With the inauguration of Uhuru Kenyatta, the winner of the Kenyan elections, a phase of transition has ended for the country. During the last elections in 2007, there were significant irregularities and devastating outbreaks of violence. Compared to this, the most recent vote can be considered an overall success, despite the challenges that remain. The power sharing government set up by the main opponents during the crisis in 2008, was a good foundation for this success. Although Zimbabwe has a similar structure, prospects for peaceful and credible July elections are unlikely.
Power Sharing: What for?
The instrument of power sharing is often used to end violent conflicts or political crises sparked by elections. These negotiated agreements are usually also the foundation for a political transformation process leading to new elections. In addition to appeasement, those arrangements can at least be a driver for important reforms. At the same time, there are disadvantages connected to power sharing. First of all, it can undermine political processes in the long and short run. The distribution of power and government offices is negotiated in a small elite circle – mostly made up of those who were the key drivers of escalation. This can contribute to actors using unfair tactics to stay in power via negotiation. Secondly, conflicts are rarely solved through negotiation, but are preserved . The main opponents and fractions usually remain the same, even if they make concessions. With new elections, old conflicts resurge quite easily.
Reasons for Success in Kenya
The agreement negotiated in March 2008 was followed by far-reaching reforms. The judicative has become more independent and the power of the president was limited. Amongst other things, this was achieved by creating decentralized governmental structures with 47 new counties. In addition to reforming election procedures, a new independent election commission was put in charge, which, according to polls, is trusted by a large majority of Kenyans.
This was one of the reasons why critical aspects of the elections, such as massive technical problems with data transmission, the close vote for Kenyatta or the overruled objection of Raila Odinga at the High Court, did not fundamentally jeopardize a peaceful procedure. Additionally, groups within the realm of civil society also contributed to the prevention of renewed violence. The bloody incidents of 2007/2008 had at least been investigated by the Waki Commission, and names of people possibly responsible were identified — although, these names have never been published. Politicians and media refrained from hate speech and directed appeals for peace at voters, which may have been due to huge international attention. Overall, in Kenya, there was political scope for balanced power sharing within the central government and a comparatively open debate.
However, another factor was even more important. The constellation of actors in Kenya had changed in two important ways. First of all, President Mwai Kibaki – whose highly controversial victory in 2007 had sparked the crisis – could not be reelected, because office is limited to two terms. He still influences Kenyan politics, but he was not dominating one of the two contesting factions. Second, a new alliance was formed between former opponents Kenyatta and Ruto, who used their charge at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to jointly mobilize voters. This alliance did not only increase Kenyatta’s chances for winning, but connected Kikuyu and Kalenjin, the two ethnic groups which had violently clashed the most in the Rift Valley in 2007/2008. This might have contributed to the past conflict not being repeated again.
Reasons to Worry in Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, the prospects for the next elections are not as good, despite the power sharing arrangement. Reforms have only been limited. Important areas such as decentralization and the limitation of presidential power have hardly been addressed in the new constitution. Most importantly, Mugabe was able to maintain his access to the security forces, the judicative and the state media despite power sharing. His main opponent, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, is only a junior partner in the government. Mugabe therefore could continue his repressions against opposition, journalists and activists. Because of the militarization of politics, there is hardly any elbow room for societal groups or initiatives that could counteract a scenario, as took place in 2008. Back then, questionable presidential elections, in combination with huge oppression by the state, had led to a political dead end. Additionally, external pressure has softened, which is also because the EU lifted sanctions after the new constitution had been adopted.
Furthermore, the political constellation has not changed much. Currently, the same contestants as those that ran in the last elections will be competing next summer. Fronts between the governing party, ZANU-PF, and premier Tsvangirai’s MDC have hardened and the political atmosphere has been poisoned. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the next elections will bring solutions for the massive problems of Zimbabwe.
By looking at the examples of Kenya and Zimbabwe, it becomes clear that power sharing can be a starting point for peaceful and credible elections, but that there is no guarantee. More important are reforms and the actions of political and societal groups. These conditions can make up for the negative effects of power sharing and make new political constellations possible.
This »Point of View« has been translated and republished by the Fair Observer. Its original German version was published by SWP on 18 April 2013.
Translated into English by Annika Schall.
