U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–461PDF 2013

KENYA’S 2013 ELECTIONS:

AN EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE MODEL?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 16, 2013

Serial No. 113–73

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Paul Fagan, regional director for Africa, International Republican Institute ........................................................................................................................ 5

Keith Jennings, Ph.D., senior associate and regional director for Southern 

and East Africa, National Democratic Institute ................................................ 14

Mr. Bill Sweeney, president and chief executive officer, International Foundation for Electoral Systems ................................................................................... 24

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Paul Fagan: Prepared statement .................................................................... 8

Keith Jennings, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 17

Mr. Bill Sweeney: Prepared statement .................................................................. 26

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

Keith Jennings, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record ................................... 54

(1)

KENYA’S 2013 ELECTIONS: AN EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE MODEL? 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The committee will come to order and good afternoon. 

Let me apologize first to our very distinguished witnesses for the 

lateness. We did have a series of votes. That’s the only reason why 

we are late, but again, it infringes on your time, so thank you for 

your patience and to everyone who is here today. 

Good afternoon. Today’s hearing will examine U.S. actions to 

support the March 2013 elections in Kenya, a critically important 

African ally. The United States has devoted more than $35 million 

since 2010 alone 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 has been greatly reduced. However, an effort to use new 

technology did not work as well as hoped. There were questions 

about the effectiveness of this election which had promised to be 

a technological advancement. Given future important African elections, this hearing will look at what a responsible U.S. position toward African elections should look like in an era of constrained development aid budgets. 

The tragic Election Day deaths of 19 people, although attributed 

mostly to Islamist separatist elements and not to specifically election-related causes, cannot be ignored 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, and there 

are different estimates, some say 1,000, some say more, were killed 

and approximately 600,000 were displaced according to the media 

reports. Yet, no one thus far has been held accountable. 

Kenya, this year, conducted its first election under the 2010 Constitution. In addition to voting for a president and members of the 

National Assembly, Kenya selected members of a new Senate, as 

well as governors and local assembly representatives in the 47 

2

newly-created counties, each with a designated women’s representative. 

More technology was brought into polling places to better ensure 

accuracy of voting and vote tabulation. Unfortunately, reported 

malfunctions of some equipment in some polling stations at the national level where a server breakdown for a while stoked fears of 

vote rigging. If the court process had not been handled as well as 

it was, we might be looking at another wave of post-election violence. 

Uhuru Kenyatta was elected President, as we know, with 

6,173,433 votes to 5,340,546 votes for Mr. Odinga. And this was 

certified by the Kenyan Supreme Court which coincidentally today 

issued a further elaboration and made very clear that although 

there were some anomalies, this election was indeed properly conducted. Nevertheless, the violence was a possibility until Mr. 

Odinga gave a magnanimous concession speech following the first 

court ruling. 

The amount of U.S. support for the Kenyan election was extraordinary. American and Kenyan civil society organizations were enabled, in order to conduct civic education, including ratio and television messages, and programs aimed at youth to encourage participation in the election process, as well as to discourage violence. 

Youth organizations were created nationwide to give young people 

an enduring voice in their country’s political system. Several innovative approaches were created including a comic book called 

Shujazz with young characters involved in commenting on the Kenyan political process. 

The three organizations presenting testimony today all played 

major and very important roles in the creative preparations for the 

2013 Kenyan election. The International Republican Institute 

printed nearly 1.2 million sample ballots and 400,000 election posters for the IEBC and also distributed some 800,000 Shujazz posters. The National Democratic Institute conducted an important poll 

on voter attitudes heading into the election, covering such issues 

as whether the country was headed in the right direction, whether 

their lives will improve in the next 5 years, whether the election 

posed a security threat to them in their community, and whether 

they felt others were being encouraged to do harm to their ethnic 

group because of the elections. Of course, these organizations did 

so much more which will be elaborated on in their testimony. 

The International Foundation for Electoral Systems advised Kenya’s Electoral Commission on the process to conduct an election 

where there were 1,882 different configurations of the ballot, depending on the local races being run—an enormous undertaking. 

The cell phones necessary for reporting of vote totals from polling 

stations were so late in being procured, however, that IFES went 

ahead and purchased 1,200 to send into the field in time for Election Day. 

Despite the extraordinary efforts by NGOs in preparing for the 

Kenyan election, we must be selective in what lessons we take from 

this experience. We will not be able to devote such resources to 

what will be several important elections yet to be held in 2013 in 

other countries. 

3

The U.S. Government has pressed both the Governments of Mali 

and Madagascar to hold elections at the earliest possible date in 

order to normalize relations after coups replaced elected leaders. 

Zimbabwe, which recently held a constitutional referendum, is 

scheduled to hold a Presidential and legislative elections that many 

in that country hope will break the long cycle of repression of political opposition. There was a report in today’s newspapers that the 

Zimbabwe leaders are looking for funds because they are short in 

terms of election monitoring-type funds. So they’re making an appeal as well. The next election in Ethiopia will replace the late 

Prime Minister Meles and also will determine whether the political 

opposition will have more space to operate than in previous elections. I’ll never forget Greg Simpkins and I traveled right after one 

of the marred elections. Even though the opposition made significant gains, people were literally gunned down in the streets of 

Addis, and we were there to raise those issues with Prime Minister 

Meles, but hopefully the next election will be really, truly free and 

fair. 

These elections are important to U.S. foreign policy as was the 

election in Kenya. So how do we ensure that they are successful 

and truly represent the will of the voters if we can’t devote the resources as we did in Kenya? What role do we have to play going 

forward? This is the question we put to today’s witnesses whose organizations have broad experience with African elections and have 

a unique viewpoint that we hope will allow Congress and the administration to agree on funding for a policy that is fiscally sound 

while being politically effective. This hearing comes at a critical 

time since Congress is currently considering our budget for foreign 

affairs, so I’d like to yield to my friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, for 

any opening comments. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on Kenya’s recent election and what we can learn 

from this important period in the country’s history, both politically 

as well as socially. Kenya is an important strategic partner to the 

United States and the most recent election provides an opportunity 

to not only better understand elections in this East African nation, 

but important lessons for the continent as a whole. 

I want to also acknowledge and thank today’s witnesses. Each of 

you in your organizations participated in the recent elections and 

you should be congratulated for your work, not only in Kenya, but 

across Africa to ensure free and fair elections are observed everywhere. 

I want to make clear from the outset of this hearing that this 

committee turns its attention to the Kenyan elections because of its 

importance to the region and the continent. Kenya is said to be the 

economic engine of East Africa and enjoys a thriving private sector 

that drives growth and development. And as we address Kenya’s 

election, we do so knowing very well that our own country faces 

many challenges to ensure that all citizens exercise their right to 

vote without fear of disenfranchisement and intimidation. The 

right to vote is at the heart of our democracy and is cherished 

among those we hold dear. 

Kenya deserves praise for permitting the courts, rather than violence, to determine its bright future. In the aftermath of 2007, 

4

Kenya endured a dark period that reminded us all of what’s at 

stake. While there were pockets of violence, this by far was the exception rather than the rule. I believe the response following the 

March 4th election and court ruling made clear that Kenyans chose 

a future that adheres to peace and the rule of law. 

In reviewing Mr. Sweeney’s remarks for today’s hearing, I found 

his framework for evaluation of the recent election to be both informative and useful, and if you don’t mind I would like to paraphrase from your statement in phrasing how we might consider the 

recent elections. You wrote, ‘‘Did this most recent election reflect 

the will of the people? Were the investments made in the democratic process well spent? And did they allow important advances 

to take hold?’’

In particular, I’d like to know what your thoughts are. Mr. 

Chairman gave several examples of some of the work of the NGOs 

in terms of the posters, the comic books, and all of that and I would 

like to know your opinions as to whether or not, from all three of 

you, as to whether or not you thought that really made a big impact. 

I would like to add an additional question to this thoughtful and 

pragmatic list. Do the steps taken and investments made provide 

a model for elections in other countries throughout Africa? As we’ve 

seen in the last year, African nations with some significant exceptions have embraced democratic processes, the rule of law, and 

peaceful transitions. Whether through elections or constitutional 

means, countries like Senegal, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Malawi illustrate a strong and I believe lasting shift toward democracy. I 

would add that we learn much from our success as we do from 

those things that did not go according to plan. 

As we will hear from today’s witnesses, our focus should cover 

the broad diversity of success and the obvious challenges, the activities that worked well, in addition to those that failed to accomplished its stated objective. As the Congressional Research Service 

notes, the Kenyan Constitution brought major changes to the government, established new checks and balances and a more deliberate separation of powers and evolving considerable powers to a 

new county level of government. And important changes were made 

to the administration of the elections, notably, the introduction of 

new technologies designed to enhance the transparency of the process and credibility of the results. Some of these reforms worked 

well and while others proved to be inefficient or ineffective and 

maybe you could comment specifically where you thought what was 

insufficient and what wasn’t effective. Delays in voter registration 

and the problems with election equipment resulted in poorly coordinated voter programs. A lack of voter education, voter buying and 

intimidation concerned domestic and foreign observers alike. But 

these are the challenges of a relatively new democracy and a country, I believe, that is committed to improving and strengthening its 

institutions. 

Kenya’s new President must take heed of the many challenges 

that were experienced during this most recent election and move 

swiftly to show to all Kenyans that the new government is willing 

to build a culture of unity that is inclusive of the country’s 50 ethVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

nic groups. The challenge may be great, but the opportunity is even 

greater. 

I firmly believe that Kenya’s future has never been brighter and 

with the election now over, Kenyans proved that the rule of law 

prevailed over the stinging violence of ’07. Thank you, and I look 

forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and I yield to the chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. I’d like to now introduce our 

distinguished witnesses. 

Beginning with Mr. Paul Fagan, who began his career at the 

International Republican Institute in 1995. He currently serves as 

the Regional Director for Africa where his duties include oversight 

of the programs in Kenya. He served as IRI’s first East Africa Resident Regional Director based in Kenya and oversaw IRI’s programs 

and Kenya’s historic 2002 elections and also implemented IRI’s 

first series of political party programs in Somaliland. He later 

served as Acting Deputy Director for Africa and then served on 

election observation missions in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, 

Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Somaliland, and the Ukraine. 

We’ll then hear from Dr. Keith Jennings, who is a Senior Associate and Regional Director for Southern and East Africa for NDI. 

Over the past 15 years, he has represented NDI in 30 countries 

working on a range of governance, civil society, political party, and 

election programs. He has managed several of NDI’s largest programs, having served as the Institute’s Country Director for Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, South African, and Zambia, among others. He is author of numerous popular and scholarly articles on a 

range of human rights and democratic development subjects. He 

has also been a frequent media commentator on foreign affairs. 

And then we will hear from Mr. Bill Sweeney who serves as the 

President and CEO of the International Foundation for Electoral 

Systems or IFES. Prior to these positions, he also served on the 

board of directors and was chairman of that organization. He has 

a life-long background in democracy promotion and public policy 

with considerable experience in both the public and private sectors. 

He was deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee 

and executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee. He has also been an official election observer in the 

Philippines, Russia, Jamaica, and Nicaragua. 

Mr. Fagan, if you could begin, and welcome to all three of you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL FAGAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR 

AFRICA, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. FAGAN. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today along with my colleagues from NDI and IFES with whom we 

work closely with around the world. Since its independence 50 

years ago, Kenya has been a strategic ally of the United States. IRI 

has been active in Kenya since 1992 and has worked to strengthen 

democratic institutions ever since. The recent March elections signaled many changes for the nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is important to talk about the 

challenges Kenya has faced leading up to these elections, examine 

the democratization process the country is undergoing and then 

6

discuss ways in which the United States can continue to foster a 

strong relationship with its strongest ally in East Africa. Furthermore, the recently concluded general elections and the comprehensive approach of United States assistance should be examined as 

a possible model for future electoral assistance in Kenya and other 

African countries. 

The flawed 2007 Kenyan elections and the senseless violence 

that followed signaled to the world that democratization is an ongoing process that can be derailed if it is not supported. After the 

international community stepped in to help broker peace in Kenya, 

it was clear that more was needed to preserve the progress made 

over the years. The result of the efforts occurred on March 4, 2013 

when Kenyans overwhelmingly went to the polls. The number of 

voters was not only large, but the most ever, with more than 86 

percent of registered voters participating in the election. 

Five years on, and Kenyans have emerged from a dark chapter 

in their nation’s history. While Kenyans today are largely optimistic about the future of their country, this optimism and the reforms of the past 5 years faced a crucial test on March 4. In the 

lead up to these elections, there were signs of progress as well as 

concern. A particular emphasis should be focused on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission or the IEBC, the judiciary, the media, civil society and political parties. All of these institutions deserve credit for the role they play to ensure a peaceful 

process, but many Kenyans still have concerns about them. 

The institution that still remains at the center of discussion is 

the IEBC, which organized a relatively good election. However, 

there were moments that could have derailed its efforts such as the 

delayed voter registration process, the failure of the electronic voter 

identification machines on voting day and many in the voting centers, and the flawed electronic submissions results process. 

Kenyans had expected the Presidential results within 48 hours, 

but due to the flawed electronic results system, results were not 

shared until March 9, 5 days after the conclusion of the election. 

The political parties need to continue to be reformed with a focus 

on party finance laws, inclusion of marginalized groups such as 

women and youth, and being run more transparently. Women, in 

particular, were supposed to be big winners in these elections, but 

they were not and the parties could have played a much more positive role in getting women elected. 

Generally, the media contributed to a peaceful election by broadcasting accurate and balanced stories. News outlets reminded 

Kenyans to keep the peace and many articles were written about 

the need to avoid political violence. And civic and nongovernmental 

organizations played a significant and a central role in Kenya. In 

the lead up to elections, civic organizations were invaluable to the 

electoral process and it is important to maintain their ability to 

participate in the future. 

Lastly, Kenya’s judiciary was key to the success of these elections. It was front and center throughout the process. Reforms to 

the judiciary had gone and laid the groundwork for the type of 

competence witnessed during the Supreme Court hearing on Raila 

Odinga’s petition. The court proceedings were made live on television allowing millions of Kenyans to tune in, watch the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

ceedings, and then decide for themselves how they feel about the 

process. These elections demonstrated that Kenyans can and will 

turn to their courts for justice. 

It cannot be ignored that each of the sectors mentioned above, 

the IEBC, the political parties, the media, civil society, and the judiciary all benefitted tremendously from the international community. Kenyans and Kenyan institutions, of course, deserve the credit, but the donor community’s role was significant. In particular, it 

was clear that the United States’ electoral assistance, led by the 

United States Agency for International Development or USAID, 

was important when it came to team work and building synergies 

at all levels among implementers in Kenya. Kenya benefitted from 

this holistic approach and as such, no stone lay unturned in the efforts to support Kenyans in having a peaceful and successful election. 

IRI, in particular, benefitted from USAID support, but we have 

to thank the National Endowment for Democracy for its continued 

support for IRI’s programs there as well and its continued support 

for democracy in Kenya and around the world. 

Overall, IRI remains optimistic about the progress made 

throughout the elections process. We recognize that more work 

needs to be done. However, there are obvious issues to reconcile regarding the future of the United States relations with Kenya. 

President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto have 

been indicted by the ICC for claims that they incited violence immediately following the 2007 elections. It remains unclear how our 

Government will interact with Kenya moving forward. It’s a difficult situation. 

Mr. Chairman, Kenya has the ability to lead the way in Africa 

for key reforms that embolden marginalized groups and give all 

citizens the ability to freely and openly participate in their government. If this works, Kenya will be a success story in Africa and beyond. IRI is committed to continuing its efforts to promote democratic governance throughout Kenya by empowering local governments and providing them with the support they need to be successful. We believe that, in turn, the devolution process will be 

stronger and provide greater opportunities for all Kenyans. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fagan follows:]

8


80461a-1.eps
9


80461a-2.eps
10


80461a-3.eps
11


80461a-4.eps
12


80461a-5.eps
13


80461a-6.eps
14

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. 

Dr. Jennings. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH JENNINGS, PH.D., SENIOR ASSOCIATE 

AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE 

Mr. JENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. NDI is very happy to have this opportunity to comment 

on the March 4th elections in Kenya. 

NDI has worked in Kenya since the mid-1990s and for the last 

5 years has concentrated on helping to facilitate peaceful, credible 

processes around the 2010 Constitutional Referendum and on 

peaceful and credible elections in 2013, as well as continued 

progress beyond them. Mr. Chairman, 

NDI’s electoral programming in Kenya addresses six areas. 

The Institute’s work to promote dialogue among the political parties, the Registrar of Political Parties, and the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission, through the Political Parties Liaison Committees—nationally and at the county level in all 47 

counties—created a sustainable foundation for political dialogue at 

the county level going forward, as well as the national stocktaking 

on the election processes. 

By facilitating Kenya’s first multi-party youth work through the 

Inter-Party Youth Forum, hundreds of emerging leaders forged relationships that served as a brake on violence across the country 

in a manner that can continue to contribute positively over the 

years ahead. 

NDI’s support for increased women’s political participation and 

representation included training more than 700 women and supporting 96 women candidates to share their platforms through 

radio prior to party nominations. This led to more women being 

nominated for positions in party primaries and promoted more 

women as political leaders at the community level. 

NDI’s engagement with civil society organizations working to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities improved advocacy and awareness of marginalized groups in the March elections 

and also a stronger focus among the organizations themselves to 

continue working for their rights within the political system. 

NDI also provided technical assistance to 11 faith-based and civil 

society organizations that forged the ELOG, the Election Observation Group, which conducted long-term observation and independent verification of the Constitutional Referendum and the 

2013 Presidential election through highly accurate Parallel Vote 

Tabulations. ELOG’s PVTs confirmed that the official results were 

within the range of statistical projections, and ELOG also identified areas of action for improving the process going forward. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, NDI also conducted survey research 

on a regular basis that informed a range of political actors and the 

organization also conducted an early pre-election delegation that 

was headed by the former Botswana President, His Excellency 

Kitimele Masire that laid out a number of gaps in the process that 

allowed the election commission to address those. 

Mr. Chairman, NDI’s activities are supported by a wide variety 

of international funders including the U.S. Agency for International 

15

Development, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

and the United Nations Development Program. 

The financial assistance that NDI receives, especially from 

USAID, occurred ahead of the elections allowing sufficient time for 

the Institute to plan and implement a range of long-term activities 

and also to respond to last-minute contingencies. We believe the 

funders understood what was at stake in the elections in Kenya 

and responded accordingly. 

Mr. Chairman, an accurate and complete assessment of any election must take into account all aspects of the process and no election can be viewed in isolation from the political context in which 

it takes place. It should also be noted, no electoral framework is 

perfect, and that all electoral and political processes experience 

challenges. The March 4 elections in Kenya were the most complex 

in the country’s history. Six elections took place on the same day 

with a completely new legal framework for both political parties 

and the election management bodies. As you mentioned, we should 

also remember that more than 1,000 people had perished in the 

last election and 600,000 or more displaced. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that NDI did not conduct a comprehensive international election observation mission for 

Kenya’s election and that ultimately it is the Kenyan people who 

must determine the meaning of the March 4 polls. However, it is 

the Institute’s view based on its intensive work that the Kenyan 

Presidential elections were credible although the process had many 

flaws. Unanimous ruling by the Kenyan 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. 

Elections are always the product of a political process and Kenya’s 2013 elections resulted from popular reforms that not only set 

the stage for the vote and for the country to redeem its reputation. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we look beyond the 

Presidential elections. For instance, the Jubilee Coalition headed 

by Uhuru Kenyatta, won 195 of the 349 National Assembly seats 

while the Coalition for Reform and Democracy, headed by Raila 

Odinga, won 143. In the new Senate, Jubilee secured 34 seats, 

while CORD won 27 of the 67 seats. At the county level, Jubilee 

has 24 governors, CORD has 23. And while Jubilee controls 26 

county assemblies, CORD controls 21. 

Sadly, not one woman was elected to the Senate, nor was one 

woman elected governor. Mr. Chairman, this illustrates that there 

should not be a zero sum political attitude suggesting that the winner takes all and the loser loses all following the March elections. 

While there are likely to be substantial difficulties, especially in 

the devolution process, there’s a basis for positive development, 

particularly if genuine political spaces maintain for opposition parties and dialogue and accountability efforts and a move away from 

impunity is guaranteed. 

Mr. Chairman, the Kenyan electoral process presents lessons 

that are useful when considering other countries and other elections in Africa and beyond. A few of the most salient are as follows: 

16

Ultimately, it is the people of a country who determine the credibility of their elections and the country’s democratic development. 

Additionally, while elections are a key ingredient of democracy, it 

should be understood that they are not synonymous with democracy. Thus, there is much more to be done to advance Kenya’s 

democratic process. 

Secondly, assistance by the international community to support 

democratic processes should begin early and be robust, coordinated 

and conducted in a proactive manner that respects the sovereignty 

of the host country. In this sense, election assistance must be seen 

as much more than a technical matter and should address important factors in the broader political environment, which was done 

in Kenya. 

Third, systematic observation of election processes by nonpartisan citizen election monitoring organizations and international 

observers, which engage constructively with election management 

bodies, can make vital contributions to improving electoral integrity and public confidence. Such systematic, credible, independent 

verifications were not present in the 2007 elections. 

Fourth, developing reliable communication among political parties and electoral authorities can improve the credibility of election 

processes and mitigate potentials for election-related violence. The 

efforts of the IEBC and the political parties through the Political 

Parties Liaison Committees at the national and county levels increased the potential for peaceful, credible elections, including over 

the tense election results. 

Finally, Mr. Chair, there appears to be an emerging adherence 

to the rule of law and recourse to the courts for resolution of election-related disputes as opposed to past practices of taking to the 

streets and inciting violence. The court cases in Kenya and Ghana 

challenging the election results were watershed moments for the 

African democratization process, especially because the contestants 

accepted the authority of the country’s highest courts in both cases. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it is clear that the recent Kenyan electoral process represents a reversal of the country’s 2007, 2008 electoral violence. In fact, the elections and the challenges to the results strengthened the democratic institutions of Kenya and hopefully will serve as a hallmark in steering the country toward a culture of peace and tolerance during future elections. NDI stands 

ready to continue to assist the country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jennings follows:]

17


80461b-1.eps
18


80461b-2.eps
19


80461b-3.eps
20


80461b-4.eps
21


80461b-5.eps
22


80461b-6.eps
23


80461b-7.eps
24

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Jennings, thank you very much as well and now 

Mr. Sweeney, please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BILL SWEENEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR 

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 

Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Minority 

Member Bass, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on the recent general elections in Kenya. IFES, in a 

joint venture with the other organizations represented here today, 

received a grant from USAID in May 2011 to provide technical assistance to build the capability and sustainability of the newlyformed Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission known 

as the IEBC. I was in Kenya during this election and had the 

chance to meet with Chairman Ahmed Hassan and the IEBC Commissioners on several occasions. ‘‘Kenya will not burn’’ is what 

Chairman Hassan said to me. His message was powerful, memorable, and accurate. 

Mr. Chairman, IFES was able to work with the new election 

commission to implement a number of very high profile reforms. 

These include five major pieces of new legislation, creating systems 

to handle political party registration and candidate nomination, redistricting of electoral boundaries, registration of 14.3 million voters in less than 1 month, recruitment and deployment of 260,000 

new poll workers and introduction of biometric voter registration, 

electronic voter identification and a results management system. 

This and more was accomplished in under 15 months. The scale of 

what the IEBC was able to accomplish was ambitious and impressive even for the most seasoned election commissions. This election 

has been recognized as peaceful and credible by most international 

and domestic stakeholders. Nevertheless, it does raise at least one 

key question for development agencies and implementing organizations. How can we better help our partners manage expectations 

when a society demands more change in public administration at 

a faster pace than can be realistically implemented? 

In Kenya, there was an attempt to implement too much technology in too short a time. In countries where there is a trust deficit due to both past behaviors and suspicions about the process, 

the choice often is new election technology. There are issues around 

adapting, procuring and then deploying new technology in any political environment. In Kenya, due to massive pressure from the political leaders of all parties and civil society, the IEBC decided to 

implement three new technologies simultaneously, technologies 

that were dependent on infrastructure such as reliable electric 

power and accessible cellular channels. This situation is where 

international technical assistance from trusted organizations can 

make a difference. 

Some possible outcomes, such as abandoning paper lists at polling stations and completely entrusting new technology, can be 

walked back. Other decisions can be implemented as best as possible with the partnership of experienced global personnel who 

know technology and the election process from decades of experience. Election technology, in general, is a great innovation and can 

enhance the trust, transparency and speed of information on ElecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
25

tion Day. However, the technology has to work perfectly on Election Day. The election workers have to be trained in how to use the 

technology. The technology, like all other voting supplies, has to be 

distributed to the polling places on time. These are all serious, logical issues for every election commission. 

The Kenya assistance model represents a true partnership and 

reinforces the importance of international support to election management bodies. Elections are a process, not just an event. The 

IEBC and IFES are already reviewing lessons learned in how to 

prepare the reform agenda toward the next elections scheduled for 

August 2017. 

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for your time. This concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweeney follows:]

26


80461c-1.eps
27


80461c-2.eps
28


80461c-3.eps
29


80461c-4.eps
30


80461c-5.eps
31


80461c-6.eps
32

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney. And the information you’ve conveyed, I think is astounding, 14.3 million voters 

signed up in less than a month; 32,000 electronic voter identification systems and the list goes on. I’m wondering, you did say that 

the failures in technology were really failures of project management. I wonder if you might want to elaborate on that. I have two 

brothers who are pilots, and they’ll always be the first one to say 

that it’s often not the machine, it’s pilot error. So are we talking 

about people didn’t know the process? How would you elaborate on 

this failure of project management, if you would? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, I would 

never ascribe anything to pilot error. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. You must be a pilot. 

Mr. SWEENEY. However, in the case of Kenya, for example, they 

accomplished great things. Their registration system involves a 

photograph and fingerprints. Those were organized onto machines 

for the 1,000 voters per polling station and the voters would then 

use their thumb on the machine so as to pull up identification. 

That was great as long as either there was electricity in the classroom where the polling place was taking place or the batteries 

worked. Now batteries are funny things. Sometimes they say they’ll 

work for 12 hours, but then they’re not completely charged and 

sometimes they run out of power because to take a thumbprint is 

a very large draw on a battery. And so 1,000 people over the course 

of a number of hours, the batteries in some cases failed. 

Now, there was a point where the political process and civil society said don’t continue with the investment in the paper list. Let’s 

completely rely on technology. The IEBC was able to make the 

point that, first of all, the paper list was what was the official register of voters as stated in the law that might not have been as 

fancy and as glitzy, but it was the official register. And secondly, 

if electric power or battery power failed, you had the backup. But 

finally, third, the election commission invested seriously in the 

identification process, so there were actual photo IDs next—photographs of every voter next to their name because they had gone 

through the registration process. And the list was constructed so 

that it could be used by a polling worker or a series of polling 

workers over the course of a 12-hour day, be flipped back and forth 

and not fall apart. Frankly, in my experience it was one of the best 

voter booklets I had ever seen. 

Mr. SMITH. Including here, right? 

Mr. SWEENEY. One of the best I had ever seen, sir. I don’t choose 

to revise and extend. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. SWEENEY. But it worked. And so if the electronic system 

didn’t work, they had the official register of voters with photo IDs 

in a format that allowed every voter to be serviced by those poll 

workers. That’s an example, if you will, of where technology was 

great when it worked and it was really impressive to see person 

after person put their thumbprint down, see their voter ID come 

up on that computer screen until the battery gave out. So these are 

some of the issues that you’re dealing with. You noted generously 

in your testimony in your comments that IFES went out and purchased both cell phones, as well as SIM cards. Because of the lateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
33

ness of the procurement by the IEBC on the cellular phones and 

the distribution of them, there were logistical issues in getting all 

of that out to all of the polling stations and there were training 

issues where frankly, I suspect, that some of the polling workers 

did not know how to put the new SIM cards into the old phones 

which resulted in problems. This is, quite frankly, not unforeseen, 

not a surprise. The Kenyan election law allowed both for a provisional vote system so that you had information for the first 3 days. 

That was always considered provisional and not official and then 

the election commission had 7 days to go through the process of a 

hand count of all of the materials as they came into Nairobi. That 

was all anticipated in the law, as was the period of the appeal process and judicial review. And these were all steps forward because 

of the disaster of 2007. 

Mr. SMITH. It would appear, and all three of you can back this 

up one way or the other, that the IEBC had a very capable group 

of talented leaders who not only were well trained, but were also 

situation awareness types that got the job done, especially in light 

of the deadlines. You mentioned numerous political agendas. I’m 

not sure what that means, but you might want to speak to the importance of having very talented people that you saw on the job 

like at the IEBC in making this really happen. Because I have met 

with election commissions all over Africa, all over the world, frankly, and some leave a lot to be desired. They’re handmade in the ruling party and they just do whatever the ruling party wants and 

when there’s a contested election, they find more likely as we saw 

in Ethiopia in favor of what the ruling party wants. If you could 

speak to that, the talent. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can, first of all, if you looked 

at the criteria to become appointed a member of the IEBC, there 

were over 150 candidates considered by the Parliament. They had 

to produce their police records as to whether or not there were any 

arrests or liens, their income tax forms, all of their political activity. They had to swear not to run for office, I think, 5 to 7 years 

after this election. They took, to my way of thinking, probably the 

most difficult election commission to be a member of is India’s, and 

they took the India standard, which only allows career civil servants who have got an unblemished record after 20 years of service 

to become members of the election commission. They took the Indian standard to a higher threshold. 

And the amount of disclosure that these candidates for IEBC, all 

of the candidates have to submit to their Parliament for selection 

was by any standard simply amazing. Income tax forms, police 

forms, academic records, everything and then these men and 

women were selected and they were dedicated to fulfilling their 

mission to their country. I know almost all of the IEBC members 

having met with them individually and collectively a number of 

times over the last 3 years. It is a tremendous group of very committed public servants who come from all walks of life. There was 

a chemistry teacher from middle schools. There was a former Ambassador to the United States who had been a career public servant. There was a lawyer. There was an accountant. It was a tremendous group of people who have committed themselves to Kenya’s democracy. 

34

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that all of the 

things that my colleague from IFES just said is true. However, this 

is a political process and there was a moment when the public confidence in the IEBC was lost. That’s during the procurement process. There were accusations made of a number of the members and 

when the State House, the equivalent of the White House intervened, it created a problem. And that problem was difficult to overcome. We worked with the chairman for at least 5 years before he 

was even the chair of the Commission. So in terms of impugning 

someone’s reputation that’s not what I’m trying to point out here, 

because I think these are well-known public servants. But in the 

political process, whether it was true or not, a problem was created 

because of the procurement issue. 

The second thing I would add, sir, is that while there were these 

flaws, we still have to look at the progress that has been made in 

Kenya, a significant progress, a revolutionary Constitution, the 

best—one of the best on the continent. Besides the Constitution 

itself, the reform of the courts and perhaps the reason that Raila 

Odinga went to the courts was because of the confidence people 

now have. And now the devolutionary process, 47 new states have 

been created with new assemblies. 

So while the IEBC’s vetting process took place, judges also had 

to be vetted. And this devolutionary process is very dynamic. It will 

be difficult for progress to be made in the short term and I think 

from the aid effect in this point of view that’s one thing we have 

to watch. The short term pressures of an electoral process versus 

the long term sustainable development challenges that we face, especially in a country like Kenya that is the hub for security and 

communications and East Africa. If what we did was good enough 

to save one life, I don’t think we should put a dollar value on it. 

And I think that in this particular case the Kenyan people are the 

ones who should be congratulated because they have made up their 

mind through their various peace campaigns that they were not 

going to go back to the violence of the past. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Fagan. 

Mr. FAGAN. I’ll just speak quickly to this point because I believe 

my colleagues covered it very well. But I think Chairman Hassan 

did a good job. I saw him when he was in Nigeria for those elections observing just like me. So he took his role very seriously and 

even went to other African elections to see how other institutions 

were working. And I think that’s an important thing for a lot of 

these chairmen of the election commissions to do is to get to know 

other elections on the continent. And Nigeria in 2011 was probably 

one of the best ones he could have witnessed. 

As Dr. Jennings mentioned, prior to the election there was controversy. There was a crisis in their public image because of the 

biometric voter registration procurement issue. They probably 

could have done a much better job in communicating to people, but 

I think even in the last period between the election and the election results, they kept people informed. They told people about 

their mistakes. They kept people informed which was good. What 

we think is important, but what the Kenyan people believe is much 

more important. And you have about 50 percent of the population 

that probably very much respects the IEBC, but maybe slightly alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

most 50 percent that might not. We have to remember that other 

side of the country. So while they conducted themselves very well, 

we have to remember what the Kenyans think. 

And we also have to remember not just the Presidential elections 

were held, Kenyans voted for five other elective positions. And I 

don’t know the numbers, but very few challenges to those positions. 

So all in all, I would say a good elections process and a job done 

well by the IEBC. A lot of lessons learned, but a good job. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Fagan, you said in your testimony that Prime 

Minister Odinga even commented that Kenya could not be run via 

Skype at The Hague in reference to the pending ICC trials against 

Kenyatta and his running mate. I’m wondering if the U.S. position 

on that, the warning that was issued earlier on, have any impact? 

Did it swing in either way? Was it a nonfactor, and people just decided on their own who it is that they wanted to support? 

Mr. FAGAN. You know, I can’t speak for Kenyans on whether the 

international community’s position on the Presidential candidates 

impacted their votes. I think some people will say maybe that 

emboldened some people to vote more because they wanted to say 

this is a Kenyan election, this is our process, we don’t want the interference of the international community. So it’s hard to say 

whether or not the international community’s stance which was 

never fully—they never fully endorsed one candidate over another, 

but certainly there were some statements made by officials from 

our Government and other EU governments which probably slightly favored one candidate over another. Just be careful how 

Kenyans voted because of the repercussions that could be made. 

But those repercussions we don’t know yet. Both President 

Kenyatta and Vice President Ruto have been cooperating with the 

ICC. And as long as they cooperate, I think the U.S. Government 

and other governments will have to take that into consideration in 

how they deal with them. 

When we look at Zimbabwe and we look at the sanctions on 

those leaders, the U.S. Government still deals with those leaders 

obviously. President Mugabe is not allowed in this country, but we 

still have an Ambassador there. We will have an Ambassador who 

has presented his credentials to Mugabe, so there are a lot of ways 

to deal with the Kenyan Government. And I think the United 

States will find ways to do that because it is such an important 

ally. 

Mr. SMITH. Finally, the role of faith-based NGOs in civil society 

in promoting participation as well as nonviolence, and Dr. Jennings, I think your point made about needing to look beyond just 

the Presidential elections, that breakdown of Jubilee versus the Coalition for Reform in Democracy looks like there are a whole lot of 

contested elections with not an equal, but a very credible, outcome 

that people were picking and choosing rather effectively. They 

didn’t just go for one side. 

Mr. Fagan, you talked about how important it was for some to 

be at other elections like in Nigeria. Were there many other Africans, particularly those who were in the queue this year and next, 

observing and drawing some good lessons? 

I know, Mr. Sweeney, you said there will be an event very soon 

on lessons learned. Please convey that if you would to the subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
36

committee so we can send it out based on your insights and others 

as well. But if you touch on that, I’ll yield to my friend, Ms. Bass. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can’t forget how 

polarized this environment was. It was quite a volatile situation 

and so any advantage that either the major contestants could find, 

they would make use of. I think for the record we should state and 

understand President Obama’s statement was very well received. It 

wasn’t seen as being controversial at all. There were other statements that people tried to say contradicted President Obama’s 

statement. And there was more of a nationalist tone of, ‘‘respect 

our sovereignty’’ position was taken by a number of the contestants. 

It’s understandable in a political situation that is as close as it 

was and everybody predicted. In fact, we thought there would be 

a runoff, but the numbers and the results proved that it’s still a 

fairly divided country. 

Let me just say on the faith-based participation, it was massive 

and there were calls for peace for more than a year. The calls were 

so resounding that many people said they had peace fatigue, but 

whether it was the churches or the mosques or the synagogues, everyone was calling for peace and that’s what I was saying, referring 

to earlier, that it was the Kenyan people who had determined. 

Sadly, 19 deaths did take place. But compared to past electoral violence, not only 2007, but all the past elections, it’s a very tiny 

amount of deaths. 

With respect to the public, I think the role that the media played 

was significant. There were—people felt like they had clear choices 

here because of the role of the public debates that took place and 

they knew what they were voting for. And again, I think the numbers suggest that the society is fairly clear about which candidate 

they wanted to vote for. 

Under this is something that we may be a bit uncomfortable discussing and that is the fact of ethnic divisions that exist within 

Kenya, but I think that Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto are together 

in an unlikely coalition and so they should be up to the task of 

managing the diversity of that country. And I think that’s the lesson that again is something that can be shared with others in Africa. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I’d just make two or three quick 

points. Number one, the election commissions in Africa have a history of observing each other’s elections. There’s a great deal of 

learning, a great deal of shared experiences. IFES and others help 

facilitate that. We had colleagues from the Liberian election commission as part of our team in Kenya. We hosted an evening of the 

South African, Nigerian, Liberian, and Kenyan election officials before the election so they could compare notes and then follow up 

afterwards. There were also a number of senior election administrators from a number of countries who were part of either the 

Commonwealth observation delegation or the European Union delegation. Former Chairman Quraishi of India who was very much a 

mentor to the Kenyan process was there as a member of the Commonwealth delegation. So within the industry, if you will, there 

was a great number of lessons learned from other experiences that 

37

were then finally applied in Kenya, but there’s never such a thing 

as a perfect election. So we know that some of those experiences 

will then show up in trainings and conferences in other countries. 

That’s part of the election administration profession. So that was 

very robust, both before the Kenyan election, the IEBC members 

were very involved in learning from other societies and countries 

and that was evident in both the evolution and passage of five new 

election laws as well as other issues throughout the entire process. 

Secondly, the issue that you raised was known to all Kenyan citizens. This was not a secret. It was a matter of public debate. They 

voted and they elected a team that was well aware of the questions 

raised by the ICC. This is not a secret, and it’s up to Kenyans as 

to how they voted and how those campaigns projected that information out to their voters. No one was shy about it from what I could 

see. It was a matter of public debate. 

My final point would be that we are already working with the 

Kenyan election commission looking at what went wrong, what 

went right, what we could do better. Some issues are in the law. 

Some issues were in the process of public procurement. Some 

issues were in communications. Every election commission that is 

professional takes a look at what happened last month and tries 

to figure out what is best. And today’s Kenyan Supreme Court comments on the procurement process I’m sure will be part of the lessons learned. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to take 

where you were, just commenting Mr. Sweeney about no election 

is perfect. You know, I don’t want to discount in any way, shape, 

or form the violence that took place this time and of course, the violence that took place the last time, but you know, from your testimony, I think that there’s been a lot to be admired. I was joking 

with the chair, I don’t know when we had an election turnout 

where there was 86 percent. I don’t think we’d know what to do. 

I do think we really do, and as a couple of the witnesses said, 

we need to look at this election in the context of a particular situation. 

So I wanted to ask a few questions, I believe Dr. Jennings you 

were mentioning that there were no women that were elected as 

governor or to the upper chamber of the Parliament and that there 

were 96 female candidates. How many were elected though to other 

positions? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Ms. Bass, let me clarify. There were none elected, 

but there were 18 who had been appointed in the Senate. 

Ms. BASS. Oh, I see. 

Mr. JENNINGS. But out of the 416 members of Parliament, 85 

women are there. In the new constitutional arrangement, there 

was supposed to be——

Ms. BASS. Almost our ratio. I think it’s a little more. 

Mr. JENNINGS. About 17 percent in the U.S. Congress. But the 

point that we were making is that they weren’t elected. 

Ms. BASS. I understand. They were appointed. Okay. And in 

terms of the technology and machines, where were they made? 

Where were the voting machines from? The machines that you 

38

were talking about that required the battery, electricity, where 

were they from? 

Mr. SWEENEY. I don’t know the exact source of where they were 

manufactured. The biometric identification system was done by a 

Canadian firm. The results transmission, I know the phones were 

primarily Nokia phones, but I can’t tell you where they were manufactured. The voter registration process, I’ll have to get back to you 

with the exact locales of the firms involved. 

Ms. BASS. Okay, I’m interested in that and in particular because 

Dr. Jennings, you were pointing out the problems with procurement. Were you referring to the procurement of this technology or 

were there other procurement issues as well? 

Mr. JENNINGS. The procurement of some of the technology that 

was just mentioned, yes. 

Ms. BASS. In regard to the ICC, I wanted to know if you could—

any of you, could speak to the views of the Kenyan public in general toward the ICC and then in particular, the specific case, the 

Kenyan case. And do you expect President Kenyatta and Deputy 

President Ruto to continue to comply? Aren’t they due in the next 

couple of months to go before the ICC? 

Mr. JENNINGS. The Vice President has a case at the end of May. 

And the President has to respond at the end of July. 

Ms. BASS. Do you expect them to go? 

Mr. JENNINGS. It’s not an issue that NDI covers, ma’am. What 

I’ve mentioned earlier is that the polarization was, in part, a result 

of the fact that you had a contestant and his running mate that 

had been indicted by the ICC. And prior to the election process taking place, the visit by President—the Sudanese President to Kenya 

had become a big issue. So it’s only in the political context that we 

were commenting on it, but NDI doesn’t take a position on the ICC 

or whether or not the candidates will comply. 

Ms. BASS. Okay, and I didn’t mean you’d take a position. I just 

wanted to know your opinions. Maybe the other two witnesses can 

respond. What do you think is going to happen? Wasn’t there an 

issue before as to whether the witnesses would show up, the witnesses that have made charges against both the President and 

Deputy. 

Mr. FAGAN. Well, what I would say is just base it on what they, 

themselves, had said during the election campaign, during the two 

debates that took place. President Kenyatta, now President 

Kenyatta, then Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that he would 

continue to work with the ICC and attend the hearings, whether 

he and Vice President Ruto do that, we’ll see. They have indicated 

they will cooperate. But if they go, I don’t think we can base it on 

anything until they go. And that’s when—yeah. So we’ll have to 

see. 

Mr. JENNINGS. In the President’s inaugural address, he said that 

he will continue cooperate with international organizations. 

Ms. BASS. Mr. Sweeney, did you want to say something? 

Mr. SWEENEY. I would just take him at his word, ma’am. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. What is your assessment of rumors that the 

new Kenyatta government may push for restrictions on civil society? Have you heard those rumors? Do you have any thoughts 

about them? 

39

Mr. JENNINGS. Actually, it’s an unfortunate situation. We are 

very concerned about space being maintained for civil society. The 

reforms that we are all congratulating the Kenyans about actually 

were largely a result of active civil society pushing for these reforms for more than two decades. There’s a bill that was recently 

adopted and it just coincides with the election of President 

Kenyatta, but that bill was promulgated prior to his election which 

does close space. 

Just recently as in yesterday, more than 8,500 civil society organizations have reapplied for their registration. And one of the 

things that we have said and we would hope that the new government would pay attention to is that as long as there is space for 

a vibrant civil society, then it is possible that these reforms can be 

achieved. And that is the real measure of whether or not the investments made by governments like the United States or other 

governments was worth the investment or not because that’s at the 

end of the day, whether the Kenyan people can live in a democratic 

society and there’s an inclusive social and economic development 

process is the real measure of what we do. 

Ms. BASS. Can you tell me what you think Odinga’s role will be 

now? Especially when I was looking at the ratios in terms of the 

majority and minority parties, they’re almost neck and neck. Does 

he continue to play a leading role in opposition even though he lost 

the election? What do you anticipate from him? 

Mr. FAGAN. Raila Odinga has been in politics his whole life. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. FAGAN. His father was the first Vice President. Kenyatta’s 

father was the first President. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. FAGAN. So historically, he’s been connected to the politics of 

that country since probably his birth. So I would expect Raila 

Odinga to continue to play a prominent role in politics. Will he run 

for President again? I don’t know. Anything is possible. 

If you look at history, if you look at Raila Odinga, if you look at 

the major political actors over the past, I would say even two decades, they reinvent themselves. They join different political parties——

Ms. BASS. We know about that, too. 

Mr. FAGAN. There’s a lot of party hopping. He joined KANU as 

the ruling party. He was thrown in jail under KANU and President 

Moi. I think Raila Odinga plays an important role in Kenya. He’s 

a leader of one of the largest ethnic communities, but he’s also a 

leader of many different political parties in the past and probably 

in the future. So he will continue to play a major role in this whole 

process. I don’t doubt it. And I think maybe Dr. Jennings had mentioned this. President Kenyatta and Vice President Ruto were completely at odds in the last election. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. FAGAN. So anything can happen in Kenyan politics. So I 

can’t predict who is going to be doing what probably in the next 

5 years or 2 years because these alliances could change very quickly. 

Ms. BASS. I know a number of the news reports this being his 

third try that he probably wouldn’t run again. 

40

Mr. JENNINGS. Ms. Bass, I would say that as Mr. Sweeney said 

about Kenyatta, take him at his word, I think we can definitely 

take Raila Odinga at his word. During his congratulatory remarks 

to Mr. Kenyatta, he said we are now the official opposition. I think 

that he is an African leader, is well known on the continent of Africa, and he’s been active as Paul mentioned for more than four decades. He’s an international figure. 

Our understanding is that he’s met twice already with Uhuru 

Kenyatta. What they talked about I have no way of knowing, but 

it would seem to me that to walk away from the numbers that I 

just read might not make sense. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Now that doesn’t mean that Ban Ki-moon won’t 

offer him a position or something. I don’t know. But it would seem 

that wherever he is in this world that I think he is a committed 

democratic activist and he wants to see Kenya be democratic. 

There’s a saying that Africa doesn’t need big men, that it just 

needs strong institutions. I would amend that a little bit. I do believe that Africa needs good statesmen and good stateswomen and 

I think that what Raila Odinga did showed that he’s a statesman 

and hopefully he’ll continue to play that role. 

Mr. SWEENEY. I have to agree with my colleagues. You look at 

his family. You look at his background. You look at everything the 

he’s done in his life and it is very, very hard to imagine him not 

continuing to have an impact on Kenyan politics. But what that 

role and title will be, I think it will be up to his invention. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank each of 

you for coming to testify today. 

Mr. Fagan, I’d like to start with you. You mentioned in your testimony about the political parties are still in need of reform as they 

are really not based on a platform or ideological point of view. Do 

you think locally politicians understand that that need for reform 

and I guess the second follow up to that is do you see that improving or changing? 

Mr. FAGAN. I’m not pessimistic about the parties in Kenya, but 

if you do look at them from a holistic approach, especially in the 

past two election cycles, politicians jump from one political party 

to another. 

Under the 2002 elections, most of them coalesced around the 

NARC Coalition, basically to defeat KANU and Uhuru Kenyatta in 

his first attempt at the presidency. So politics is a game of coalition 

building. And in and of itself is not a bad thing, but these political 

parties tend to be led by individuals that are driven by ethnic 

groupings. But when I think about these elections and even 

through these political parties, there’s a lot of basis on ethnicity 

and where they come from and that’s part of the calculus when 

putting these coalitions together, can we get the Luo population, 

can we get the Luhya population, can we get the Kalenjin population, which populations can we get? Can we get the Coast? Those 

calculations certainly go into it. 

But what I think what we saw in these elections was a lot of talk 

about issues, certainly. And I don’t want to just keep on bringing 

41

up the Presidential debate, but that was historic, having two Presidential debates. And these debates, they put our debates to shame, 

no offense to President Obama or Governor Romney, but you knew 

exactly what they were going to say. These guys were going at each 

other, talking about the most troubling issues facing Kenya, the 

ICC, land issues, the issues that really matter to Kenyans. So I’m 

positive and optimistic that the political parties will be reformed. 

There needs to be a lot done on the internal processes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you suggesting that as we reform those, 

the Presidential debates will become more like ours? 

Mr. FAGAN. We’ll see. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I hope not. 

Mr. FAGAN. I hope not either. It was very refreshing to watch the 

debates, but I think the parties have a long way to go in the area 

of internal party democracy ensuring that more people are able to 

get to those elected positions fairly. There’s a lot of money that 

goes around. Women were left out of the process quite a bit. So 

there needs to be a lot more done in the area of political party reform, especially in the area of financial reform. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so as we look at that, are you saying that 

that’s part of our focus is to help them with the reform and their 

political parties? Because that’s a pretty far reach. We’re taking 

really a world view in a society that culturally has been that way 

for a lot longer than we’ve been in existence in trying to say okay, 

we want you to be devoid of that and now all of a sudden support 

a platform and become political. Is that—I’ll let each one of you. 

Dr. Jennings, can you comment on that? 

Mr. JENNINGS. I’d love to, sir. We’ve been working with political 

parties in Kenya specifically for the last 5 years. I think they’ve 

made tremendous progress. They may not necessarily be ideologically driven, but the issues now are being addressed more and 

more. They have put forth manifestos that did not come from some 

consultant somewhere who was hired to put it together for them. 

The parties are debating. One of the parties whose candidate was—

in fact, the only woman running for President, their party was perhaps one of the best organized parties in Kenya. The TNA, Uhuru 

Kenyatta’s party, those were real parties. I’m sure that if I was 

Kenyatta I would be trying to attract people to my side, too, when 

you look at the numbers within Parliament. 

I think it is an area that U.S. Government funding should continue. The work that we’ve done as a party institute is to try to 

support the building of more democratically-structured parties. And 

we’ve run campaigns that stick to the issues. If I vote for you because you’re from my village, or from my neighborhood and I don’t 

have water, well, what good is that to me if my real issue is having 

clean water and some sanitation. So by raising real issues it allows 

the political parties to be closer to the people and to structured a 

little bit differently. I think it is an appropriate area for U.S. Government support. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Sweeney? 

Mr. SWEENEY. I’m going to answer this first from the IFES perspective and then the second from a personal perspective if I may 

indulge you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

42

Mr. SWEENEY. From the IFES perspective, we work with the 

election management bodies. We leave the working with political 

parties to the party institutes and to other organizations like that 

around the world. 

On a personal basis, I worked with Chairman Fascell many, 

many years ago to help create the National Endowment for Democracy and the idea was that the political party model was something 

that we wanted to introduce as a country, as a philosophy into 

newly-emerging democratic systems. And by and large, I would 

argue that the introduction of the democratic model and the political party system as a way of organizing has served many countries 

very, very well and I commend the work of both the Republican 

and the Democratic and the German and the Austrian and a whole 

variety of other countries as they introduce their party models. 

Now speaking as someone who spent a decade working for a political party with the closeness of these numbers and the history 

of Kenya’s moving alliances, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s not 

going to be a fair amount of political reform in the next few years 

by the political parties as they try and address the electorate at the 

next election. And that’s how it should be. And as long as that 

process is open and free and clear, that’s one of the reasons why 

the National Endowment was created by the Congress after President Reagan’s speech at Westminster that we’re all remembering 

because of Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral and it’s an investment that’s 

been paid off very, very well for by the democracies around the 

world that have invested in that dialogue in my judgment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. is there a danger where we look at the sovereignty of a nation like Kenya or any others and where we come 

in and try to assist them in that process where we infiltrate their 

world view? I don’t sense that, but just thought I would——

Mr. SWEENEY. If I may respond, yes, there is the danger. But 

you’re also dealing with the professional politicians of a country. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SWEENEY. And they tend to be able to speak up for their 

country, for their country men and women, for their own interests. 

These are not—these are professional politicians. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Mr. SWEENEY. If you as an outsider, even in terms of our work 

with the technical side of running an election, if you cross over the 

line, you get pushed back. Your advice is not followed. You are no 

longer welcome and I suspect that’s true of political party work as 

well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Fagan? 

Mr. FAGAN. What I would say in the case of Kenya in particular 

is when we’re working with political parties and we haven’t worked 

with political parties during this election cycle. NDI has done that 

much more, is that we’d be working with them on trying to follow 

their own laws. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. FAGAN. So it’s not as if we’re trying to influence them on 

their ideology or what not. We’re just trying to help them follow 

their own laws when——

Mr. MEADOWS. Undergirding the rule of law and the importance 

thereof. 

43

Mr. FAGAN. Exactly. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Meadows, it’s important, the point that you 

raised, it can be perceived as imposition and so how you engage 

and how you work is very important. You have to adopt culture, 

the appropriate methods. We have to make sure that mutual respect, all of the principles of effective aid, respect for the host countries, understanding of who you are even. 

And the point that I was making earlier about tremendous 

progress, there were 33,000 polling streams and the Kenyan political parties, the two main parties, covered 80 percent of those or 

more. So the level of organization is there and they do want to 

learn from us, especially because Kenya is a hub for information 

and communications technology and innovations that have been 

made by the political parties, especially in the last two elections, 

they do want to understand that. So I think it’s how we engage 

more than any kind of pushback on imposition. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well said. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one 

more question? Okay. 

Mr. Fagan, you mentioned the importance, I think in your testimony, of civic and nongovernmental organizations as they affected 

the voting, the role of the voters and education. What do you see 

as the greatest threat to that involvement of those NGOs or civic 

organizations because you said you know, we need to continue to 

grow that and there seemed to be an implication that if we didn’t 

have that, then the whole system would be undermined. What do 

you see as the greatest threat? 

Mr. FAGAN. Well, I don’t think there would be a threat to our 

continued support to civil society. In fact, I think civil society plays 

a huge and important role in Kenyan society. And when I say civil 

society, I’m also including faith-based groups. This includes churches, mosques, and other groups that provide services to Kenyans in 

general when the government cannot. 

We work very closely with civic organizations throughout the 

country. I don’t know how many counties our staff covered, but we 

trained directly 50,000 Kenyans. Our staff of about six to seven 

people training, going throughout the country and training people 

on what the election means, the whole devolution process, 50,000 

people. And that doesn’t include what we call our training of trainers programs which probably impacted hundreds of thousands and 

the radio programs that we sponsored which we hope millions of 

people listen to. 

So our support, whether it’s through IRI, through the National 

Endowment for Democracy or the USAID, it’s invaluable and right 

now I think the question was asked about this PBO, this public 

benefit law. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. FAGAN. We don’t know what kind of impact that will actually 

have on civic organizations. But the country that’s being thrown 

around and I don’t necessary believe this, is Ethiopia. Ethiopia has 

very strong laws against civic organizations and foreign funding. 

And we hope that doesn’t happen in the Kenyan case. 

Civic organizations play an enormous role in Kenya. They were 

prominent in bringing multi-party democracy to Kenya in 1992. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

44

Mr. FAGAN. So they’re very important. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So that would be the threat is to follow ‘‘the Ethiopian model’’ that may or may not be active. 

Mr. FAGAN. I hope not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, thank you. And I’ll yield back to the chair, 

but I would ask if any of you have for your testimony, when you 

talk about the public procurement issues and what would be some 

of those issues that you could respond to the committee and let us 

know anything that needs to be highlighted and looked at from a 

congressional standpoint that would be very welcome. I thank each 

of you for your testimony and I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows, thank you so very much. I would just 

note parenthetically that speaking about political parties, most of 

us have seen the absence of it in the chaos it produces when there 

isn’t a family. And when there is a two-party system, yes, other 

parties should participate but very often things don’t happen. Governance is set back and it often leads to chaos. But I would note 

that Greg Simpkins was the Deputy Regional Director for IRI back 

in the early 1990s working on just that, building political parties. 

So on this committee, we’re very appreciative to have him as our 

top African expert on the subcommittee. 

I’d like to now yield to the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. 

Weber, the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and following up your remarks about the absence of political parties that’s probably why 

Mark Twain said he didn’t vote for politicians because it just encouraged them. Maybe he was on to something there. 

Mr. Fagan, I’ve got some questions for you. Was IRI, well, actually, these are questions for all three of you. Was IRI involved in 

the 2007 election? 

Mr. FAGAN. We had a program there, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. You had a program. How about you, Dr. Jennings? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. We did not have a big program, but we 

were there. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Sweeney? 

Mr. SWEENEY. We had a modest program as well. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. At what point were you—you may have never 

left. These are questions for all three of you again. At what point 

were you all able to come back in. I mean there was a lot of violence. Did you have to exit because of that violence? 

Mr. FAGAN. No. Staff was there through it. We’ve had a permanent presence on the ground since 2002. So there was no exodus 

whatsoever. 

Mr. WEBER. So you all have been there the whole time. 

Mr. FAGAN. Right. 

Mr. WEBER. Dr. Jennings? 

Mr. JENNINGS. We did not evacuate our staff, but we were in 

touch. We only had a small staff of about five or six people. We 

were in touch with them on a regular basis during that period. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Mr. Sweeney? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Same. 

Mr. WEBER. So it’s safe to say that you all remained on the 

ground there during the last 6 years. At what point did you gear 

up to start ensuring that the 2013 elections were different? 

45

Mr. JENNINGS. In our case, shortly after we saw that the international observation failed, there were not civil society groups that 

were observing the election, and we thought that if there was a 

Parallel Vote Tabulation in 2007, maybe some of the violence could 

have been avoided. So we set out in our conversations with USAID 

and other development partners to say for the 2013 elections we 

think this is what needs to be done. 

Mr. WEBER. When was that, was that in 2008, 2010? 

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, in 2008. 

Mr. WEBER. 2008. 

Mr. JENNINGS. We have a presence in Kenya since the mid1990s. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, I’m specifically focusing between the time of 

the 2007 to 2013. 

Mr. Sweeney, how about IFES? 

Mr. SWEENEY. IFES was involved with—in dialogue with the 

election commission as it was being organized. They participated in 

our November 2010 election program here in the United States. 

Our meetings continued and I would say we staffed up in a major 

way and started a major program in the summer of 2011. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, so you all did not leave. You all were there 

and you had a presence on the ground and you started 2007, 2008. 

And Mr. Fagan, when did you start gearing up for 2013? 

Mr. FAGAN. We had continuous programs, so as soon as the violence died down and what not, we continued doing our work with 

our partners which at the time was mainly with Parliament, members of Parliament. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So one of the complaints I heard you all testify about was the procurement process that it didn’t go smoothly, 

it didn’t run well. And if you all were there for so long, why didn’t 

you all help them begin that process early, early on? 

Mr. SWEENEY. I think the issues were mostly around the election 

commission’s procurements. We did advise the election commission 

on a number of options. There were a number of procurements that 

took place. Some of those procurements became controversial, not 

all of them. The election commission followed it’s own procedures 

on many. On some it frankly ran into some difficulties within their 

own government. 

Mr. WEBER. Were they short funding? 

Mr. SWEENEY. I’d have to check on the funding issue. Because 

we’re dealing with a multiple of issues that created the perception 

that my colleague referenced. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, and Mr. Fagan, you said that women were 

supposed to be the big winners. 

Mr. FAGAN. Right. 

Mr. WEBER. But they really weren’t. Number one, why were they 

supposed to be, and number two, why weren’t they? 

Mr. FAGAN. Well, under the new Constitution, they’re supposed 

to have at least one third representation within all the legislative 

bodies and the courts actually ruled that this can be gradually implemented and not implemented——

Mr. WEBER. Okay, so the numbers just aren’t there yet. 

Mr. FAGAN. Correct. 

46

Mr. WEBER. Okay. You also stated that Kenya benefitted from 

other international donors during your testimony. What other donors were you talking about? 

Mr. FAGAN. I probably will let Keith talk more about that because we only had U.S. Government funding. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. JENNINGS. The European donors, the Norwegian Ministry of 

Foreign Affairs, the Dutch, the British also were very—through 

their development organizations, they were very involved and may 

have been the largest contributor to the Kenya electoral process. 

Mr. WEBER. Any Chinese money? 

Mr. JENNINGS. No. I think the Chinese position is that we are 

not involved in the political process. And that’s based on my knowledge what takes place in other places——

Mr. WEBER. Above board, at least. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. I’m getting back to what my colleague over here, Mr. 

Meadows said, what’s the biggest threat? I’m trying to see if there’s 

any other outside influences trying to come in and play in this 

arena. 

I think I hear you say, Dr. Jennings——

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, the Chinese are very present and that’s one 

of the issues that may have been fueling some of the more nationalist tendencies because there seems to be an alternative to the 

West. The Chinese were the first to congratulate Mr. Uhuru on his 

victory, even before the courts had ruled. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Mr. Sweeney, you said that the elections were 

a process and not an event, I think was the way you stated that. 

There was a list that you said, the official paper list, when the electronics kind of bit the dust so to speak and someone maintained 

an official list. Who maintained that official list? 

Mr. SWEENEY. The IEBC developed the voter list as part of the 

voter registration process. The list I referenced was a paper list 

that had photo identification that came off of the voter registration 

process so that if a voter came to a polling station and they were 

not using the computer-based biometric registration which was 

triggered by a thumbprint, they could then go to the official paper 

list and find that voter’s information and that’s what I was referencing, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. And pardon my lack of knowledge on Kenya, do they 

all speak the same language? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes and no. The official languages are English and 

Swahili, but there are many, there are about 40 to 50 tribal languages as well. 

Mr. WEBER. Right, okay. 

Mr. SWEENEY. And in some places it differs in the level of fluency 

in those. 

Mr. WEBER. Also, Mr. Sweeney, you said that the election law allowed for provisional ballots. 

Mr. SWEENEY. No, there was provisional reporting. 

Mr. WEBER. Provisional reporting. 

Mr. SWEENEY. The way the system worked was on election night, 

they would count for the Presidential and they could report that 

count by cell phone to the national tally center. 

47

Mr. WEBER. I got you. 

Mr. SWEENEY. That provisional number was then made public, 

okay? To the media, to the political parties. However, that was subject to change. 

Mr. WEBER. Subject to change. Here’s my question about that. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. How long was that law, if you will, or that ability 

to provisionally report in place? Did that exist in the 2007 election? 

Mr. SWEENEY. It did not exist in the 2007 election. The provisional results were accepted and broadcast by the election commission for 3 days following the election. Then the election commission 

announced that the provisional reporting system, which they were 

not satisfied with, was ending and now they were going to the official count. And the official count was reviewing the paper ballots 

and the election forms submitted by each polling station and then 

announcing those official results and they announced those official 

results over the course of the next 4-41⁄2 days until they declared 

that they did not need to go to a runoff. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, I got you. And so I think it might have been 

you, Mr. Fagan, who said—I’m trying to remember multiple testimonies here, who said you think about 51 percent of the country, 

or maybe it was you, Dr. Jennings, believes in the system? I see 

the monkey getting on your back, Mr. Fagan. 

Mr. FAGAN. I only said that because there was just over 50 percent of the population that voted for Uhuru Kenyatta. 

Mr. WEBER. So you’re going strictly by voting numbers. 

Mr. FAGAN. Correct. 

Mr. WEBER. And then also, Mr. Sweeney, you said IEBC candidates were selected by the Parliament. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Two questions. How many are on the IEBC, number 

one, and is there that kind of faith in that board as well, on that 

commission? 

Mr. SWEENEY. First of all, I believe it’s an 11-person commission, 

but let me double check that for you. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. SWEENEY. There were well over 150 candidates who applied 

for consideration to the Parliament. The Parliament had a specific 

screening committee and went through an exhaustive process to finally bring candidates before the Parliament to be voted on. 

Mr. WEBER. High level integrity, better than the India model I 

think you said. 

Mr. SWEENEY. That’s what I said, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Is there faith in the country in that process or were 

there cries of corruption, cronyism, favoritism? 

Mr. SWEENEY. No, sir. I think the country was more than willing 

to entrust the IEBC with the responsibility for conducting the election. There was a number of public flurries around some procurement issues. There was some dissatisfaction when the provisional 

vote system did not work as well as expected. As one who was in 

some of those meetings, I can tell you the IEBC Commissioners 

and staff were even more dissatisfied than what was on the news 

media. But by and large, I think the country and after they went 

through the process which was established by the law, the SuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
48

preme Court was able to review all of that and Kenyans were able 

to credibly accept the results. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, and last question for you on that subject is—

is there a—I started my questioning with you guys, how long were 

you there? Why didn’t you act sooner, basically? We want to be 

gearing up perhaps for next elections. When is that? 

Mr. JENNINGS. 2017. 

Mr. WEBER. 2017. 

Mr. SWEENEY. The next elections are 2017. 

Mr. WEBER. Is there a process in place with IEBC so that they’re 

holding forums, whether it’s town halls, public meetings? Do they 

hold their meetings openly? And are Kenyans getting in a chance 

to buy in and participate? 

Mr. SWEENEY. As I said in my testimony, we’re already in the 

process of planning the first meeting with the IEBC on the lessons 

learned and how do we go forward. Every election inevitably produces a set of reforms, some of which are legislative, some of which 

are administrative, some of which are simply practices. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. SWEENEY. And I suspect all of that will be developed now 

that the court has ruled and the process is moving forward. 

Mr. WEBER. And that will be in the public domain? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And then the last question, Dr. Jennings, you 

said that the judges had to be vetted. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. By who? 

Mr. JENNINGS. It was a public process that included people 

drawn from a number of places, but ultimately it was the Parliament. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Weber, let me just go back to one thing that 

you raised. Part of the reason that those of us who were not working with the IEBC raised this issue of the procurement, it was because they had the highest approval rating of any institution in the 

country. And so many Kenyans felt let down because they had invested so much confidence in the IEBC. And in the pre-election period, it was critical because of this polarization. So we’re not attacking IEBC as being incompetent or as perhaps being corrupt. 

But it was the public perception and that way only because such 

a high standard had been held. And they had performed so well 

during the constitutional reform process. So I think it was the politics of the political environment that caused people to have less 

confidence. And the reason that this electoral reform issue is so important is because it’s what now the opposition Raila Odinga has 

raised in his court challenge. That some of the counties, we should 

know soon, once the IEBC releases the official forms, may have 

voted more than 100 percent. We do know officially, 17 counties 

voted in the 90 percent rate. And that’s why you have such an almost 6 million versus 51⁄2 million. 

Mr. WEBER. I get that, when you talked about the procurement 

process. I think it was Mr. Sweeney in his remarks said that when 

you try to institute electronic, I forget how he said it, voting or 

whatever, a lot tried to be done in a short amount of time, basiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:38 Nov 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041613\80461 HFA PsN: SHIRL
49

cally. And so all I’m driving at is we want to make sure we have 

a policy in place that says by golly, they ought to be instituting 

that right now. They ought to be going back to that process, rebuilding that confidence and making sure this process is in place. 

That’s what my questions were aimed at. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. Before I conclude, 

I just want to ask in your view will any of the election laws which 

obviously have been done very quickly have to be revisited and updates provided pursuant to lessons learned? And secondly, Mr. 

Sweeney, in your testimony you mentioned that election technology 

helps mitigate certain types of fraud, but it also opens the door to 

more technologically advanced forms of fraud. Perhaps you might 

want to elaborate on that and then we’ll conclude. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, every election that I’ve seen results in an agenda for change for the next 

election. There will always be improvements in the process, and 

that’s healthy. And I suspect that there will—I already know that 

there’s discussion as to what parts of the Kenyan election law and 

regulation and process need to be changed, need to be looked at. 

And they will be looked at in a completely public way so as to 

maintain public trust and the integrity of the election process. 

In my testimony, I make the point that technology oftentimes 

has unanticipated consequences. And thus the stupidest way to try 

and steal an election is through ballot stuffing. Far better to figure 

out how to program the computers on results which is done far 

away. 

Now I will also say that we had some of the world’s best experts 

in the computer process around elections so as to make certain that 

the Kenyan process was completely protected, contained, safe both 

from rumors about being hacked into and the reality of being 

hacked into. But you can see over time people try and think they’re 

smarter than other systems. 

The one thing I would caution people about is not to live by anecdote. When you’re living at trying to shift the outcome of a national 

election, you’re not talking about one or two examples of voter 

fraud. You’ve got to find hundreds of thousands of votes cast. And 

in the case of Kenya, the IEBC spent months working to make sure 

that such errors, be they administrative and simply clerks writing 

down the wrong number, or deliberate, could not happen and that 

there was accountability. In the election forum per polling station, 

you had not only the signatures of all the election officials present 

who had management responsibilities, but all the party observers 

present by party, attesting to the fact that the number that was 

going on those forms were the numbers that they had all witnessed. And they were all under penalty of criminal law if they 

were lying. It was a very, very robust system. Very well thought 

out and then very well executed. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, let me first say thank you for 

holding this hearing and giving us an opportunity to comment. I 

do think that the reason I said in the beginning of my statement 

that elections are political processes is precisely because of this. If 

you have a polarized political environment with one side getting 

50

51⁄2 million votes and another getting over 6 million, and the difference is 8,000 votes, our level of confidence in the Kenyan people’s level of confidence has to be absolute, especially when the 

board that was in the Bomas returning center didn’t add up. And 

so the logical thing for one side that’s committed to the democratic 

process is to go to court. It was a legitimate decision by Odinga. 

Having said that, it is now up to those who have been elected 

and certified by the Supreme Court to continue to reform process. 

In my estimation, the electoral reform that is most needed is to the 

legal framework. There were a number of things unanswered. But 

I would also say and I’m sure that will be done because I know 

we’re meeting with the political parties and that’s on the agenda, 

but I would also say that this issue of space for civil society is one 

of the most critical things, but perhaps of all of the things the U.S. 

is well positioned, given our Federal system, to assist the Kenyans 

with is the devolution process. And I think there’s a lot that can 

be learned whether it’s the National Governors Association or the 

National Association of State and County and Local Officials that 

can be shared and that would make sense in this context. 

But I think that we have the luxury of sitting here. I’m not a politician. I don’t have anything against politicians either, but I think 

in the heat of the moment in Kenya, the way that this election was 

handled and the role of the Supreme Court was absolutely critical 

and I think now people are willing to work together to move on for 

the future of that country. 

Mr. FAGAN. Just getting back quickly to Mr. Weber’s point of 

time, when looking at these elections of the next elections, now is 

the time to act. And I would echo what Dr. Jennings said especially 

in the area of where we should really look at our assistance would 

be on this devolution process and making sure it works. I know the 

ring gets larger. But also getting back to your point, about the 

laws, the electoral laws, I think it’s a lot about enforcing the laws. 

A lot changed since 2010 with the new Constitution and therefore 

those laws need to be implemented, especially in the area of political party reform. We saw in the primaries they went—they didn’t 

go as well as they could have. Parties missed deadlines, etcetera. 

So we really need or they need to really focus on just implementing 

their own laws. What else is there? But it is a constant process. 

I mean this is the first election held under this new Constitution 

and new framework. Obviously, changes will need to be reviewed 

and assessed. But I would implore upon them that they need to do 

it now rather than wait until 18 months before an election. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. We will conclude the hearing. I do want 

to thank you for your extraordinary expertise. We benefit here, but 

most importantly people on the ground in Kenya and elsewhere are 

the greatest beneficiaries, so thank you for your leadership. Thank 

you for spending the better part of this afternoon conveying all of 

this wisdom to this subcommittee which we will use it and do our 

very best to see that you and your efforts are adequately resourced, 

particularly in these tough budget times. So thank you so very, 

very much and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

52

f


80461n.eps
53

f


80461m.eps
54

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY KEITH JENNINGS, PH.D., SENIOR ASSOCIATE AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA, NATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE


80461d-1.eps
55


80461d-2.eps
56


80461d-3.eps
57


80461e-1.eps
58


80461e-2.eps
59


80461e-3.eps
60

Æ


80461e-4.eps