenyan election vis avis the US election. Those seeking parallels between the two would be much better served if they went much further than 2000, to the mid 19th century when America was in economic and political flux, and agitation, for appropriate comparisons.  

Elections in the US then tended to be epochal because on their outcomes hinged radical policy re-orientations.  Such was the presidential election in 1828 that delivered the White House to Andrew Jackson and a revolution in the conduct of public affairs to America. Four years prior, Congress voted Jacksons’s rival John Quincy Adams president even though Jackson had won the popular vote.

Jackson received a majority of the popular votes and more electoral votes than Adams but since there was a third candidate, Henry Clay, Jackson did not have a majority of the electoral votes. Clay and Adams Clay’s supporters backed Adams and Clay became Secretary of State and Adams won the Presidency. Jackson and his supporters were outraged and in the next election they defeated Adams by a large margin.  That was an epochal election, remembered to this day as a transformative political event in American history.

American democracy was forged in the crucible of the civil war in the 19th century. An equivalent of six million of today’s American population lost their lives to preserve the union. Once the union was secured, the constitution underwent several amendments in order to better serve the interest country.

The 2000 US presidential election, much beloved by history-challenged Kenyans determined to draw non-existent parallels , a debacle though it was, does not come anywhere to a decisive moment in American history. True, had Gore been declared winner, his administration would likely have adopted very different policies than those pursued by Bush who was declared winner after legal maneuvers that stopped a vote recount.  But in terms of the basic constitutional, social and economic structures of the American society, the 2000 US election outcome did not really matter a great deal. By walking away, Gore was signaling that he had great faith in the basic structures of his country.

The big point Kenyan dabblers in comparative politics are missing is that 2007 presidential election in Kenya was epochal in terms of the declared intent of those out to upset the status quo. Indeed, it is the epochal nature of the contest that most likely triggered reactionary maneuvers to thwart a fair outcome.  It was a battle about the structures and future of the country, which is what the voters believed they were participating in. Many voters believe that their will was blatantly and arrogantly thwarted hence the equal resisting force that the action generated.  For all practical purposes, the state then ceased to exist.  The Annan-led mediation is about reconstituting the state and society by creating legitimate structures essential to the orderly functioning of the polity.

The 2007 elections in Kenya were foundational and not merely procedural.  And that speaks to the difference between the 2000 US presidential election and the 2007 Kenya election. Elections in the US, no matter the level of excitement about change, do not promise or deliver a fundamental break with the past despite what new and exciting politicians might say. Having settled the question of society’s basic framework, America is a country that mostly changes incrementally and only rarely radically changes its course.  

It has been suggested that it is possible to automate government in America by simply setting the policy dial on centrist and letting the system function automatically, occasionally tweaking it here and there. Few Americans will miss the politicians thrown out of work! That is how stable the system is.

In contrast, Kenya is experiencing basic definitional problems of the sort America resolved at least a century and a half ago. To understand this is to appreciate the magnitude of the problems the country faces. If the mediation process does not set the country right by enabling the foundation of fundamental, legitimate and properly functioning institutions, the matter will have to be resolved somehow sometime. This is what history teaches.