[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
KENYA'S 2013 ELECTIONS:
AN EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE MODEL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-461 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Paul Fagan, regional director for Africa, International
Republican Institute........................................... 5
Keith Jennings, Ph.D., senior associate and regional director for
Southern and East Africa, National Democratic Institute........ 14
Mr. Bill Sweeney, president and chief executive officer,
International Foundation for Electoral Systems................. 24
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Paul Fagan: Prepared statement............................... 8
Keith Jennings, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 17
Mr. Bill Sweeney: Prepared statement............................. 26
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
Keith Jennings, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record......... 54
KENYA'S 2013 ELECTIONS: AN EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE MODEL?
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The committee will come to order and good
afternoon. Let me apologize first to our very distinguished
witnesses for the lateness. We did have a series of votes.
That's the only reason why we are late, but again, it infringes
on your time, so thank you for your patience and to everyone
who is here today.
Good afternoon. Today's hearing will examine U.S. actions
to support the March 2013 elections in Kenya, a critically
important African ally. The United States has devoted more than
$35 million since 2010 alone to prepare for and manage this
year's election process. After the massive violence following
the closely contested December 2007 election, many precautions
were taken to prevent a similar occurrence in 2013. And
Election Day and post-election violence has been greatly
reduced. However, an effort to use new technology did not work
as well as hoped. There were questions about the effectiveness
of this election which had promised to be a technological
advancement. Given future important African elections, this
hearing will look at what a responsible U.S. position toward
African elections should look like in an era of constrained
development aid budgets.
The tragic Election Day deaths of 19 people, although
attributed mostly to Islamist separatist elements and not to
specifically election-related causes, cannot be ignored and the
perpetrators must be held to account. It is unacceptable that
in the violence that followed the 2007 elections an estimated
1,200 Kenyans, and there are different estimates, some say
1,000, some say more, were killed and approximately 600,000
were displaced according to the media reports. Yet, no one thus
far has been held accountable.
Kenya, this year, conducted its first election under the
2010 Constitution. In addition to voting for a president and
members of the National Assembly, Kenya selected members of a
new Senate, as well as governors and local assembly
representatives in the 47 newly-created counties, each with a
designated women's representative.
More technology was brought into polling places to better
ensure accuracy of voting and vote tabulation. Unfortunately,
reported malfunctions of some equipment in some polling
stations at the national level where a server breakdown for a
while stoked fears of vote rigging. If the court process had
not been handled as well as it was, we might be looking at
another wave of post-election violence.
Uhuru Kenyatta was elected President, as we know, with
6,173,433 votes to 5,340,546 votes for Mr. Odinga. And this was
certified by the Kenyan Supreme Court which coincidentally
today issued a further elaboration and made very clear that
although there were some anomalies, this election was indeed
properly conducted. Nevertheless, the violence was a
possibility until Mr. Odinga gave a magnanimous concession
speech following the first court ruling.
The amount of U.S. support for the Kenyan election was
extraordinary. American and Kenyan civil society organizations
were enabled, in order to conduct civic education, including
ratio and television messages, and programs aimed at youth to
encourage participation in the election process, as well as to
discourage violence. Youth organizations were created
nationwide to give young people an enduring voice in their
country's political system. Several innovative approaches were
created including a comic book called Shujazz with young
characters involved in commenting on the Kenyan political
process.
The three organizations presenting testimony today all
played major and very important roles in the creative
preparations for the 2013 Kenyan election. The International
Republican Institute printed nearly 1.2 million sample ballots
and 400,000 election posters for the IEBC and also distributed
some 800,000 Shujazz posters. The National Democratic Institute
conducted an important poll on voter attitudes heading into the
election, covering such issues as whether the country was
headed in the right direction, whether their lives will improve
in the next 5 years, whether the election posed a security
threat to them in their community, and whether they felt others
were being encouraged to do harm to their ethnic group because
of the elections. Of course, these organizations did so much
more which will be elaborated on in their testimony.
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems advised
Kenya's Electoral Commission on the process to conduct an
election where there were 1,882 different configurations of the
ballot, depending on the local races being run--an enormous
undertaking. The cell phones necessary for reporting of vote
totals from polling stations were so late in being procured,
however, that IFES went ahead and purchased 1,200 to send into
the field in time for Election Day.
Despite the extraordinary efforts by NGOs in preparing for
the Kenyan election, we must be selective in what lessons we
take from this experience. We will not be able to devote such
resources to what will be several important elections yet to be
held in 2013 in other countries.
The U.S. Government has pressed both the Governments of
Mali and Madagascar to hold elections at the earliest possible
date in order to normalize relations after coups replaced
elected leaders. Zimbabwe, which recently held a constitutional
referendum, is scheduled to hold a Presidential and legislative
elections that many in that country hope will break the long
cycle of repression of political opposition. There was a report
in today's newspapers that the Zimbabwe leaders are looking for
funds because they are short in terms of election monitoring-
type funds. So they're making an appeal as well. The next
election in Ethiopia will replace the late Prime Minister Meles
and also will determine whether the political opposition will
have more space to operate than in previous elections. I'll
never forget Greg Simpkins and I traveled right after one of
the marred elections. Even though the opposition made
significant gains, people were literally gunned down in the
streets of Addis, and we were there to raise those issues with
Prime Minister Meles, but hopefully the next election will be
really, truly free and fair.
These elections are important to U.S. foreign policy as was
the election in Kenya. So how do we ensure that they are
successful and truly represent the will of the voters if we
can't devote the resources as we did in Kenya? What role do we
have to play going forward? This is the question we put to
today's witnesses whose organizations have broad experience
with African elections and have a unique viewpoint that we hope
will allow Congress and the administration to agree on funding
for a policy that is fiscally sound while being politically
effective. This hearing comes at a critical time since Congress
is currently considering our budget for foreign affairs, so I'd
like to yield to my friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, for any
opening comments.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing on Kenya's recent election and what we can
learn from this important period in the country's history, both
politically as well as socially. Kenya is an important
strategic partner to the United States and the most recent
election provides an opportunity to not only better understand
elections in this East African nation, but important lessons
for the continent as a whole.
I want to also acknowledge and thank today's witnesses.
Each of you in your organizations participated in the recent
elections and you should be congratulated for your work, not
only in Kenya, but across Africa to ensure free and fair
elections are observed everywhere.
I want to make clear from the outset of this hearing that
this committee turns its attention to the Kenyan elections
because of its importance to the region and the continent.
Kenya is said to be the economic engine of East Africa and
enjoys a thriving private sector that drives growth and
development. And as we address Kenya's election, we do so
knowing very well that our own country faces many challenges to
ensure that all citizens exercise their right to vote without
fear of disenfranchisement and intimidation. The right to vote
is at the heart of our democracy and is cherished among those
we hold dear.
Kenya deserves praise for permitting the courts, rather
than violence, to determine its bright future. In the aftermath
of 2007, Kenya endured a dark period that reminded us all of
what's at stake. While there were pockets of violence, this by
far was the exception rather than the rule. I believe the
response following the March 4th election and court ruling made
clear that Kenyans chose a future that adheres to peace and the
rule of law.
In reviewing Mr. Sweeney's remarks for today's hearing, I
found his framework for evaluation of the recent election to be
both informative and useful, and if you don't mind I would like
to paraphrase from your statement in phrasing how we might
consider the recent elections. You wrote, ``Did this most
recent election reflect the will of the people? Were the
investments made in the democratic process well spent? And did
they allow important advances to take hold?''
In particular, I'd like to know what your thoughts are. Mr.
Chairman gave several examples of some of the work of the NGOs
in terms of the posters, the comic books, and all of that and I
would like to know your opinions as to whether or not, from all
three of you, as to whether or not you thought that really made
a big impact.
I would like to add an additional question to this
thoughtful and pragmatic list. Do the steps taken and
investments made provide a model for elections in other
countries throughout Africa? As we've seen in the last year,
African nations with some significant exceptions have embraced
democratic processes, the rule of law, and peaceful
transitions. Whether through elections or constitutional means,
countries like Senegal, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Malawi
illustrate a strong and I believe lasting shift toward
democracy. I would add that we learn much from our success as
we do from those things that did not go according to plan.
As we will hear from today's witnesses, our focus should
cover the broad diversity of success and the obvious
challenges, the activities that worked well, in addition to
those that failed to accomplished its stated objective. As the
Congressional Research Service notes, the Kenyan Constitution
brought major changes to the government, established new checks
and balances and a more deliberate separation of powers and
evolving considerable powers to a new county level of
government. And important changes were made to the
administration of the elections, notably, the introduction of
new technologies designed to enhance the transparency of the
process and credibility of the results. Some of these reforms
worked well and while others proved to be inefficient or
ineffective and maybe you could comment specifically where you
thought what was insufficient and what wasn't effective. Delays
in voter registration and the problems with election equipment
resulted in poorly coordinated voter programs. A lack of voter
education, voter buying and intimidation concerned domestic and
foreign observers alike. But these are the challenges of a
relatively new democracy and a country, I believe, that is
committed to improving and strengthening its institutions.
Kenya's new President must take heed of the many challenges
that were experienced during this most recent election and move
swiftly to show to all Kenyans that the new government is
willing to build a culture of unity that is inclusive of the
country's 50 ethnic groups. The challenge may be great, but the
opportunity is even greater.
I firmly believe that Kenya's future has never been
brighter and with the election now over, Kenyans proved that
the rule of law prevailed over the stinging violence of '07.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses
and I yield to the chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bass. I'd like to now introduce
our distinguished witnesses.
Beginning with Mr. Paul Fagan, who began his career at the
International Republican Institute in 1995. He currently serves
as the Regional Director for Africa where his duties include
oversight of the programs in Kenya. He served as IRI's first
East Africa Resident Regional Director based in Kenya and
oversaw IRI's programs and Kenya's historic 2002 elections and
also implemented IRI's first series of political party programs
in Somaliland. He later served as Acting Deputy Director for
Africa and then served on election observation missions in
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria,
Somaliland, and the Ukraine.
We'll then hear from Dr. Keith Jennings, who is a Senior
Associate and Regional Director for Southern and East Africa
for NDI. Over the past 15 years, he has represented NDI in 30
countries working on a range of governance, civil society,
political party, and election programs. He has managed several
of NDI's largest programs, having served as the Institute's
Country Director for Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, South
African, and Zambia, among others. He is author of numerous
popular and scholarly articles on a range of human rights and
democratic development subjects. He has also been a frequent
media commentator on foreign affairs.
And then we will hear from Mr. Bill Sweeney who serves as
the President and CEO of the International Foundation for
Electoral Systems or IFES. Prior to these positions, he also
served on the board of directors and was chairman of that
organization. He has a life-long background in democracy
promotion and public policy with considerable experience in
both the public and private sectors. He was deputy chairman of
the Democratic National Committee and executive director of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He has also been
an official election observer in the Philippines, Russia,
Jamaica, and Nicaragua.
Mr. Fagan, if you could begin, and welcome to all three of
you.
STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL FAGAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR AFRICA,
INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Fagan. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today along with my colleagues from NDI and IFES with whom we
work closely with around the world. Since its independence 50
years ago, Kenya has been a strategic ally of the United
States. IRI has been active in Kenya since 1992 and has worked
to strengthen democratic institutions ever since. The recent
March elections signaled many changes for the nation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is important to talk about
the challenges Kenya has faced leading up to these elections,
examine the democratization process the country is undergoing
and then discuss ways in which the United States can continue
to foster a strong relationship with its strongest ally in East
Africa. Furthermore, the recently concluded general elections
and the comprehensive approach of United States assistance
should be examined as a possible model for future electoral
assistance in Kenya and other African countries.
The flawed 2007 Kenyan elections and the senseless violence
that followed signaled to the world that democratization is an
ongoing process that can be derailed if it is not supported.
After the international community stepped in to help broker
peace in Kenya, it was clear that more was needed to preserve
the progress made over the years. The result of the efforts
occurred on March 4, 2013 when Kenyans overwhelmingly went to
the polls. The number of voters was not only large, but the
most ever, with more than 86 percent of registered voters
participating in the election.
Five years on, and Kenyans have emerged from a dark chapter
in their nation's history. While Kenyans today are largely
optimistic about the future of their country, this optimism and
the reforms of the past 5 years faced a crucial test on March
4. In the lead up to these elections, there were signs of
progress as well as concern. A particular emphasis should be
focused on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
or the IEBC, the judiciary, the media, civil society and
political parties. All of these institutions deserve credit for
the role they play to ensure a peaceful process, but many
Kenyans still have concerns about them.
The institution that still remains at the center of
discussion is the IEBC, which organized a relatively good
election. However, there were moments that could have derailed
its efforts such as the delayed voter registration process, the
failure of the electronic voter identification machines on
voting day and many in the voting centers, and the flawed
electronic submissions results process.
Kenyans had expected the Presidential results within 48
hours, but due to the flawed electronic results system, results
were not shared until March 9, 5 days after the conclusion of
the election.
The political parties need to continue to be reformed with
a focus on party finance laws, inclusion of marginalized groups
such as women and youth, and being run more transparently.
Women, in particular, were supposed to be big winners in these
elections, but they were not and the parties could have played
a much more positive role in getting women elected.
Generally, the media contributed to a peaceful election by
broadcasting accurate and balanced stories. News outlets
reminded Kenyans to keep the peace and many articles were
written about the need to avoid political violence. And civic
and nongovernmental organizations played a significant and a
central role in Kenya. In the lead up to elections, civic
organizations were invaluable to the electoral process and it
is important to maintain their ability to participate in the
future.
Lastly, Kenya's judiciary was key to the success of these
elections. It was front and center throughout the process.
Reforms to the judiciary had gone and laid the groundwork for
the type of competence witnessed during the Supreme Court
hearing on Raila Odinga's petition. The court proceedings were
made live on television allowing millions of Kenyans to tune
in, watch the proceedings, and then decide for themselves how
they feel about the process. These elections demonstrated that
Kenyans can and will turn to their courts for justice.
It cannot be ignored that each of the sectors mentioned
above, the IEBC, the political parties, the media, civil
society, and the judiciary all benefitted tremendously from the
international community. Kenyans and Kenyan institutions, of
course, deserve the credit, but the donor community's role was
significant. In particular, it was clear that the United
States' electoral assistance, led by the United States Agency
for International Development or USAID, was important when it
came to team work and building synergies at all levels among
implementers in Kenya. Kenya benefitted from this holistic
approach and as such, no stone lay unturned in the efforts to
support Kenyans in having a peaceful and successful election.
IRI, in particular, benefitted from USAID support, but we
have to thank the National Endowment for Democracy for its
continued support for IRI's programs there as well and its
continued support for democracy in Kenya and around the world.
Overall, IRI remains optimistic about the progress made
throughout the elections process. We recognize that more work
needs to be done. However, there are obvious issues to
reconcile regarding the future of the United States relations
with Kenya. President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William
Ruto have been indicted by the ICC for claims that they incited
violence immediately following the 2007 elections. It remains
unclear how our Government will interact with Kenya moving
forward. It's a difficult situation.
Mr. Chairman, Kenya has the ability to lead the way in
Africa for key reforms that embolden marginalized groups and
give all citizens the ability to freely and openly participate
in their government. If this works, Kenya will be a success
story in Africa and beyond. IRI is committed to continuing its
efforts to promote democratic governance throughout Kenya by
empowering local governments and providing them with the
support they need to be successful. We believe that, in turn,
the devolution process will be stronger and provide greater
opportunities for all Kenyans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fagan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
Dr. Jennings.
STATEMENT OF KEITH JENNINGS, PH.D., SENIOR ASSOCIATE AND
REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA, NATIONAL
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
Mr. Jennings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. NDI is very happy to have this opportunity to
comment on the March 4th elections in Kenya.
NDI has worked in Kenya since the mid-1990s and for the
last 5 years has concentrated on helping to facilitate
peaceful, credible processes around the 2010 Constitutional
Referendum and on peaceful and credible elections in 2013, as
well as continued progress beyond them. Mr. Chairman,
NDI's electoral programming in Kenya addresses six areas.
The Institute's work to promote dialogue among the
political parties, the Registrar of Political Parties, and the
Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission, through the
Political Parties Liaison Committees--nationally and at the
county level in all 47 counties--created a sustainable
foundation for political dialogue at the county level going
forward, as well as the national stocktaking on the election
processes.
By facilitating Kenya's first multi-party youth work
through the Inter-Party Youth Forum, hundreds of emerging
leaders forged relationships that served as a brake on violence
across the country in a manner that can continue to contribute
positively over the years ahead.
NDI's support for increased women's political participation
and representation included training more than 700 women and
supporting 96 women candidates to share their platforms through
radio prior to party nominations. This led to more women being
nominated for positions in party primaries and promoted more
women as political leaders at the community level.
NDI's engagement with civil society organizations working
to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities
improved advocacy and awareness of marginalized groups in the
March elections and also a stronger focus among the
organizations themselves to continue working for their rights
within the political system.
NDI also provided technical assistance to 11 faith-based
and civil society organizations that forged the ELOG, the
Election Observation Group, which conducted long-term
observation and independent verification of the Constitutional
Referendum and the 2013 Presidential election through highly
accurate Parallel Vote Tabulations. ELOG's PVTs confirmed that
the official results were within the range of statistical
projections, and ELOG also identified areas of action for
improving the process going forward.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, NDI also conducted survey
research on a regular basis that informed a range of political
actors and the organization also conducted an early pre-
election delegation that was headed by the former Botswana
President, His Excellency Kitimele Masire that laid out a
number of gaps in the process that allowed the election
commission to address those.
Mr. Chairman, NDI's activities are supported by a wide
variety of international funders including the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the State Department's Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, the Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands' Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and the United Nations Development Program.
The financial assistance that NDI receives, especially from
USAID, occurred ahead of the elections allowing sufficient time
for the Institute to plan and implement a range of long-term
activities and also to respond to last-minute contingencies. We
believe the funders understood what was at stake in the
elections in Kenya and responded accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, an accurate and complete assessment of any
election must take into account all aspects of the process and
no election can be viewed in isolation from the political
context in which it takes place. It should also be noted, no
electoral framework is perfect, and that all electoral and
political processes experience challenges. The March 4
elections in Kenya were the most complex in the country's
history. Six elections took place on the same day with a
completely new legal framework for both political parties and
the election management bodies. As you mentioned, we should
also remember that more than 1,000 people had perished in the
last election and 600,000 or more displaced.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that NDI did not
conduct a comprehensive international election observation
mission for Kenya's election and that ultimately it is the
Kenyan people who must determine the meaning of the March 4
polls. However, it is the Institute's view based on its
intensive work that the Kenyan Presidential elections were
credible although the process had many flaws. Unanimous ruling
by the Kenyan Supreme Court affirming the outcome of the
elections which was accepted by Presidential candidate Raila
Odinga after his legitimate challenge before the Court marks an
important milestone.
Elections are always the product of a political process and
Kenya's 2013 elections resulted from popular reforms that not
only set the stage for the vote and for the country to redeem
its reputation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is important that
we look beyond the Presidential elections. For instance, the
Jubilee Coalition headed by Uhuru Kenyatta, won 195 of the 349
National Assembly seats while the Coalition for Reform and
Democracy, headed by Raila Odinga, won 143. In the new Senate,
Jubilee secured 34 seats, while CORD won 27 of the 67 seats. At
the county level, Jubilee has 24 governors, CORD has 23. And
while Jubilee controls 26 county assemblies, CORD controls 21.
Sadly, not one woman was elected to the Senate, nor was one
woman elected governor. Mr. Chairman, this illustrates that
there should not be a zero sum political attitude suggesting
that the winner takes all and the loser loses all following the
March elections. While there are likely to be substantial
difficulties, especially in the devolution process, there's a
basis for positive development, particularly if genuine
political spaces maintain for opposition parties and dialogue
and accountability efforts and a move away from impunity is
guaranteed.
Mr. Chairman, the Kenyan electoral process presents lessons
that are useful when considering other countries and other
elections in Africa and beyond. A few of the most salient are
as follows: Ultimately, it is the people of a country who
determine the credibility of their elections and the country's
democratic development. Additionally, while elections are a key
ingredient of democracy, it should be understood that they are
not synonymous with democracy. Thus, there is much more to be
done to advance Kenya's democratic process.
Secondly, assistance by the international community to
support democratic processes should begin early and be robust,
coordinated and conducted in a proactive manner that respects
the sovereignty of the host country. In this sense, election
assistance must be seen as much more than a technical matter
and should address important factors in the broader political
environment, which was done in Kenya.
Third, systematic observation of election processes by
nonpartisan citizen election monitoring organizations and
international observers, which engage constructively with
election management bodies, can make vital contributions to
improving electoral integrity and public confidence. Such
systematic, credible, independent verifications were not
present in the 2007 elections.
Fourth, developing reliable communication among political
parties and electoral authorities can improve the credibility
of election processes and mitigate potentials for election-
related violence. The efforts of the IEBC and the political
parties through the Political Parties Liaison Committees at the
national and county levels increased the potential for
peaceful, credible elections, including over the tense election
results.
Finally, Mr. Chair, there appears to be an emerging
adherence to the rule of law and recourse to the courts for
resolution of election-related disputes as opposed to past
practices of taking to the streets and inciting violence. The
court cases in Kenya and Ghana challenging the election results
were watershed moments for the African democratization process,
especially because the contestants accepted the authority of
the country's highest courts in both cases.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it is clear that the recent
Kenyan electoral process represents a reversal of the country's
2007, 2008 electoral violence. In fact, the elections and the
challenges to the results strengthened the democratic
institutions of Kenya and hopefully will serve as a hallmark in
steering the country toward a culture of peace and tolerance
during future elections. NDI stands ready to continue to assist
the country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jennings follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Jennings, thank you very much as well and
now Mr. Sweeney, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. BILL SWEENEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Minority
Member Bass, for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee on the recent general elections in Kenya. IFES, in
a joint venture with the other organizations represented here
today, received a grant from USAID in May 2011 to provide
technical assistance to build the capability and sustainability
of the newly-formed Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission known as the IEBC. I was in Kenya during this
election and had the chance to meet with Chairman Ahmed Hassan
and the IEBC Commissioners on several occasions. ``Kenya will
not burn'' is what Chairman Hassan said to me. His message was
powerful, memorable, and accurate.
Mr. Chairman, IFES was able to work with the new election
commission to implement a number of very high profile reforms.
These include five major pieces of new legislation, creating
systems to handle political party registration and candidate
nomination, redistricting of electoral boundaries, registration
of 14.3 million voters in less than 1 month, recruitment and
deployment of 260,000 new poll workers and introduction of
biometric voter registration, electronic voter identification
and a results management system. This and more was accomplished
in under 15 months. The scale of what the IEBC was able to
accomplish was ambitious and impressive even for the most
seasoned election commissions. This election has been
recognized as peaceful and credible by most international and
domestic stakeholders. Nevertheless, it does raise at least one
key question for development agencies and implementing
organizations. How can we better help our partners manage
expectations when a society demands more change in public
administration at a faster pace than can be realistically
implemented?
In Kenya, there was an attempt to implement too much
technology in too short a time. In countries where there is a
trust deficit due to both past behaviors and suspicions about
the process, the choice often is new election technology. There
are issues around adapting, procuring and then deploying new
technology in any political environment. In Kenya, due to
massive pressure from the political leaders of all parties and
civil society, the IEBC decided to implement three new
technologies simultaneously, technologies that were dependent
on infrastructure such as reliable electric power and
accessible cellular channels. This situation is where
international technical assistance from trusted organizations
can make a difference.
Some possible outcomes, such as abandoning paper lists at
polling stations and completely entrusting new technology, can
be walked back. Other decisions can be implemented as best as
possible with the partnership of experienced global personnel
who know technology and the election process from decades of
experience. Election technology, in general, is a great
innovation and can enhance the trust, transparency and speed of
information on Election Day. However, the technology has to
work perfectly on Election Day. The election workers have to be
trained in how to use the technology. The technology, like all
other voting supplies, has to be distributed to the polling
places on time. These are all serious, logical issues for every
election commission.
The Kenya assistance model represents a true partnership
and reinforces the importance of international support to
election management bodies. Elections are a process, not just
an event. The IEBC and IFES are already reviewing lessons
learned in how to prepare the reform agenda toward the next
elections scheduled for August 2017.
Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for your time. This
concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweeney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney. And the
information you've conveyed, I think is astounding, 14.3
million voters signed up in less than a month; 32,000
electronic voter identification systems and the list goes on.
I'm wondering, you did say that the failures in technology were
really failures of project management. I wonder if you might
want to elaborate on that. I have two brothers who are pilots,
and they'll always be the first one to say that it's often not
the machine, it's pilot error. So are we talking about people
didn't know the process? How would you elaborate on this
failure of project management, if you would?
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, I
would never ascribe anything to pilot error.
Mr. Smith. Okay. You must be a pilot.
Mr. Sweeney. However, in the case of Kenya, for example,
they accomplished great things. Their registration system
involves a photograph and fingerprints. Those were organized
onto machines for the 1,000 voters per polling station and the
voters would then use their thumb on the machine so as to pull
up identification. That was great as long as either there was
electricity in the classroom where the polling place was taking
place or the batteries worked. Now batteries are funny things.
Sometimes they say they'll work for 12 hours, but then they're
not completely charged and sometimes they run out of power
because to take a thumbprint is a very large draw on a battery.
And so 1,000 people over the course of a number of hours, the
batteries in some cases failed.
Now, there was a point where the political process and
civil society said don't continue with the investment in the
paper list. Let's completely rely on technology. The IEBC was
able to make the point that, first of all, the paper list was
what was the official register of voters as stated in the law
that might not have been as fancy and as glitzy, but it was the
official register. And secondly, if electric power or battery
power failed, you had the backup. But finally, third, the
election commission invested seriously in the identification
process, so there were actual photo IDs next--photographs of
every voter next to their name because they had gone through
the registration process. And the list was constructed so that
it could be used by a polling worker or a series of polling
workers over the course of a 12-hour day, be flipped back and
forth and not fall apart. Frankly, in my experience it was one
of the best voter booklets I had ever seen.
Mr. Smith. Including here, right?
Mr. Sweeney. One of the best I had ever seen, sir. I don't
choose to revise and extend.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Mr. Sweeney. But it worked. And so if the electronic system
didn't work, they had the official register of voters with
photo IDs in a format that allowed every voter to be serviced
by those poll workers. That's an example, if you will, of where
technology was great when it worked and it was really
impressive to see person after person put their thumbprint
down, see their voter ID come up on that computer screen until
the battery gave out. So these are some of the issues that
you're dealing with. You noted generously in your testimony in
your comments that IFES went out and purchased both cell
phones, as well as SIM cards. Because of the lateness of the
procurement by the IEBC on the cellular phones and the
distribution of them, there were logistical issues in getting
all of that out to all of the polling stations and there were
training issues where frankly, I suspect, that some of the
polling workers did not know how to put the new SIM cards into
the old phones which resulted in problems. This is, quite
frankly, not unforeseen, not a surprise. The Kenyan election
law allowed both for a provisional vote system so that you had
information for the first 3 days. That was always considered
provisional and not official and then the election commission
had 7 days to go through the process of a hand count of all of
the materials as they came into Nairobi. That was all
anticipated in the law, as was the period of the appeal process
and judicial review. And these were all steps forward because
of the disaster of 2007.
Mr. Smith. It would appear, and all three of you can back
this up one way or the other, that the IEBC had a very capable
group of talented leaders who not only were well trained, but
were also situation awareness types that got the job done,
especially in light of the deadlines. You mentioned numerous
political agendas. I'm not sure what that means, but you might
want to speak to the importance of having very talented people
that you saw on the job like at the IEBC in making this really
happen. Because I have met with election commissions all over
Africa, all over the world, frankly, and some leave a lot to be
desired. They're handmade in the ruling party and they just do
whatever the ruling party wants and when there's a contested
election, they find more likely as we saw in Ethiopia in favor
of what the ruling party wants. If you could speak to that, the
talent.
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Chairman, if I can, first of all, if you
looked at the criteria to become appointed a member of the
IEBC, there were over 150 candidates considered by the
Parliament. They had to produce their police records as to
whether or not there were any arrests or liens, their income
tax forms, all of their political activity. They had to swear
not to run for office, I think, 5 to 7 years after this
election. They took, to my way of thinking, probably the most
difficult election commission to be a member of is India's, and
they took the India standard, which only allows career civil
servants who have got an unblemished record after 20 years of
service to become members of the election commission. They took
the Indian standard to a higher threshold.
And the amount of disclosure that these candidates for
IEBC, all of the candidates have to submit to their Parliament
for selection was by any standard simply amazing. Income tax
forms, police forms, academic records, everything and then
these men and women were selected and they were dedicated to
fulfilling their mission to their country. I know almost all of
the IEBC members having met with them individually and
collectively a number of times over the last 3 years. It is a
tremendous group of very committed public servants who come
from all walks of life. There was a chemistry teacher from
middle schools. There was a former Ambassador to the United
States who had been a career public servant. There was a
lawyer. There was an accountant. It was a tremendous group of
people who have committed themselves to Kenya's democracy.
Mr. Jennings. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that all of
the things that my colleague from IFES just said is true.
However, this is a political process and there was a moment
when the public confidence in the IEBC was lost. That's during
the procurement process. There were accusations made of a
number of the members and when the State House, the equivalent
of the White House intervened, it created a problem. And that
problem was difficult to overcome. We worked with the chairman
for at least 5 years before he was even the chair of the
Commission. So in terms of impugning someone's reputation
that's not what I'm trying to point out here, because I think
these are well-known public servants. But in the political
process, whether it was true or not, a problem was created
because of the procurement issue.
The second thing I would add, sir, is that while there were
these flaws, we still have to look at the progress that has
been made in Kenya, a significant progress, a revolutionary
Constitution, the best--one of the best on the continent.
Besides the Constitution itself, the reform of the courts and
perhaps the reason that Raila Odinga went to the courts was
because of the confidence people now have. And now the
devolutionary process, 47 new states have been created with new
assemblies.
So while the IEBC's vetting process took place, judges also
had to be vetted. And this devolutionary process is very
dynamic. It will be difficult for progress to be made in the
short term and I think from the aid effect in this point of
view that's one thing we have to watch. The short term
pressures of an electoral process versus the long term
sustainable development challenges that we face, especially in
a country like Kenya that is the hub for security and
communications and East Africa. If what we did was good enough
to save one life, I don't think we should put a dollar value on
it. And I think that in this particular case the Kenyan people
are the ones who should be congratulated because they have made
up their mind through their various peace campaigns that they
were not going to go back to the violence of the past.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Fagan.
Mr. Fagan. I'll just speak quickly to this point because I
believe my colleagues covered it very well. But I think
Chairman Hassan did a good job. I saw him when he was in
Nigeria for those elections observing just like me. So he took
his role very seriously and even went to other African
elections to see how other institutions were working. And I
think that's an important thing for a lot of these chairmen of
the election commissions to do is to get to know other
elections on the continent. And Nigeria in 2011 was probably
one of the best ones he could have witnessed.
As Dr. Jennings mentioned, prior to the election there was
controversy. There was a crisis in their public image because
of the biometric voter registration procurement issue. They
probably could have done a much better job in communicating to
people, but I think even in the last period between the
election and the election results, they kept people informed.
They told people about their mistakes. They kept people
informed which was good. What we think is important, but what
the Kenyan people believe is much more important. And you have
about 50 percent of the population that probably very much
respects the IEBC, but maybe slightly almost 50 percent that
might not. We have to remember that other side of the country.
So while they conducted themselves very well, we have to
remember what the Kenyans think.
And we also have to remember not just the Presidential
elections were held, Kenyans voted for five other elective
positions. And I don't know the numbers, but very few
challenges to those positions. So all in all, I would say a
good elections process and a job done well by the IEBC. A lot
of lessons learned, but a good job.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Fagan, you said in your testimony that Prime
Minister Odinga even commented that Kenya could not be run via
Skype at The Hague in reference to the pending ICC trials
against Kenyatta and his running mate. I'm wondering if the
U.S. position on that, the warning that was issued earlier on,
have any impact? Did it swing in either way? Was it a
nonfactor, and people just decided on their own who it is that
they wanted to support?
Mr. Fagan. You know, I can't speak for Kenyans on whether
the international community's position on the Presidential
candidates impacted their votes. I think some people will say
maybe that emboldened some people to vote more because they
wanted to say this is a Kenyan election, this is our process,
we don't want the interference of the international community.
So it's hard to say whether or not the international
community's stance which was never fully--they never fully
endorsed one candidate over another, but certainly there were
some statements made by officials from our Government and other
EU governments which probably slightly favored one candidate
over another. Just be careful how Kenyans voted because of the
repercussions that could be made. But those repercussions we
don't know yet. Both President Kenyatta and Vice President Ruto
have been cooperating with the ICC. And as long as they
cooperate, I think the U.S. Government and other governments
will have to take that into consideration in how they deal with
them.
When we look at Zimbabwe and we look at the sanctions on
those leaders, the U.S. Government still deals with those
leaders obviously. President Mugabe is not allowed in this
country, but we still have an Ambassador there. We will have an
Ambassador who has presented his credentials to Mugabe, so
there are a lot of ways to deal with the Kenyan Government. And
I think the United States will find ways to do that because it
is such an important ally.
Mr. Smith. Finally, the role of faith-based NGOs in civil
society in promoting participation as well as nonviolence, and
Dr. Jennings, I think your point made about needing to look
beyond just the Presidential elections, that breakdown of
Jubilee versus the Coalition for Reform in Democracy looks like
there are a whole lot of contested elections with not an equal,
but a very credible, outcome that people were picking and
choosing rather effectively. They didn't just go for one side.
Mr. Fagan, you talked about how important it was for some
to be at other elections like in Nigeria. Were there many other
Africans, particularly those who were in the queue this year
and next, observing and drawing some good lessons?
I know, Mr. Sweeney, you said there will be an event very
soon on lessons learned. Please convey that if you would to the
subcommittee so we can send it out based on your insights and
others as well. But if you touch on that, I'll yield to my
friend, Ms. Bass.
Mr. Jennings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can't forget how
polarized this environment was. It was quite a volatile
situation and so any advantage that either the major
contestants could find, they would make use of. I think for the
record we should state and understand President Obama's
statement was very well received. It wasn't seen as being
controversial at all. There were other statements that people
tried to say contradicted President Obama's statement. And
there was more of a nationalist tone of, ``respect our
sovereignty'' position was taken by a number of the
contestants.
It's understandable in a political situation that is as
close as it was and everybody predicted. In fact, we thought
there would be a runoff, but the numbers and the results proved
that it's still a fairly divided country.
Let me just say on the faith-based participation, it was
massive and there were calls for peace for more than a year.
The calls were so resounding that many people said they had
peace fatigue, but whether it was the churches or the mosques
or the synagogues, everyone was calling for peace and that's
what I was saying, referring to earlier, that it was the Kenyan
people who had determined. Sadly, 19 deaths did take place. But
compared to past electoral violence, not only 2007, but all the
past elections, it's a very tiny amount of deaths.
With respect to the public, I think the role that the media
played was significant. There were--people felt like they had
clear choices here because of the role of the public debates
that took place and they knew what they were voting for. And
again, I think the numbers suggest that the society is fairly
clear about which candidate they wanted to vote for.
Under this is something that we may be a bit uncomfortable
discussing and that is the fact of ethnic divisions that exist
within Kenya, but I think that Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto are
together in an unlikely coalition and so they should be up to
the task of managing the diversity of that country. And I think
that's the lesson that again is something that can be shared
with others in Africa. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Chairman, I'd just make two or three quick
points. Number one, the election commissions in Africa have a
history of observing each other's elections. There's a great
deal of learning, a great deal of shared experiences. IFES and
others help facilitate that. We had colleagues from the
Liberian election commission as part of our team in Kenya. We
hosted an evening of the South African, Nigerian, Liberian, and
Kenyan election officials before the election so they could
compare notes and then follow up afterwards. There were also a
number of senior election administrators from a number of
countries who were part of either the Commonwealth observation
delegation or the European Union delegation. Former Chairman
Quraishi of India who was very much a mentor to the Kenyan
process was there as a member of the Commonwealth delegation.
So within the industry, if you will, there was a great number
of lessons learned from other experiences that were then
finally applied in Kenya, but there's never such a thing as a
perfect election. So we know that some of those experiences
will then show up in trainings and conferences in other
countries. That's part of the election administration
profession. So that was very robust, both before the Kenyan
election, the IEBC members were very involved in learning from
other societies and countries and that was evident in both the
evolution and passage of five new election laws as well as
other issues throughout the entire process.
Secondly, the issue that you raised was known to all Kenyan
citizens. This was not a secret. It was a matter of public
debate. They voted and they elected a team that was well aware
of the questions raised by the ICC. This is not a secret, and
it's up to Kenyans as to how they voted and how those campaigns
projected that information out to their voters. No one was shy
about it from what I could see. It was a matter of public
debate.
My final point would be that we are already working with
the Kenyan election commission looking at what went wrong, what
went right, what we could do better. Some issues are in the
law. Some issues were in the process of public procurement.
Some issues were in communications. Every election commission
that is professional takes a look at what happened last month
and tries to figure out what is best. And today's Kenyan
Supreme Court comments on the procurement process I'm sure will
be part of the lessons learned.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to
take where you were, just commenting Mr. Sweeney about no
election is perfect. You know, I don't want to discount in any
way, shape, or form the violence that took place this time and
of course, the violence that took place the last time, but you
know, from your testimony, I think that there's been a lot to
be admired. I was joking with the chair, I don't know when we
had an election turnout where there was 86 percent. I don't
think we'd know what to do.
I do think we really do, and as a couple of the witnesses
said, we need to look at this election in the context of a
particular situation.
So I wanted to ask a few questions, I believe Dr. Jennings
you were mentioning that there were no women that were elected
as governor or to the upper chamber of the Parliament and that
there were 96 female candidates. How many were elected though
to other positions?
Mr. Jennings. Ms. Bass, let me clarify. There were none
elected, but there were 18 who had been appointed in the
Senate.
Ms. Bass. Oh, I see.
Mr. Jennings. But out of the 416 members of Parliament, 85
women are there. In the new constitutional arrangement, there
was supposed to be----
Ms. Bass. Almost our ratio. I think it's a little more.
Mr. Jennings. About 17 percent in the U.S. Congress. But
the point that we were making is that they weren't elected.
Ms. Bass. I understand. They were appointed. Okay. And in
terms of the technology and machines, where were they made?
Where were the voting machines from? The machines that you were
talking about that required the battery, electricity, where
were they from?
Mr. Sweeney. I don't know the exact source of where they
were manufactured. The biometric identification system was done
by a Canadian firm. The results transmission, I know the phones
were primarily Nokia phones, but I can't tell you where they
were manufactured. The voter registration process, I'll have to
get back to you with the exact locales of the firms involved.
Ms. Bass. Okay, I'm interested in that and in particular
because Dr. Jennings, you were pointing out the problems with
procurement. Were you referring to the procurement of this
technology or were there other procurement issues as well?
Mr. Jennings. The procurement of some of the technology
that was just mentioned, yes.
Ms. Bass. In regard to the ICC, I wanted to know if you
could--any of you, could speak to the views of the Kenyan
public in general toward the ICC and then in particular, the
specific case, the Kenyan case. And do you expect President
Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto to continue to comply?
Aren't they due in the next couple of months to go before the
ICC?
Mr. Jennings. The Vice President has a case at the end of
May. And the President has to respond at the end of July.
Ms. Bass. Do you expect them to go?
Mr. Jennings. It's not an issue that NDI covers, ma'am.
What I've mentioned earlier is that the polarization was, in
part, a result of the fact that you had a contestant and his
running mate that had been indicted by the ICC. And prior to
the election process taking place, the visit by President--the
Sudanese President to Kenya had become a big issue. So it's
only in the political context that we were commenting on it,
but NDI doesn't take a position on the ICC or whether or not
the candidates will comply.
Ms. Bass. Okay, and I didn't mean you'd take a position. I
just wanted to know your opinions. Maybe the other two
witnesses can respond. What do you think is going to happen?
Wasn't there an issue before as to whether the witnesses would
show up, the witnesses that have made charges against both the
President and Deputy.
Mr. Fagan. Well, what I would say is just base it on what
they, themselves, had said during the election campaign, during
the two debates that took place. President Kenyatta, now
President Kenyatta, then Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that
he would continue to work with the ICC and attend the hearings,
whether he and Vice President Ruto do that, we'll see. They
have indicated they will cooperate. But if they go, I don't
think we can base it on anything until they go. And that's
when--yeah. So we'll have to see.
Mr. Jennings. In the President's inaugural address, he said
that he will continue cooperate with international
organizations.
Ms. Bass. Mr. Sweeney, did you want to say something?
Mr. Sweeney. I would just take him at his word, ma'am.
Ms. Bass. Okay. What is your assessment of rumors that the
new Kenyatta government may push for restrictions on civil
society? Have you heard those rumors? Do you have any thoughts
about them?
Mr. Jennings. Actually, it's an unfortunate situation. We
are very concerned about space being maintained for civil
society. The reforms that we are all congratulating the Kenyans
about actually were largely a result of active civil society
pushing for these reforms for more than two decades. There's a
bill that was recently adopted and it just coincides with the
election of President Kenyatta, but that bill was promulgated
prior to his election which does close space.
Just recently as in yesterday, more than 8,500 civil
society organizations have reapplied for their registration.
And one of the things that we have said and we would hope that
the new government would pay attention to is that as long as
there is space for a vibrant civil society, then it is possible
that these reforms can be achieved. And that is the real
measure of whether or not the investments made by governments
like the United States or other governments was worth the
investment or not because that's at the end of the day, whether
the Kenyan people can live in a democratic society and there's
an inclusive social and economic development process is the
real measure of what we do.
Ms. Bass. Can you tell me what you think Odinga's role will
be now? Especially when I was looking at the ratios in terms of
the majority and minority parties, they're almost neck and
neck. Does he continue to play a leading role in opposition
even though he lost the election? What do you anticipate from
him?
Mr. Fagan. Raila Odinga has been in politics his whole
life.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Fagan. His father was the first Vice President.
Kenyatta's father was the first President.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Fagan. So historically, he's been connected to the
politics of that country since probably his birth. So I would
expect Raila Odinga to continue to play a prominent role in
politics. Will he run for President again? I don't know.
Anything is possible.
If you look at history, if you look at Raila Odinga, if you
look at the major political actors over the past, I would say
even two decades, they reinvent themselves. They join different
political parties----
Ms. Bass. We know about that, too.
Mr. Fagan. There's a lot of party hopping. He joined KANU
as the ruling party. He was thrown in jail under KANU and
President Moi. I think Raila Odinga plays an important role in
Kenya. He's a leader of one of the largest ethnic communities,
but he's also a leader of many different political parties in
the past and probably in the future. So he will continue to
play a major role in this whole process. I don't doubt it. And
I think maybe Dr. Jennings had mentioned this. President
Kenyatta and Vice President Ruto were completely at odds in the
last election.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Fagan. So anything can happen in Kenyan politics. So I
can't predict who is going to be doing what probably in the
next 5 years or 2 years because these alliances could change
very quickly.
Ms. Bass. I know a number of the news reports this being
his third try that he probably wouldn't run again.
Mr. Jennings. Ms. Bass, I would say that as Mr. Sweeney
said about Kenyatta, take him at his word, I think we can
definitely take Raila Odinga at his word. During his
congratulatory remarks to Mr. Kenyatta, he said we are now the
official opposition. I think that he is an African leader, is
well known on the continent of Africa, and he's been active as
Paul mentioned for more than four decades. He's an
international figure.
Our understanding is that he's met twice already with Uhuru
Kenyatta. What they talked about I have no way of knowing, but
it would seem to me that to walk away from the numbers that I
just read might not make sense.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Jennings. Now that doesn't mean that Ban Ki-moon won't
offer him a position or something. I don't know. But it would
seem that wherever he is in this world that I think he is a
committed democratic activist and he wants to see Kenya be
democratic.
There's a saying that Africa doesn't need big men, that it
just needs strong institutions. I would amend that a little
bit. I do believe that Africa needs good statesmen and good
stateswomen and I think that what Raila Odinga did showed that
he's a statesman and hopefully he'll continue to play that
role.
Mr. Sweeney. I have to agree with my colleagues. You look
at his family. You look at his background. You look at
everything the he's done in his life and it is very, very hard
to imagine him not continuing to have an impact on Kenyan
politics. But what that role and title will be, I think it will
be up to his invention.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank each of
you for coming to testify today.
Mr. Fagan, I'd like to start with you. You mentioned in
your testimony about the political parties are still in need of
reform as they are really not based on a platform or
ideological point of view. Do you think locally politicians
understand that that need for reform and I guess the second
follow up to that is do you see that improving or changing?
Mr. Fagan. I'm not pessimistic about the parties in Kenya,
but if you do look at them from a holistic approach, especially
in the past two election cycles, politicians jump from one
political party to another.
Under the 2002 elections, most of them coalesced around the
NARC Coalition, basically to defeat KANU and Uhuru Kenyatta in
his first attempt at the presidency. So politics is a game of
coalition building. And in and of itself is not a bad thing,
but these political parties tend to be led by individuals that
are driven by ethnic groupings. But when I think about these
elections and even through these political parties, there's a
lot of basis on ethnicity and where they come from and that's
part of the calculus when putting these coalitions together,
can we get the Luo population, can we get the Luhya population,
can we get the Kalenjin population, which populations can we
get? Can we get the Coast? Those calculations certainly go into
it.
But what I think what we saw in these elections was a lot
of talk about issues, certainly. And I don't want to just keep
on bringing up the Presidential debate, but that was historic,
having two Presidential debates. And these debates, they put
our debates to shame, no offense to President Obama or Governor
Romney, but you knew exactly what they were going to say. These
guys were going at each other, talking about the most troubling
issues facing Kenya, the ICC, land issues, the issues that
really matter to Kenyans. So I'm positive and optimistic that
the political parties will be reformed. There needs to be a lot
done on the internal processes.
Mr. Meadows. So are you suggesting that as we reform those,
the Presidential debates will become more like ours?
Mr. Fagan. We'll see.
Mr. Meadows. I hope not.
Mr. Fagan. I hope not either. It was very refreshing to
watch the debates, but I think the parties have a long way to
go in the area of internal party democracy ensuring that more
people are able to get to those elected positions fairly.
There's a lot of money that goes around. Women were left out of
the process quite a bit. So there needs to be a lot more done
in the area of political party reform, especially in the area
of financial reform.
Mr. Meadows. And so as we look at that, are you saying that
that's part of our focus is to help them with the reform and
their political parties? Because that's a pretty far reach.
We're taking really a world view in a society that culturally
has been that way for a lot longer than we've been in existence
in trying to say okay, we want you to be devoid of that and now
all of a sudden support a platform and become political. Is
that--I'll let each one of you.
Dr. Jennings, can you comment on that?
Mr. Jennings. I'd love to, sir. We've been working with
political parties in Kenya specifically for the last 5 years. I
think they've made tremendous progress. They may not
necessarily be ideologically driven, but the issues now are
being addressed more and more. They have put forth manifestos
that did not come from some consultant somewhere who was hired
to put it together for them. The parties are debating. One of
the parties whose candidate was--in fact, the only woman
running for President, their party was perhaps one of the best
organized parties in Kenya. The TNA, Uhuru Kenyatta's party,
those were real parties. I'm sure that if I was Kenyatta I
would be trying to attract people to my side, too, when you
look at the numbers within Parliament.
I think it is an area that U.S. Government funding should
continue. The work that we've done as a party institute is to
try to support the building of more democratically-structured
parties. And we've run campaigns that stick to the issues. If I
vote for you because you're from my village, or from my
neighborhood and I don't have water, well, what good is that to
me if my real issue is having clean water and some sanitation.
So by raising real issues it allows the political parties to be
closer to the people and to structured a little bit
differently. I think it is an appropriate area for U.S.
Government support.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Sweeney?
Mr. Sweeney. I'm going to answer this first from the IFES
perspective and then the second from a personal perspective if
I may indulge you.
Mr. Meadows. Sure.
Mr. Sweeney. From the IFES perspective, we work with the
election management bodies. We leave the working with political
parties to the party institutes and to other organizations like
that around the world.
On a personal basis, I worked with Chairman Fascell many,
many years ago to help create the National Endowment for
Democracy and the idea was that the political party model was
something that we wanted to introduce as a country, as a
philosophy into newly-emerging democratic systems. And by and
large, I would argue that the introduction of the democratic
model and the political party system as a way of organizing has
served many countries very, very well and I commend the work of
both the Republican and the Democratic and the German and the
Austrian and a whole variety of other countries as they
introduce their party models.
Now speaking as someone who spent a decade working for a
political party with the closeness of these numbers and the
history of Kenya's moving alliances, it wouldn't surprise me if
there's not going to be a fair amount of political reform in
the next few years by the political parties as they try and
address the electorate at the next election. And that's how it
should be. And as long as that process is open and free and
clear, that's one of the reasons why the National Endowment was
created by the Congress after President Reagan's speech at
Westminster that we're all remembering because of Mrs.
Thatcher's funeral and it's an investment that's been paid off
very, very well for by the democracies around the world that
have invested in that dialogue in my judgment.
Mr. Meadows. is there a danger where we look at the
sovereignty of a nation like Kenya or any others and where we
come in and try to assist them in that process where we
infiltrate their world view? I don't sense that, but just
thought I would----
Mr. Sweeney. If I may respond, yes, there is the danger.
But you're also dealing with the professional politicians of a
country.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Sweeney. And they tend to be able to speak up for their
country, for their country men and women, for their own
interests. These are not--these are professional politicians.
Mr. Meadows. Sure.
Mr. Sweeney. If you as an outsider, even in terms of our
work with the technical side of running an election, if you
cross over the line, you get pushed back. Your advice is not
followed. You are no longer welcome and I suspect that's true
of political party work as well.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Fagan?
Mr. Fagan. What I would say in the case of Kenya in
particular is when we're working with political parties and we
haven't worked with political parties during this election
cycle. NDI has done that much more, is that we'd be working
with them on trying to follow their own laws.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Fagan. So it's not as if we're trying to influence them
on their ideology or what not. We're just trying to help them
follow their own laws when----
Mr. Meadows. Undergirding the rule of law and the
importance thereof.
Mr. Fagan. Exactly.
Mr. Jennings. Mr. Meadows, it's important, the point that
you raised, it can be perceived as imposition and so how you
engage and how you work is very important. You have to adopt
culture, the appropriate methods. We have to make sure that
mutual respect, all of the principles of effective aid, respect
for the host countries, understanding of who you are even.
And the point that I was making earlier about tremendous
progress, there were 33,000 polling streams and the Kenyan
political parties, the two main parties, covered 80 percent of
those or more. So the level of organization is there and they
do want to learn from us, especially because Kenya is a hub for
information and communications technology and innovations that
have been made by the political parties, especially in the last
two elections, they do want to understand that. So I think it's
how we engage more than any kind of pushback on imposition.
Mr. Meadows. Well said. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for
one more question? Okay.
Mr. Fagan, you mentioned the importance, I think in your
testimony, of civic and nongovernmental organizations as they
affected the voting, the role of the voters and education. What
do you see as the greatest threat to that involvement of those
NGOs or civic organizations because you said you know, we need
to continue to grow that and there seemed to be an implication
that if we didn't have that, then the whole system would be
undermined. What do you see as the greatest threat?
Mr. Fagan. Well, I don't think there would be a threat to
our continued support to civil society. In fact, I think civil
society plays a huge and important role in Kenyan society. And
when I say civil society, I'm also including faith-based
groups. This includes churches, mosques, and other groups that
provide services to Kenyans in general when the government
cannot.
We work very closely with civic organizations throughout
the country. I don't know how many counties our staff covered,
but we trained directly 50,000 Kenyans. Our staff of about six
to seven people training, going throughout the country and
training people on what the election means, the whole
devolution process, 50,000 people. And that doesn't include
what we call our training of trainers programs which probably
impacted hundreds of thousands and the radio programs that we
sponsored which we hope millions of people listen to.
So our support, whether it's through IRI, through the
National Endowment for Democracy or the USAID, it's invaluable
and right now I think the question was asked about this PBO,
this public benefit law.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Fagan. We don't know what kind of impact that will
actually have on civic organizations. But the country that's
being thrown around and I don't necessary believe this, is
Ethiopia. Ethiopia has very strong laws against civic
organizations and foreign funding. And we hope that doesn't
happen in the Kenyan case.
Civic organizations play an enormous role in Kenya. They
were prominent in bringing multi-party democracy to Kenya in
1992.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Fagan. So they're very important.
Mr. Meadows. So that would be the threat is to follow
quote deg.``the Ethiopian model'' that may or may not
be active.
Mr. Fagan. I hope not.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, thank you. And I'll yield back to the
chair, but I would ask if any of you have for your testimony,
when you talk about the public procurement issues and what
would be some of those issues that you could respond to the
committee and let us know anything that needs to be highlighted
and looked at from a congressional standpoint that would be
very welcome. I thank each of you for your testimony and I
yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Meadows, thank you so very much. I would
just note parenthetically that speaking about political
parties, most of us have seen the absence of it in the chaos it
produces when there isn't a family. And when there is a two-
party system, yes, other parties should participate but very
often things don't happen. Governance is set back and it often
leads to chaos. But I would note that Greg Simpkins was the
Deputy Regional Director for IRI back in the early 1990s
working on just that, building political parties. So on this
committee, we're very appreciative to have him as our top
African expert on the subcommittee.
I'd like to now yield to the vice chairman of the
committee, Mr. Weber, the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and following up your
remarks about the absence of political parties that's probably
why Mark Twain said he didn't vote for politicians because it
just encouraged them. Maybe he was on to something there.
Mr. Fagan, I've got some questions for you. Was IRI, well,
actually, these are questions for all three of you. Was IRI
involved in the 2007 election?
Mr. Fagan. We had a program there, yes.
Mr. Weber. You had a program. How about you, Dr. Jennings?
Mr. Jennings. Yes, sir. We did not have a big program, but
we were there.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Sweeney?
Mr. Sweeney. We had a modest program as well.
Mr. Weber. Okay. At what point were you--you may have never
left. These are questions for all three of you again. At what
point were you all able to come back in. I mean there was a lot
of violence. Did you have to exit because of that violence?
Mr. Fagan. No. Staff was there through it. We've had a
permanent presence on the ground since 2002. So there was no
exodus whatsoever.
Mr. Weber. So you all have been there the whole time.
Mr. Fagan. Right.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Jennings?
Mr. Jennings. We did not evacuate our staff, but we were in
touch. We only had a small staff of about five or six people.
We were in touch with them on a regular basis during that
period.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Mr. Sweeney?
Mr. Sweeney. Same.
Mr. Weber. So it's safe to say that you all remained on the
ground there during the last 6 years. At what point did you
gear up to start ensuring that the 2013 elections were
different?
Mr. Jennings. In our case, shortly after we saw that the
international observation failed, there were not civil society
groups that were observing the election, and we thought that if
there was a Parallel Vote Tabulation in 2007, maybe some of the
violence could have been avoided. So we set out in our
conversations with USAID and other development partners to say
for the 2013 elections we think this is what needs to be done.
Mr. Weber. When was that, was that in 2008, 2010?
Mr. Jennings. Yes, in 2008.
Mr. Weber. 2008.
Mr. Jennings. We have a presence in Kenya since the mid-
1990s.
Mr. Weber. Okay, I'm specifically focusing between the time
of the 2007 to 2013.
Mr. Sweeney, how about IFES?
Mr. Sweeney. IFES was involved with--in dialogue with the
election commission as it was being organized. They
participated in our November 2010 election program here in the
United States. Our meetings continued and I would say we
staffed up in a major way and started a major program in the
summer of 2011.
Mr. Weber. Okay, so you all did not leave. You all were
there and you had a presence on the ground and you started
2007, 2008.
And Mr. Fagan, when did you start gearing up for 2013?
Mr. Fagan. We had continuous programs, so as soon as the
violence died down and what not, we continued doing our work
with our partners which at the time was mainly with Parliament,
members of Parliament.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So one of the complaints I heard you all
testify about was the procurement process that it didn't go
smoothly, it didn't run well. And if you all were there for so
long, why didn't you all help them begin that process early,
early on?
Mr. Sweeney. I think the issues were mostly around the
election commission's procurements. We did advise the election
commission on a number of options. There were a number of
procurements that took place. Some of those procurements became
controversial, not all of them. The election commission
followed it's own procedures on many. On some it frankly ran
into some difficulties within their own government.
Mr. Weber. Were they short funding?
Mr. Sweeney. I'd have to check on the funding issue.
Because we're dealing with a multiple of issues that created
the perception that my colleague referenced.
Mr. Weber. Okay, and Mr. Fagan, you said that women were
supposed to be the big winners.
Mr. Fagan. Right.
Mr. Weber. But they really weren't. Number one, why were
they supposed to be, and number two, why weren't they?
Mr. Fagan. Well, under the new Constitution, they're
supposed to have at least one third representation within all
the legislative bodies and the courts actually ruled that this
can be gradually implemented and not implemented----
Mr. Weber. Okay, so the numbers just aren't there yet.
Mr. Fagan. Correct.
Mr. Weber. Okay. You also stated that Kenya benefitted from
other international donors during your testimony. What other
donors were you talking about?
Mr. Fagan. I probably will let Keith talk more about that
because we only had U.S. Government funding.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Jennings. The European donors, the Norwegian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch, the British also were very--
through their development organizations, they were very
involved and may have been the largest contributor to the Kenya
electoral process.
Mr. Weber. Any Chinese money?
Mr. Jennings. No. I think the Chinese position is that we
are not involved in the political process. And that's based on
my knowledge what takes place in other places----
Mr. Weber. Above board, at least.
Mr. Jennings. Yes.
Mr. Weber. I'm getting back to what my colleague over here,
Mr. Meadows said, what's the biggest threat? I'm trying to see
if there's any other outside influences trying to come in and
play in this arena.
I think I hear you say, Dr. Jennings----
Mr. Jennings. Well, the Chinese are very present and that's
one of the issues that may have been fueling some of the more
nationalist tendencies because there seems to be an alternative
to the West. The Chinese were the first to congratulate Mr.
Uhuru on his victory, even before the courts had ruled.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Mr. Sweeney, you said that the elections
were a process and not an event, I think was the way you stated
that. There was a list that you said, the official paper list,
when the electronics kind of bit the dust so to speak and
someone maintained an official list. Who maintained that
official list?
Mr. Sweeney. The IEBC developed the voter list as part of
the voter registration process. The list I referenced was a
paper list that had photo identification that came off of the
voter registration process so that if a voter came to a polling
station and they were not using the computer-based biometric
registration which was triggered by a thumbprint, they could
then go to the official paper list and find that voter's
information and that's what I was referencing, sir.
Mr. Weber. And pardon my lack of knowledge on Kenya, do
they all speak the same language?
Mr. Sweeney. Yes and no. The official languages are English
and Swahili, but there are many, there are about 40 to 50
tribal languages as well.
Mr. Weber. Right, okay.
Mr. Sweeney. And in some places it differs in the level of
fluency in those.
Mr. Weber. Also, Mr. Sweeney, you said that the election
law allowed for provisional ballots.
Mr. Sweeney. No, there was provisional reporting.
Mr. Weber. Provisional reporting.
Mr. Sweeney. The way the system worked was on election
night, they would count for the Presidential and they could
report that count by cell phone to the national tally center.
Mr. Weber. I got you.
Mr. Sweeney. That provisional number was then made public,
okay? To the media, to the political parties. However, that was
subject to change.
Mr. Weber. Subject to change. Here's my question about
that.
Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. How long was that law, if you will, or that
ability to provisionally report in place? Did that exist in the
2007 election?
Mr. Sweeney. It did not exist in the 2007 election. The
provisional results were accepted and broadcast by the election
commission for 3 days following the election. Then the election
commission announced that the provisional reporting system,
which they were not satisfied with, was ending and now they
were going to the official count. And the official count was
reviewing the paper ballots and the election forms submitted by
each polling station and then announcing those official results
and they announced those official results over the course of
the next 4-4\1/2\ days until they declared that they did not
need to go to a runoff.
Mr. Weber. Okay, I got you. And so I think it might have
been you, Mr. Fagan, who said--I'm trying to remember multiple
testimonies here, who said you think about 51 percent of the
country, or maybe it was you, Dr. Jennings, believes in the
system? I see the monkey getting on your back, Mr. Fagan.
Mr. Fagan. I only said that because there was just over 50
percent of the population that voted for Uhuru Kenyatta.
Mr. Weber. So you're going strictly by voting numbers.
Mr. Fagan. Correct.
Mr. Weber. And then also, Mr. Sweeney, you said IEBC
candidates were selected by the Parliament.
Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Two questions. How many are on the IEBC, number
one, and is there that kind of faith in that board as well, on
that commission?
Mr. Sweeney. First of all, I believe it's an 11-person
commission, but let me double check that for you.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Sweeney. There were well over 150 candidates who
applied for consideration to the Parliament. The Parliament had
a specific screening committee and went through an exhaustive
process to finally bring candidates before the Parliament to be
voted on.
Mr. Weber. High level integrity, better than the India
model I think you said.
Mr. Sweeney. That's what I said, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Is there faith in the country in that process or
were there cries of corruption, cronyism, favoritism?
Mr. Sweeney. No, sir. I think the country was more than
willing to entrust the IEBC with the responsibility for
conducting the election. There was a number of public flurries
around some procurement issues. There was some dissatisfaction
when the provisional vote system did not work as well as
expected. As one who was in some of those meetings, I can tell
you the IEBC Commissioners and staff were even more
dissatisfied than what was on the news media. But by and large,
I think the country and after they went through the process
which was established by the law, the Supreme Court was able to
review all of that and Kenyans were able to credibly accept the
results.
Mr. Weber. Okay, and last question for you on that subject
is--is there a--I started my questioning with you guys, how
long were you there? Why didn't you act sooner, basically? We
want to be gearing up perhaps for next elections. When is that?
Mr. Jennings. 2017.
Mr. Weber. 2017.
Mr. Sweeney. The next elections are 2017.
Mr. Weber. Is there a process in place with IEBC so that
they're holding forums, whether it's town halls, public
meetings? Do they hold their meetings openly? And are Kenyans
getting in a chance to buy in and participate?
Mr. Sweeney. As I said in my testimony, we're already in
the process of planning the first meeting with the IEBC on the
lessons learned and how do we go forward. Every election
inevitably produces a set of reforms, some of which are
legislative, some of which are administrative, some of which
are simply practices.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Sweeney. And I suspect all of that will be developed
now that the court has ruled and the process is moving forward.
Mr. Weber. And that will be in the public domain?
Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And then the last question, Dr. Jennings,
you said that the judges had to be vetted.
Mr. Jennings. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. By who?
Mr. Jennings. It was a public process that included people
drawn from a number of places, but ultimately it was the
Parliament.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Jennings. Mr. Weber, let me just go back to one thing
that you raised. Part of the reason that those of us who were
not working with the IEBC raised this issue of the procurement,
it was because they had the highest approval rating of any
institution in the country. And so many Kenyans felt let down
because they had invested so much confidence in the IEBC. And
in the pre-election period, it was critical because of this
polarization. So we're not attacking IEBC as being incompetent
or as perhaps being corrupt. But it was the public perception
and that way only because such a high standard had been held.
And they had performed so well during the constitutional reform
process. So I think it was the politics of the political
environment that caused people to have less confidence. And the
reason that this electoral reform issue is so important is
because it's what now the opposition Raila Odinga has raised in
his court challenge. That some of the counties, we should know
soon, once the IEBC releases the official forms, may have voted
more than 100 percent. We do know officially, 17 counties voted
in the 90 percent rate. And that's why you have such an almost
6 million versus 5\1/2\ million.
Mr. Weber. I get that, when you talked about the
procurement process. I think it was Mr. Sweeney in his remarks
said that when you try to institute electronic, I forget how he
said it, voting or whatever, a lot tried to be done in a short
amount of time, basically. And so all I'm driving at is we want
to make sure we have a policy in place that says by golly, they
ought to be instituting that right now. They ought to be going
back to that process, rebuilding that confidence and making
sure this process is in place. That's what my questions were
aimed at. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. Before I
conclude, I just want to ask in your view will any of the
election laws which obviously have been done very quickly have
to be revisited and updates provided pursuant to lessons
learned? And secondly, Mr. Sweeney, in your testimony you
mentioned that election technology helps mitigate certain types
of fraud, but it also opens the door to more technologically
advanced forms of fraud. Perhaps you might want to elaborate on
that and then we'll conclude.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, every
election that I've seen results in an agenda for change for the
next election. There will always be improvements in the
process, and that's healthy. And I suspect that there will--I
already know that there's discussion as to what parts of the
Kenyan election law and regulation and process need to be
changed, need to be looked at. And they will be looked at in a
completely public way so as to maintain public trust and the
integrity of the election process.
In my testimony, I make the point that technology
oftentimes has unanticipated consequences. And thus the
stupidest way to try and steal an election is through ballot
stuffing. Far better to figure out how to program the computers
on results which is done far away.
Now I will also say that we had some of the world's best
experts in the computer process around elections so as to make
certain that the Kenyan process was completely protected,
contained, safe both from rumors about being hacked into and
the reality of being hacked into. But you can see over time
people try and think they're smarter than other systems.
The one thing I would caution people about is not to live
by anecdote. When you're living at trying to shift the outcome
of a national election, you're not talking about one or two
examples of voter fraud. You've got to find hundreds of
thousands of votes cast. And in the case of Kenya, the IEBC
spent months working to make sure that such errors, be they
administrative and simply clerks writing down the wrong number,
or deliberate, could not happen and that there was
accountability. In the election forum per polling station, you
had not only the signatures of all the election officials
present who had management responsibilities, but all the party
observers present by party, attesting to the fact that the
number that was going on those forms were the numbers that they
had all witnessed. And they were all under penalty of criminal
law if they were lying. It was a very, very robust system. Very
well thought out and then very well executed.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Jennings. Mr. Chairman, let me first say thank you for
holding this hearing and giving us an opportunity to comment. I
do think that the reason I said in the beginning of my
statement that elections are political processes is precisely
because of this. If you have a polarized political environment
with one side getting 5\1/2\ million votes and another getting
over 6 million, and the difference is 8,000 votes, our level of
confidence in the Kenyan people's level of confidence has to be
absolute, especially when the board that was in the Bomas
returning center didn't add up. And so the logical thing for
one side that's committed to the democratic process is to go to
court. It was a legitimate decision by Odinga.
Having said that, it is now up to those who have been
elected and certified by the Supreme Court to continue to
reform process. In my estimation, the electoral reform that is
most needed is to the legal framework. There were a number of
things unanswered. But I would also say and I'm sure that will
be done because I know we're meeting with the political parties
and that's on the agenda, but I would also say that this issue
of space for civil society is one of the most critical things,
but perhaps of all of the things the U.S. is well positioned,
given our Federal system, to assist the Kenyans with is the
devolution process. And I think there's a lot that can be
learned whether it's the National Governors Association or the
National Association of State and County and Local Officials
that can be shared and that would make sense in this context.
But I think that we have the luxury of sitting here. I'm
not a politician. I don't have anything against politicians
either, but I think in the heat of the moment in Kenya, the way
that this election was handled and the role of the Supreme
Court was absolutely critical and I think now people are
willing to work together to move on for the future of that
country.
Mr. Fagan. Just getting back quickly to Mr. Weber's point
of time, when looking at these elections of the next elections,
now is the time to act. And I would echo what Dr. Jennings said
especially in the area of where we should really look at our
assistance would be on this devolution process and making sure
it works. I know the ring gets larger. But also getting back to
your point, about the laws, the electoral laws, I think it's a
lot about enforcing the laws. A lot changed since 2010 with the
new Constitution and therefore those laws need to be
implemented, especially in the area of political party reform.
We saw in the primaries they went--they didn't go as well as
they could have. Parties missed deadlines, etcetera. So we
really need or they need to really focus on just implementing
their own laws. What else is there? But it is a constant
process. I mean this is the first election held under this new
Constitution and new framework. Obviously, changes will need to
be reviewed and assessed. But I would implore upon them that
they need to do it now rather than wait until 18 months before
an election.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. We will conclude the hearing. I do
want to thank you for your extraordinary expertise. We benefit
here, but most importantly people on the ground in Kenya and
elsewhere are the greatest beneficiaries, so thank you for your
leadership. Thank you for spending the better part of this
afternoon conveying all of this wisdom to this subcommittee
which we will use it and do our very best to see that you and
your efforts are adequately resourced, particularly in these
tough budget times. So thank you so very, very much and the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\s
\
Material submitted for the record by Keith Jennings, Ph.D., senior
associate and regional director for Southern and East Africa, National
Democratic Institute
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
