Kenya’s recent elections—which included important changes to its government and electoral process funded in part by the United States and which had sharply reduced levels of violence than had followed the bloody 2007 elections—were the topic of a hearing held Tuesday by Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-04), Chairman of the House congressional panel that oversees Africa and international human rights.

    Smith called Kenya a “critically important” African ally, noting that the United States has devoted more than $35 million since 2010 to prepare for and manage this year's election process. After the massive violence following the closely contested December 2007 election, many precautions were taken to prevent a similar occurrence in 2013, and election-day and post-election violence have been greatly reduced. However, new technology did not work as well as hoped, with questions about the effectiveness of the technologies employed.

    “Given future important African elections, this hearing is looking at what a responsible U.S. policy toward African elections should look like in an era of constrained development aid budgets,” Smith said. “The amount of U.S support for the Kenya election was extraordinary. American and Kenyan civil society organizations were enabled to conduct civic education, including radio and television messages and programs aimed at youth to encourage participation in the election process and discourage violence.”(click here to read Chairman Smith’s opening statement.)

    Smith said the tragic election day deaths of 19 people, although attributed mostly to Islamic separatist elements and not to specifically election-related causes, cannot be overlooked and the perpetrators must be held to account.

    “It is unacceptable that in the violence that followed the 2007 elections, an estimated 1,200 Kenyans were killed, and approximately 600,000 were displaced,” Smith said. “Yet no one has thus far been held accountable.”

    The hearing, entitled “Kenya's 2013 Elections: An Effective Assistance Model,”  was before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations. Witnesses included: Paul Fagan, Regional Director for Africa, International Republican Institute; Dr. Keith Jennings, Ph.D., Senior Associate and Regional Director for Southern and East Africa National Democratic Institute, and; Bill Sweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Click here to watch the hearing or read the testimonies.

    “Overall, IRI remains optimistic about the progress made throughout the elections process,” Paul Fagan, Regional Director for Africa at the International Republican Institute. “We recognize that more work needs to be done and that is why IRI will continue to work with local governments to strengthen the transition to a devolved system of governance as there are obvious issues to reconcile regarding the future of United States relations with Kenya.”

    “It is the Institute’s view, based on its intensive work, that Kenya’s presidential election results were credible, though the process included important flaws,” said Jennings, of the National Democratic Institute For International Affairs (NDI). “The unanimous ruling by Kenya’s Supreme Court affirming the outcome of the elections, which was accepted by presidential candidate Raila Odinga after his legitimate challenge before the Court, marks an important milestone.” 

   “The Kenya assistance model reinforces the need for (and importance of) highly-skilled foreign assistance,” said Sweeney, President and CEO of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. “The model also introduces questions for us to reflect on and learn lessons, particularly as to how we can better help our beneficiaries in managing the expectations of the population they represent and the context in which they can meet these expectations. It is clear the Kenya assistance model has been a success and represents a true partnership between the international community and the Government of Kenya. Enough safeguards were included to ensure it was a credible vote (not critically dependent upon technology) and the process was peaceful.”