Reducing Election-Related Violence in 2017 and Beyond: A Risk Management Framework

1. Introduction

Election-related violence remains a significant threat to democracy, stability, and development in many nations, including Kenya. The 2007/2008 post-election crisis serves as a stark reminder of how electoral contests can escalate into widespread conflict, resulting in loss of life, displacement, and long-term societal trauma. As countries like Kenya approach new electoral cycles, the imperative to prevent a recurrence of such violence is paramount.

This paper argues that a proactive, systematic, and multi-stakeholder risk management approach is the most effective strategy for reducing election-related violence. Moving beyond reactive security measures, this framework involves the continuous identification, analysis, and mitigation of risks throughout the entire electoral cycle. By outlining key risk factors and proposing concrete, actionable strategies for various stakeholders, this study provides a blueprint for fostering peaceful, credible, and legitimate electoral processes in 2017 and beyond.

2. Identifying Election-Related Risk Factors

Effective prevention first requires a clear understanding of the potential triggers of violence. These risk factors can be categorized as follows:

2.1 General Risk Factors

• A history of previous election violence.
• Pronounced horizontal inequalities and ethnic diversity.
• High uncertainty about the election outcome.
• The use of provocative and violent language and activities by candidates and supporters.
• Problems in vote counting, particularly during party primaries.
• Widespread public distrust in the electoral system and management body.
• Deficiencies in the voter tallying and results transmission process.
• Underlying socio-economic dynamics, such as high youth unemployment and poverty.

2.2 Specific and Operational Risk Factors

• Unresolved grievances from previous outbreaks of violence.
• Proliferation of hate speech and incitement, both online and offline.
• The presence and mobilization of organized criminal gangs or militias.
• A problematic or contested voter registration process.
• Perceptions of socio-political exclusion by specific communities.
• Unequal access to state and private media for political contestants.

These risk factors do not operate in isolation; they interact and reinforce each other. For example, a history of violence combined with high youth unemployment and hate speech creates a particularly volatile environment. Risk assessment must therefore consider the cumulative and interactive effects of multiple risk factors rather than treating each in isolation.

3. An Electoral Risk Management Framework

Electoral risk management is the practice of identifying potential election risks in advance, analyzing them, and taking precautionary steps to reduce or curb the risk. This involves two key concepts: prevention (stopping violence from happening) and mitigation (reducing its severity if it occurs). The process entails a continuous cycle of analysis and action that extends across the entire electoral cycle—from the pre-electoral period through voting and results announcement to the post-electoral phase.

3.1 Risk Analysis and Action

The first step is to conduct a thorough risk analysis: determine who is affected by the risk, its potential gravity, and the likelihood of its occurrence. Following analysis, stakeholders must take coordinated action, which includes:

• Developing and implementing control measures.
• Continuously monitoring the effectiveness of these measures.
• Implementing additional responses if a risk materializes.
• Archiving lessons learned for future electoral events.

3.2 A Multi-Stakeholder Prevention Strategy

A holistic approach requires different actors to implement specific, complementary tools:

• Election Management Body (EMB): The EMB's theory of change is that its independence, transparency, and consistent enforcement of rules deter violence. Best practices include enforcing codes of conduct, ensuring transparent voter registration and result verification, and providing legitimate avenues for dispute resolution (Birch, 2011).
• Civic and Voter Education: Organized by civil society, these efforts should objectively inform citizens about electoral procedures and their responsibilities, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of the process and reducing the appeal of violence (IFES, 2010).
• Peace Campaigns: Widespread messaging that encourages tolerance and legitimizes peaceful political engagement can alter citizen behavior away from violence, particularly when targeted at vulnerable populations.
• Youth Programmes: As youth are often the primary perpetrators of violence, programs that provide education, electoral mobilization, and employment opportunities can transform them into stakeholders in a peaceful political system (UNDP, 2013).
• Mapping and Monitoring: Systematic observation by credible actors deters perpetrators and facilitates timely responses. Best practice involves neutral actors producing accurate, timely, and actionable early warnings on the source, location, and type of violence (Hoglund, 2009).

4. The Centrality of Data in Risk Management

A data-driven approach is critical for effective risk management. The collection and analysis of electoral risk data—any information that helps predict factors negatively affecting an election—allows for targeted response strategies.

4.1 Data Collection and Analysis

Data should be gathered from a wide array of sources, including media reports, social media, toll-free lines, field monitors, peace committees, and intelligence reports. For data to be actionable, it must be timely, factual, and clearly identify the location, perpetrators, and victims. The analysis process must include verification, classification of risk levels (high, medium, low), and data mapping for effective visualization and dissemination. Technology can play an enabling role, with SMS-based reporting systems, interactive maps, and real-time dashboards allowing for rapid risk assessment and response coordination.

4.2 Challenges in Implementation

Several challenges can impede this process, including:

• The overwhelming volume of data, which can paralyze analysis if not properly filtered.
• Difficulties in verifying information quickly, particularly in environments where rumors spread faster than confirmed facts.
• Subjectivity in reporting and analysis, as different observers may interpret the same events differently.
• The sensitivity of certain information, which may require restricted dissemination to protect sources or avoid inflaming tensions.
• Slow decision-making due to bureaucratic coordination among multiple stakeholders with different mandates and priorities.

Overcoming these challenges requires pre-established protocols, trusted communication channels, and regular simulation exercises to test systems before crises occur.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

To mitigate election-related violence, a strategic and coordinated effort is non-negotiable. The proposed risk management framework provides a pathway for such an effort. The 2013 Kenyan general election demonstrated that proactive risk management can reduce violence, but the 2007 experience showed what happens when risks are ignored. The choice for 2017 and beyond is clear: institutionalize risk management or risk repeating past tragedies.

Key recommendations for the way forward include:

1. Capacity Building: Train all stakeholders—from security officers to civil society monitors—on risk identification, data collection, and reporting. This training should be ongoing, not a one-time event, and should include simulation exercises to test preparedness.
2. Strengthened Networks: Foster a wide network of committed stakeholders from civil society, state agencies, and the donor community to ensure comprehensive coverage and credibility. These networks should function year-round, not just during election periods, to build trust and coordination before crises emerge.
3. Robust Data Systems: Utilize multiple data sources and maintain a well-trained data analysis team to ensure information is credible, verifiable, and actionable. Invest in technology infrastructure that allows for real-time data sharing while protecting sensitive information.
4. Leadership and Communication: The electoral management body and relevant government agencies must provide clear leadership and have the ability to communicate sensitive information effectively to enact timely prevention and mitigation measures. Designated spokespersons with authority to make decisions should be identified in advance.
5. Legal Framework: Strengthen legal provisions against hate speech and electoral violence, and ensure consistent enforcement to deter perpetrators. Impunity for election-related violence undermines deterrence and encourages recurrence.

By institutionalizing this proactive framework, Kenya and similar nations can build resilience against electoral violence, safeguarding both their democratic processes and the well-being of their citizens. The cost of inaction—measured in lives lost, property destroyed, and democratic倒退—far exceeds the investment required to implement systematic electoral risk management.