Kenya’s election on 4 March was peaceful, democratic, and transparent.

The polls were well-conducted and the comprehensively reformed laws meant the elections operated in a legal framework that was in keeping with international standards. Voter participation was extraordinary: around 86 per cent, a level that many countries can only dream of attaining.

That should have been the headline on 5 March.

It wasn’t.

Kenya had done much to ensure there would not be a repeat of the deadly elections of 2007.

Major reform of the election law was undertaken, a new Constitution was created and – crucially – there was judicial reform. All that paid off and with the election outcome now to be challenged in court, will be transformative in the days to come.

What didn’t pay off so much was the technological reform.

Most reporters and commentators have focused on the tallying failures. An ambitious project to electronically transmit results from polling stations to a central database broke down, reportedly because of system overload.

That was definitely a huge embarrassment but was not a bad idea: digital transmission might be more efficient, certainly quicker, and would have prevented the potential for tampering.

But most experts believe that the election commission’s quick decision to go to plan B, and ferry tally results from the polls to Nairobi manually was done with transparency, was within Kenyan and international law, and is unlikely to have impacted the election outcome, though the opposition disputes that last point.

The manual count was always meant in the end to represent the final, official vote count.

What is less remarked on is the technological breakdown of the expensive and arguably unnecessary biometric voter registration system.

Last year, after the government decided to move to biometric registration as a way to address some of the problems of the last election, voters were required to present their national identity card at the polling center, as always, but this time they also were required to verify their data by providing their fingerprints and having their photo taken.

They were then issued with a new biometric voter card which they would present to prove their identity at the polling station on Election Day.

This process required the use of ‘biometric voter registration kits’ or BVR.

 

Silver bullet?

Biometrics are all the rage throughout Africa, described in terms that would leave one to believe that their use is the silver bullet to a fraud-free election.

But as Kenya shows, such systems are tremendously expensive, normally not the most effective means to fight fraud, and not necessarily suitable to the environmental conditions.

For example, a clue to the problems with the biometric voter registration kits could have been realised early on given that only 23 per cent of the country has access to electricity.

The problems with BVR in Kenya started well before 4 March.

The procurement process for purchasing the kits was “riddled with controversies” and delays, “which triggered public concern and allegations of political sabotage.”

Kenya finally started its curtailed period of biometric voter registration on 19 November, 2012.

Though there had in fact been problems in the past with errors and allegations of fraud in the voter registration list, this must be weighed against the information that the 15,000 kits cost the country 54 million US dollars.

And early on in the process there were problems, with the passwords on the registration kits expiring, the lack of sunlight causing solar power failures in the kits’ batteries, and problems with transportation and logistics. The kits broke down in a number of locations.

Ultimately, only about 13 million of the targeted 18 million registered to vote due to a variety of factors, notably including the fact that many Kenyans from marginalised communities have no national identity card, and therefore are completely precluded from the process.

Then on Election Day itself the biometric system failed utterly.

The domestic Kenyan election observation group found that in over one-half of the voting centers, the electronic poll books, meant to verify the voter through his biometric registration information, malfunctioned or broke down and poll workers had to resort to the standard paper lists.

While this may not have directly impacted the election outcome, it most certainly contributed to the enormous delays voters faced, leading them to stand on lines for hours.

 

Failure

Why did the biometric kits fail?

According to the BBC, mostly because of a lack of electricity at the polling stations; NPR further reports, “Organizers had failed to consider that African school buildings, where many of the polling stations were situated, don’t have electric outlets. Then the biometric identification kits started to crash… Poll workers didn’t have the PIN numbers and passwords they needed to restart the software. Paper ballots were rolled out and voter lines slowed to a crawl, forcing some voters to wait seven to nine hours in the hot sun to cast their ballots.”

The Kenyan experience is not unique. Just a few months ago, there were major problems with biometric kits in Ghana.

So many of the much biometric kits malfunctioned in the polling place on Election Day, voters experienced long lines and delays, and ultimately officials were forced to extend voting into a second day. This led the opposition to allege vote rigging.

There may be circumstances in which biometrics make sense. But it must be kept in mind that such systems address only that one aspect of potential fraud: multiple registrations.

It does not even deal with other problems in the voter registration list such as non-citizen and under-age registration.

Multiple registrations may or may not be the gravest problem confronting a country’s electoral system.

In most places it is, comparatively speaking, unlikely to be so.

Moreover, multiple voting, which is the true concern, can be addressed through low tech alternatives such as use of indelible finger ink at voting stations and greater transparency and wider spread publication of the registration list in advance of elections.

Uhuru Kenyatta has now been declared the winner of the Kenyan elections, clearing the 50 per cent threshold by a margin of 8,000 votes out of 12 million cast – or 0.07 percent.

As it should, the opposition under the leadership of Raila Odinga, is challenging the outcome in court and has pledged to respect the judicial process. It is as of now unclear what remedies, if any, the court will order.

But one thing is certain. Kenyans demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to democracy. If only the machines had been as reliable.

The Kenyan economy is growing. Still, more than half of Kenyans live in poverty, on less than one dollar a day.

Kenya is among the world’s 30 poorest countries, ranking 152 out of 177 countries on the 2006 Human Development Index.

Economic conditions, life expectancy and education are improving, but still wanting in the country.

What else could the 54 million US dollars been spent on? If not on improving some of Kenya’s more fundamental problems, could it have been used elsewhere in the process of improving democracy in Kenya?

As countries around the world move in what seems to be an inexorable march toward use of biometrics in elections, the lessons of Kenya need to be seriously considered.