Ethnic politics and the 2017 Kenyan elections I
Two tight opinion polls on the frontrunners of the 2017 Kenyan presidential election just weeks to the 8 August vote made writ large how potentially contentious the outcome could be. For the first time since campaigns began, one poll had the leading opposition candidate, Raila Odinga of the National Super Alliance (NASA), ahead of incumbent president, Uhuru Kenyatta of the Jubilee Party. The Infotrak Harris opinion poll conducted on 16-22 July put Mr Odinga ahead of Mr Kenyatta by one point, with the former rising in popularity to 47 percent, a 3-point gain from about 2 weeks before. Mr Odinga’s improved chances stemmed from holding on to his key support base, as well as securing new supporters from what used to be the Rift Valley and North Eastern provinces (now a couple of counties), strongholds of the ruling Jubilee Party. Another poll, that by Ipsos, taken on 2-12 July, put both leading contenders at a tie at 45 percent. The Ipsos survey was probably behind the curve in light of its earlier date. Judging from how the media initially under-reported Mr Odinga’s gains, the establishment was clearly shocked.
Not long thereafter, Mr Odinga made a surprise appearance at a televised presidential debate that he and Mr Kenyatta had earlier indicated they would not attend. There was much concern about the reluctance of the candidates to debate each other ahead of the elections. In the vice-presidential debate for instance, only one candidate showed up. Independent deputy presidential candidate Eliud Muthiora Kariara debated himself in mid-July as his rivals found excuses ranging from disagreement with the format to not being formally invited for staying away. Mr Kenyatta’s no-show at the debate was a little surprising considering his campaign cancelled an earlier scheduled trip to Samburu and Marsabit districts in the former Rift Valley and Eastern provinces respectively on the day of the debate. His decision might prove costly: Mr Odinga had the stage entirely to himself. In his defence, Mr Kenyatta asserted the debate would have been a waste of his time, preferring as he put it, to be commissioning projects. NASA stalwarts think he simply fell for their trick: Kalonzo Musyoka, Mr Odinga’s running mate, said he deliberately stayed away from the deputy-presidential debate in a calculated scheme to snare the Jubilee camp into thinking the head of the NASA ticket would similarly not attend the presidential one. They probably have a point, because it is highly unlikely Mr Kenyatta would have ceded 90 minutes of primetime television and radio to his opponent otherwise.
Whether Mr Kenyatta’s debate miss would have an impact on the election results remains to be seen, however. But should Mr Kenyatta lose the election, one of the reasons would almost certainly be because he allowed Mr Odinga to have the undivided attention of the country for more than an hour without the chance to make his own case. Such is the level of uncertainty now that there is talk of a likely second round vote. And even before the debate upset, an objective assessment would have revealed Mr Odinga was probably in a far stronger position than the media, or in fact the opinion polls, suggested. Mr Odinga’s coalition of popular politicians from the major ethnic groups, his populist rhetoric, and the electoral reforms he successfully pushed for, could sufficiently tilt the balance in his favour. That is, barring any major adverse events, of which there are already a few. An ongoing cholera outbreak and the perennial terrorist threat from Somali Al-Shabaab militants are examples of threats that could instigate measures by the authorities with potentially dampening effects on voter turnout on election day.
Ethnic arithmetic favours opposition coalition
Although the 2017 elections would be the second since the new 2010 constitution, which allowed for the devolution of powers to the counties, was adopted, it would also be the first since citizens got a taste of how much power the counties now wield. And it is increasingly obvious a couple of counties might decide the election, judging from the amount of time the two leading candidates dedicated to them during the campaigns. They are Narok, Kajiado, Kisii, Baringo, and those in the former Coast and Western provinces. Even so, a lot of voters are expected to decide along ethnic lines. Mr Kenyatta, who is Kikuyu, the country’s largest tribe and 17 percent of the population (2009 census), and his deputy, William Ruto, who is Kalenjin (13 percent of the population), could easily secure 30 percent of the vote, based on their joint ethnicity alone. Mr Odinga, who is of the Luo ethnic group (10 percent of the population) and the other 4 principals of the National Super Alliance (NASA) coalition namely; former vice-president and deputy prime minister Musalia Mudavadi of Luhya ethnicity (14 percent of the population), former vice-president Kalonzo Musyoka of Kamba ethnicity (10 percent of the population), former Senate minority leader Moses Wetangula of Luhya ethnicity and Isaac Ruto, who is a Kalenjin, could together easily secure 47 percent of the vote if their ethnicity is a reliable proxy; albeit only Mr Musyoka is on the presidential ticket with Odinga.
Even as tribal loyalities do run deep, however, voting choices may not necessarily be tribally homogenous. Considering deputy president William Ruto is a more influential Kalenjin, Mr Isaac Ruto, who has boasted of bringing at least 1 million Kalenjin votes to the table, cannot be so confident, for instance. And the voters’ register does not necessarily reflect the exact tribal configuration of the population. That is, some tribes might have a greater representation in the register than their share of the population and vice versa. Besides, voter turnout on election day might not be similarly structured. And the loyalties of tribes like the Kenyan Somali (6 percent of population) might go either way, although they may not forgot too soon the court-botched closure of the Dadaab refugee camp by the ruling Jubilee government.
Past election results could also be an indicator of how the candidates might fare this time around. Mr Mudavadi, who is not contesting for elective office in the upcoming polls, secured 3.96 percent of the 2013 presidential election votes. If summed with Mr Odinga’s 43.7 percent, their joint tally of about 48 percent, though impressive, would still fall short of the minimum 50 percent and one vote needed to secure a victory, however. That is in addition to having more than 25 percent of votes cast from at least half of the country’s 47 counties. But add those that could potentially come on the back of the other NASA principals, an extra 2 percent might not be that difficult. In contrast, Mr Kenyatta cannot be assured he would get as much as the 50.5 percent of the vote that he got in 2013. Myriad allegations of corruption, a drought-induced grain shortage (albeit now ameliorated with government-subsidized imports) and so on, have likely eroded some of his support.
It is also probable Mr Odinga’s populist and socialist rhetoric resonates more with voters than Mr Kenyatta’s capitalist drift.
• To be continued.
Rafiq Raji
The author, Dr Rafiq Raji, is an adjunct researcher of the NTU-SBF Centre for African Studies, a trilateral platform for government, business and academia to promote knowledge and expertise on Africa, established by Nanyang Technological University and the Singapore Business Federation. This article was by the NTU-SBF Centre for African Studies on 4 August 2017. It was also by published by Africabusiness.com.