confidentially speaking
The Africa Confidential Blog
Observing the observers
Blue Lines
Some rethinking by election observers and we, the journalists who
cover
them, is needed in the wake of the 1 September decision of Kenya's Supreme Court to annul last month's presidential election. In a rare
example of editorial remorse, the New
York Times has conceded that its
leader, two days after the results were announced, asserting that
observers had 'witnessed no foul play' and accusing Raila Odinga of 'fann[ing] the
embers of ethnic strife', was misplaced. Other media
outfits are less inclined to self-criticism.
Amid the complexity of a national election in which about 19
million voters marked six ballot papers each, it requires detailed
scrutiny to assess its fairness. The key role of digital technology –
and its vulnerability to security breaches – in verifying voters,
tallying and relaying the results makes accurate judgements still
harder.
That can make even intrepid journalists reliant on expert
observers. Yet politics can impinge on technical judgements. After the
murderous clashes of 2007-2008 in Kenya, some observers adopted a
'peace before justice' position, wanting to dampen down all but the
most egregious complaints lest they fuel another political implosion.
Now it seems the Supreme Court has taken a different tack, subjecting
the electoral commission to the most rigorous legal tests. This comes
at a time of creeping, sometime galloping, authoritarianism in Africa
and its boldness puts a huge responsibility on the country's
politicians.