The Foreign Service Journal, May 2018

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2018 39 undermining institutions. Assistance supports open data and access to information, while interference is about closed sources and disinformation. Finally, electoral assistance follows publicly known standards, strategies, funding streams and programs that support a credible electoral process—regardless of the outcome. Back to Kenya: Post-Election Kenya’s 2017 election was one of the most technologically advanced and yet most divisive elections in recent African his- tory. It was also one of the most expensive elections in the world. The election was marred by the murder of the Election Com- mission’s IT chief, the withdrawal of the opposition candidate from the October election re-run, demonstrations and a police crackdown that resulted in loss of life. The election yielded a record number of court cases, one of which led to the Supreme Court’s annulment of the presidential election—an unprecedented decision for Africa and a high mark for judicial independence. However the decision also raised questions within the global election community: The court’s finding was based on whether the electoral process was “simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent,” as mandated by the constitution, rather than whether the problems that occurred negated the results or the will of the voters. This decision may embolden other courts to play more active and independent roles, but it could also encourage “spoilers” to try to overturn results they do not like. The other five elec- tions held in August 2017 in Kenya, including for governors and Parliament, were also heavily litigated—Kenya’s courts had to review more than 300 cases. Finally, international observers relied on the traditional practice of communicating prelimi- nary findings shortly after Election Day; this caused a backlash, emphasizing the need to put extra effort into qualifying state- ments, as well as focusing more on technology. In the end, the effectiveness of USAID’s electoral assistance depends on our ability to learn and evolve. While neither USAID nor any international donor was responsible for the technology used in the Kenyan elections, the overall electoral assistance provided there remains an interesting case to further examine and draw lessons. One thing is clear: neither the use of technology nor the country’s specific political dynamics fundamentally change the principles behind electoral assistance. Transparency, account- ability and oversight of the entire electoral process—as sup- ported by USAID—remain fundamental principles that need to underpin any electoral assistance efforts. They can help ensure the integrity of the process and keep the trust of the voters. n