Non-violent legal action is only answer to Kenya's 'stolen' election

Published on Friday 11 January 2008 21:07

KENYA'S opposition must challenge disputed election results in the courts if it wants to strengthen democracy, weaken autocracy and defuse violence: even in Zimbabwe, this has shown our citizens and the world that there is still hope for that very foundation of freedom, the rule of law.

Court proceedings do not have to replace peaceful street action. Martin Luther King said: "Direct action is not a substitute for work in the court and the halls of government… Pleading cases before the courts of the land does not eliminate the necessity for bringing about the mass dramatisation of injustice in front of a city hall. Indeed, direct action and legal action complement one another; when skilfully employed, each becomes more effective."

Courts are slow and frustrating in any country and are unlikely to remove the party in power, but cases do have to be filed in order to demonstrate a commitment to legitimacy. In Zimbabwe, of the 39 parliamentary election challenges after the June 2000 election, not one had been concluded by the end of that term in 2005. The same applied to the 2002 challenge to Robert Mugabe's election – his term ends in March this year and that case is nowhere close to being concluded. Was going to court a pointless exercise? I do not believe so: through the systematic presentation of facts before courts over several years, we were able to show all neutral observers that the ruling party, Zanu PF, did not enjoy a mandate from the Zimbabwean people. All this has helped create international pressure against the Mugabe regime.

The decision to use the courts also underlined our commitment to using non-violent methods and gave us the undisputed moral high ground, domestically and internationally.

We publicised in great detail and in summary what had been filed in court. When we obtained judgments, we printed them out in full and we posted them on the internet. Where the judiciary subverted the legal process, we exposed the judiciary. We persuaded academics to write about the judgments. We used these papers to lobby governments and the UN.

Mugabe expected to steal the election and then wait for the world to forget about the circumstances. I believe the court proceedings, more than any other single factor, were responsible for denying him that.

I recognise that the mention of "years" is not encouraging – a very close election in Kenya seems to have been stolen and, understandably, the opposition wants to take office now. We understand that: we in the MDC should have come into government in June 2000 and are still waiting. But think of the alternatives – we have seen some of them in Kenya.

Kenya's opposition parties must pursue a non-violent route, because the bad behaviour on both sides during and since the election damages the image of Kenya and the whole of Africa, damages hope and damages foreign investment. It perpetuates the notion that Africa is backward, violent and unsafe. While that may have been true two decades ago, it is not true now.