India, invariably described as the world’s largest democracy, used to have very chaotic elections. 

Although elections are not always peaceful nowadays, the violence that was once their hallmark has decreased, and so has booth capturing and the subsequent stuffing of ballot boxes in favour of candidates being forced on the people. 

Booth capturing is Greek to Kenyans, but it started in India in the late 1950s. It is the seizing of polling stations by goons loyal to particular candidates who then kick out election officials and voters and stuff boxes with ballot papers they have marked in favour of their candidates. 

It is an election fraud that India’s electoral body sought to end by introducing electronic voting machines, but these were not initially accepted, even after being successfully trialled in state elections in the early 1980s. 

In 1989, when the tech-savvy then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi wanted the electronic voting machines used widely in the national elections, there was an outcry from opposition parties and the public in general. 

Despite assurances by the electoral commission, the opposition said the ruling party was weaker in constituencies that had been earmarked for wide use of the machines, meaning that a sinister plot was afoot. 

They said vote counting would be rigged electronically, with the politician who was heading a coalition of opposition parties and became the PM after that election, saying: “An election is a question of confidence, not just a mechanical process. While we are already fighting the criminalising of politics, this will be the criminalisation of democracy.” 

Even though the government meant well, and the electoral agency was against any form of election fraud, voters did not trust the government and held that it had manipulated all state agencies to do its bidding. 

Politicians allied to the government, through their words and deeds, had given Indian voters the impression that they would not cede power, that they would not lose an election, and that they were untouchable. 

That is the kind of situation Kenya finds itself in, slightly under two years to an election that some people suspect will not be held because the government has captured constitutional bodies, so much so that they are not for justice or public welfare. 

This suspicion is being fuelled by elected and appointed leaders who are sworn allies of the President, whose words and deeds do not inspire confidence.

They keep sowing seeds of distrust between the government and the people, and when the latter complain, they call for suppressive measures against them. 

Their stinking attitude towards Kenyans and other public agencies is subtly supported by none other than the President, whose speeches are laced with orders and directives to independent constitutional bodies and law enforcement agencies, yet the Constitution does not confer upon him such powers. 

When these bodies do not act in the government’s favour, all that Kenyans hear are subtle threats from sworn allies of the President, and since he does not reprimand them, citizens cannot be faulted for understanding that they are broadcasting his views, that they are messengers just echoing his message. 

A perfect example is when the President instructed the police to shoot anti-poor governance protesters in the legs, and an oaf of an MP said they should be killed, not just maimed. 

No Kenyan can forget when the Interior Cabinet Secretary, who is also the president’s zealous ally, told the police to use lethal force on Kenyans, only for him to later claim his statement was taken out of context to paint him and the government in a bad light. 

When it comes to the elections, more than one elected representative allied with the ruling party has unequivocally said they will use all fraudulent means, including stuffing ballot boxes, to ensure the president is reelected. 

Such statements, in the light of a newly constituted electoral body, with commissioners and a chairperson whose appointments left many doubts in the minds of Kenyans, cannot inspire confidence and only contribute to creating a trust deficit. 

The sad thing is that Kenya has experienced election-related violence before, leading to deaths and destruction of property, when it was deemed that the electoral agency was compromised. 

Laws have been enacted to ensure the independence of the electoral agency and free and fair elections, but the reckless utterances of the President’s sworn allies go to show that these measures can only exist on paper, and their implementation will be blocked. 

As the Indian politician said, an election is a question of confidence, not just a mechanical process, but what we keep hearing is the opposite, and we should be ready for strife because the utterances of the President and his allies are creating a trust deficit. 

The writer is the Managing Editor of the Alliance for Science (AfS). These views are solely his and do not necessarily reflect the position of AfS or its partners