Political Tactics that can be Employed by Kenyan Politicians

Politics in Kenya remains to be a very vibrant scene, one that changes within the minute. Strategy and counter strategy has been the order of survival. Alliances are formed for ones survival.

As the ICC case draws closer, so too does the 2012 general elections that are bound to be contested. Politicians that fear being indicted have taken up various tactics to try to evade the ICC prosecutions or ultimately exonerate themselves so that their political image is not tarnished.

 Different players that believe that they are going to be indicted by the ICC may employ several strategies. It is hard for one to defend themselves when they do not know whether they are being prosecuted yet, so the full extent of their plans may not be revealed until they are certain that they are under the ICC radar.

Various politicians have already come out and stated that they oppose the process. However, one politician has strongly been on the forefront against the ICC process. William Ruto has consistently stated that he believes the process is flawed and that Moreno Ocampo and his team of investigators are out on a witch-hunting scheme.

To understand the strategy that Ruto is using one needs to understand the dynamics of the rift valley region to gain a basic insight into what inspires his set goals.

Since the end of the Moi regime, the Kalenjin community had no leading politician that they considered their kingpin. When Ruto came to the forefront during the 2005 referendum vocally rejecting for the first time the proposed constitution, the people recognized that they had a key player in the offing, upping his support within the region.

In 2007 when the ODM team formed the famous “Pentagon” team that had various leaders representing different regions of the country, Ruto represented the Kalenjin community and the Rift Valley area. This year however, he went against his party position of supporting the new constitution and decided to begin his stance as an opposition supporter.

As Ruto continues to heavily criticize the ICC process and that of the Prime Minister, he gains consolidates his power base within the Rift Valley due to the group grievances against the current administration from various issues that they feel have not been addresses. However, some people do support these assertions out of being tribalistic and due to their parochial mentalities. Some also do not get the jist of the process and are easily mislead into supporting a cause they do not understand.

A key strategy that is believed to be in Ruto’s cards is that of using the community as a buffer in preventing him from being prosecuted. The mere threat or indication that there shall be violence from a certain community because they feel they are being “victimized” by the process is key to showing the ICC that they shall only reverse the status-quo, therefore threatening the purpose the ICC is trying to achieve; ending the culture of impunity and ensuring that future violence does not reoccur.

Media reports and the ICC itself have not indicated that the two principles, Messrs Kibaki and Raila, shall be indicted to face charges in The Hague. General debate suggests that they are the key pillars to a semblance of peace within Kenya and their leadership is needed to sustain that.

 Recently, a group of seventeen MPs mainly drawn from the rift valley and central regions held a press conference claiming to the extent that the country “shall be sent to the dogs” if the Prime Minister is not arrested by the ICC. Such utterances are a means to creating tension that would send chills to the international community, various regional factions, politicians and especially the government.

The same MPs were a group known to be sympathizers of William Ruto, with some also known to be key allies of Uhuru Kenyatta, though the deputy PM has largely remained on the sidelines awaiting the release of the names. It is however clear that key allies of the two individuals are closely cooperating, thereby setting the stage for a possible joint collaboration between the two leaders within the near future.

Future negative assertions by MPs towards the ICC process shall endure for a long time to be highlighted in the media. Once the indicted individuals are known, the stakes shall only be raised. It is expected that a grand strategy between all the individuals shall then be formulated so that they can maintain their political face and minimalize their political risk.

Tapping into issues that exude nationalistic emotions are bound to be part of the strategy that shall be employed by various politicians in parliament and in the national arena. Analyzing the debate as to why the United States refused to be a signatory to the Rome Statute only serves as a pointed as to how opponents shall formulate a basis not only to discredit the process, but to incite law makers to force the government, through legislature, to not cooperate with the ICC.

National Sovereignty remains an issue that is dear to most Kenyans. Past events such as the Migingo island scandal only served to show that Kenyans are very conscious about interference from other state and even international non-state actors. When the court is not viewed as counter-productive or neo-colonialist, many people simply view it as merely ineffective, since their conviction rate is still low and the number of indicted individuals under arrest remains at around 30 per cent.

A perceived slow pace in prosecuting individuals has continuously dogged the ICC. Various trials continue to drag over a number of years until the victims get justice. Back in Kenya, no single suspect has been arrested and prosecuted for their involvement in the violence. Though the ICC process is seen to be the closest process in seeking redress for victims, it shall take time to achieve that goal. Incitement can be used to question the duration by which the ICC is dragging a case, with some politicians indicating that it is politically motivated that the trials may drag till 2013. This, they claim, will not allow them to run for office in 2012.

Under the new constitution, it restricts individuals facing criminal charges from facing trial. Suspects that seek higher office or to retain their current positions will claim to their electorate and the nation at large that they are being “frustrated” by the ICC and the government so that they can gain sympathy from the electorate.

However, the question remains as to what these individuals shall do once they are not eligible to vie for office until 2017, technically. They shall be the biggest threat to the process itself depending on how they handle their case. Come 2012 it is widely expected that through cooperation the indicted individuals would team up and fight the current administration and also seek sympathy for their plight from the voters through combined traditional loyalties. They may choose to support a certain candidate and gain certain plump jobs within the next administration, such as senior jobs in parastatals, cabinet positions (though this would be done skillfully through parliament lobbying) and other positions that may allow them to remain in influential positions through pre-negotiated deals.

It is expected that these individuals shall all cooperate with the ICC to avoid being issues with arrest warrants by the pre-trial chamber. Ocampo claimed that bail should be granted to the individuals should they present themselves to the chamber. Nonetheless, they are not guaranteed that the judges shall not convert indictment into a warrant of arrest.

Cooperating with the ICC shall allow these individuals to leave The Hague and continue their duties within the country. The stock of cabinet ministers included in the list will have to resign. Since media exposure shall be glanced on them after the issuing of the indictments, they shall soak up all the limelight they can to consolidate their power bases, reach out to their regional support groups for more influence, and strike deals for 2012 politics. By allowing the suspects to move about in Kenya, the limelight shall turn to the 2012 general election.

On the other hand, a refusal to cooperate with the ICC, though unlikely but still plausible, would be a bold statement to the court and its process as indicated by the suspects behavior. Some tribesmen would consider the move to be one befitted to a warrior, fighting against a bull, whilst at the same time playing the same old card that the court is “targeting the community.” This may further embolden ones community to support you and act as the buffer against arrest, due to a perceived fear that civil unrest will break out.

Omar Al Bashir’s indictment proved that regional bodies such as the African Union can be used to rubber stamp a states take against an ICC arrest warrant. Several key allies of those opposing the process may seek to form a new position with the AU in order as to gain consolation from other African countries. A round of intense lobbying shall ensue within the AU, though it is unlikely that such a deal may be struck for most of the suspects and because the government may not initiate a formal resolution within the AU itself. In the case of Bashir, there was an argument that the indictment leads to him being viewed as a national hero with critics commenting that instead of the ICC ending the culture of impunity; it forces offending leaders to cling to power.

Many a time have the politicians paid individuals, mostly the youth, to demonstrate and make some noise over an issue or calamity they are facing. Only last week was it witnessed when the Makadara MP Mike ‘Sonko’ Mbuvi was remanded at the Kileleshwa police station. Paid youth were hired to cause mayhem outside the Kibera law courts with some being ferried to the destination. This was all in an attempt to show that the MP is widely supported, especially by the youth. The mentality that demonstrating as loud as possible persists within our environment. It is inevitable that Kenyan politicians shall use this same strategy more than any other employed thus far.

Indicted suspects shall use the same trick to get support from various parts of the country in order as to show that they have large support from the community and country at large despite the verdict. It will also be the first of a long journey to seeking a wider support base countrywide.

Many MPs have claimed that the Prime Minister is behind the ICC process of indicting officials. Technically, this is a method used by some opponents to discredit both the ICC and make Raila the scapegoat of all their problems. Their desire would be to kill two birds with one stone, believing that the ICC process can be the ultimate blow to the coalition government. 

Since party politics does play and shall continue to play an important role in both the ICC and 2012 politics, strong party positions shall begin to be formed in regards to the ICC. The blame game that ensued only recently over who is most responsible shall play out from both parties, though it would be said that both principles may not allow an open escalation to be witnessed, though internal wrangling shall continue to jeopardize any solid and practical party positions from being made regarding the ICC.

Parliament shall remain an area where the fight over trying to discredit the ICC shall continue. Efforts to remove Kenya as a signatory, and even new attempts to set up a local tribunal system shall all be surfaced within parliament, though the time for implementing all these has long gone and it is unlikely to gain the two-thirds threshold it needs to implement it into law.

By coercing the ICC via threats and intimidation if they are indicted, suspects shall question the rational of justice over peace. The same argument that undermines the ICC internationally shall be used again, that the ICC is opening up old wounds that have been sealed, leading to the possible renewal of violence due to the sensitivity of the cases.

Questioning the evidence that has been produced to Ocampo’s investigative team has been the talk of town. The Attorney General warned that what the prosecutor currently has might not be sufficient to grant him a case against the suspects. It is with these sentiments that the Kenyan public can begin doubting the fairness of the process, which would reverse all the gains the ICC has done in trying to create the impression that they are only serving to administer justice to the Kenyan people over the 2008 violence.

Kenya’s case to the ICC differs from all previous ones. It is the first time that ICC judges have authorized the opening of a formal investigation on a recommendation from the prosecutor. Previously, ICC prosecutions have resulted from the government referring cases in their countries or, in the case of Sudan, from a UN Security Council directive. 

Jean Ping, the president of the AU Commission, accused the ICC of being hypocritical, saying that “…we are not against the ICC, but there are two systems of measurements…the ICC seems to exist solely for judging Africans.”

Generally, analyzing the political tactics that may be used by Kenyan politicians at this stage is like formulating a Rational Actor Model style of decision making; weighing all ones options and picking the right one. What one can practically estimate is that there is a looming political showdown imminent within less than two weeks.