HUMAN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES MUST BOW TO DIVINE MORAL INJUNCTIONS

Many people who abhor religion sometimes contend that it is debasing and stifles individualism namely freedom of thought and liberty to begin anew -  not conforming to traditional values and standards – without societal restrictions, pressure, shunning, mockery and even in the worst case scenario physical assault.

It would be grossly unfair or better still simply gross to make this an overarching generalization but it is a well-known fact that one of the reasons why many a people still resent religion is due to the explicit though well-intended suppression of individuality and the full expression of the inner self that incredibly a wider diversity of religious institutions are noted for. Life, human life is meant to be lived for its own sake.

Honestly, I must confess that I share the same sentiment if not a stronger one. Growing up in a highly religious background, I realised that though religion professing to offer freedom needlessly restricted me in ways more than one. In spite of the fact that the unlived life within me was crying painfully to find full expression, religion covertly insinuated that ‘you cannot live fully as it will lead to spiritual lethargy and slumber, which are perfect catalysts for sin’. SIN? Who cares?

 Indeed, the greatest and most painful injustice to one’s own soul is shrinking back from living fully; denying the inner self the freedom of fully expressing itself through the outer giving rise to terrifying and terrible conflict within the self, as the inner and outer selves are in complete disharmony. It is both soul-crushing and soul-shattering.

True, the greatest battle that was ever fought was against the self.  It is only when the self is successfully crucified that man can begin to walk on the shining path towards true freedom, enlightenment, peace and glory. And this is where I believe Religion ought to step in to assist man to overcome his foibles and weaknesses in order to walk on a more enlightened spiritual path.

Religion not in the sense of mere institutions, unnecessary dogmas and creeds and elaborate yet useless ceremonies, but in the sense of a spiritual way of life guided by divine instructions leading to a better and more fruitful relationship between man and His maker (the source of his life-giving spirit).

Yes, humans need to be held back, to be regulated by some moral laws. A failure to do that will send people ruthlessly exercising their bona fide freedoms to dangerous degrees in pursuit of their own interests. That is why I find it extremely difficult to agree with advocates of Individualism, an extremely human-centred stance originally taken by the serpent back in Eden.

I believe individualism is not the answer to finding ultimate human happiness as its principal objective of self-gratification only wax into the greedy and selfish pursuit to constantly fulfil the burning and unquenchable base desires of the fallen flesh leading to disastrous consequences for society as a whole (Perhaps, the increasing spate of bizarre shootings in the United States is a case in point. Though some of the murderers were admittedly deranged, a sense of communalism mitigates the possible excesses of mental order)

You can count this as one of the reasons why fundamental societies have fiercely opposed and resisted the universalization of the western model of society which places undue and sometimes extreme emphasis on individual liberty vis-à-vis the maximization of the individual well-being. As a friend diplomatically noted, "There is much in modern western society which although affording ‘liberty’ in the near term, can only lead downhill so far as the maximization of human well-being in the long term is concerned”.  

Selfish way of life premised on sheer individualism will only lead one on a one-way road that only ends in a cul de sac – death. Besides, individualism will destroy social cohesion and insidiously erode the very moral fabric of society. Thus, humanity will be digging its own vast mass grave. The centre will no longer hold if every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to follow his own odd, unconventional way, all in the name of individualism, human rights and liberties.

This should not be crassly misinterpreted that I’m against individual freedoms and liberties. God forbid. I’m just concerned about extreme form of individual liberties where ‘everything goes’ due to excessive permissiveness.  I’m concerned about individualism born out of the much cherished truism of the fundamentality and the universality of the much touted concept of human rights that would only serve to obliterate humanity by engendering and fostering fierce and unhealthy spirit of competition, ruthless and fatal selfish pursuits and –not least – the abhorrent exaltation in the ironically fabled king of destruction, pride.

Needless to say, we ought to take cognisance of the fact that no one individual exists in a vacuum. We are all interconnected species. Hence, we do not need a psychic to let us in on the open secret that the actions of one whether or not responsible have severe repercussions for the whole.

Therefore, shouldn’t we diligently uphold, respect and adopt the selfless spirit of sacrifice in order to achieve the greater good? The raison d’etre of sacrifice is true love upon which the foundation of the whole universe is firmly placed by a conscious yet causeless cause. Without sacrifice, nothing meaningful or good can be achieved and this undoubtedly includes the good life or the good society which “is the complete political good.”

The secret of the political success of the proverbial kingdom of God does not only lie in the fact that it has a proactive, omniscient, omnipotent and wise God as king but principally because the denizens of the kingdom reflects the spirit of pure love, and their willing self-sacrificing course naturally produces a serene and sweet-scented atmosphere of utopian peace, boundless joy, saccharine companionship and begets more love which then begins the virtuous cycle all over again.

That partly informs my conviction that sometimes the individual freedoms of one or few must be overlooked in order to safeguard the common good. To satisfy just one individual, a group or few groups of people is to endanger the lives of many, which I honestly believe is the apotheosis of immorality of the highest degree. It is very costly, nay, fatal to please each and every individual all the time.

For instance, to protect the sanctity of a universal and divine institution like marriage which is the bedrock and bulwark of cohesive societies, so as to achieve strong and stable families, holistically developed and law-abiding citizens and ultimately better societies, it will be far from wrong to overlook the legitimate sexual rights and liberties of say, the LGBT community. Even though I admit it is very very difficult, Individuals must be prepared to sacrifice for the greater good.

There is no gainsaying the fact that life must be fully lived and fully enjoyed. I believe that was why humans were created in the first place – to live and enjoy life. But extreme individualism is equally if not more dangerous. Thus, I’m of the view that our lives should find full expression within the confines of transcendent and objective moral codes agreed by all and punishable by an agreed-upon penalty.

But, the Gordian knot that would be most daunting to untie is: “where do we get the transcendent and objective moral codes from - from a transcendent being whose unlikely existence is only accentuated and/or exceeded by his deafening and annoying silence, from ‘well-acclaimed’ immoral governmental authorities, fractious religious bodies, or somewhat archaic traditional societal values?

If we decide to go strictly by the moral injunctions issued by God, then we run into a terrible conflict between our humanist-driven moral intuitions and conscience-driven moral injunctions. This problem of contradiction was properly noted by 19^th century philosopher Mikhail Bakunin: “This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other”

In other words, how are we going to find a perfect balance or harmony between upholding the divine commandments or transcendent and objective moral codes for the benefit of society and “following our own heart” for the pursuit of individual freedom and happiness? Hard to say, though, the pursuit of individual freedom and happiness in this case must pave way for divine moral injunctions if the greater good is to be attained.

This is where the persuasive assertion of Bakunin that God would serve human liberty best by refusing to exist – that is if he existed in the first place- really comes into play. But why would God elect to conceive and create a beautiful world where his existence apparently conflicts with the liberties of his intelligent and sentient created beings?

 But then again, if the creator of the Universe is love, shouldn’t love compel his intelligent creation to sacrifice or restrain themselves from exercising their legitimate liberties for the greater good?  Of course, our legitimate rights and liberties ought to end somewhere if we truly want to live in a civilized society where not only our own rights and liberties would also be respected by others but all forms of injustices would be willingly avoided so that we can live and enjoy meaningful lives.

Going forward, I concur with many people that a God-administered judicial system that rewards conformists and punishes offenders only after death (as preached by most religions) will only serve as a disincentive to morality and open the floodgates of immorality of all sorts. However, instant execution of sentences on wrongdoing on the other hand, as demonstrated by the Old Testament God (who is ironically the same as the New Testament God) is understandably very harsh, unmerciful and worst of all, induces fear-inspired obedience to God which I believe is the very antithesis to the love-inspired form of obedience that God craves.

Actually, it is evidently clear that solving the puzzle of creating a more just society which is hinged on a universally recognized and acceptable moral injunctions and effective judicial system are beyond the capabilities of mere man. How then can someone blatantly refer to men as gods in and of themselves whether or not there is a higher authority in the universe?

Nevertheless, a strictly humanist approach swathed in the concept of human rights towards achieving a just society for all is not the best one.  The fact still remains that; humanity will shoot themselves in the foot if extreme individualism is continually encouraged. Sooner or later, the very basic moral foundation of humanity laid down by god/nature and firmly guarded and supported unflinchingly by various societies of past generations will wobble and collapse.

Consequently, the shaky ground on which humanity stands will only cave in, sending all and sundry swiftly yet sadly down into the bottomless pit of anarchy, mutual obliteration and an inevitable total annihilation, much worse than the most famous infamous subterranean inferno, in a highly but not unanticipated desperate quest for survival.

Probably, this might be the last stage in the evolution of human societies which the good old book helpfully referred to as the great tribulation. Due to individualism-induced total breakdown in the moral fabric, Society is going to deteriorate gradually until it culminates into a jungle stage where it becomes completely uninhabitable, a period where life itself becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.  ARMAGEDDON is indeed nearer than we thought…………

IS JUSTICE BETTER THAN INJUSTICE

Is Justice inherently better than Injustice?

“The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked, but He blesses the home of the just”.

Will the just man fare better than the unjust man? This is one of the overarching questions many people from very diverse backgrounds and belonging to different classes have pondered over since the days of yore. I have also contemplated the same subject over and over again, and would want to share my thoughts on the subject matter. History is replete with stories of an alarming number of both just and unjust people  - from rulers to the man on the street -and how they fared in life depending on the path they chose.

Justice is at the core of human activity. It is embedded within both individual conscience and the collective conscience of society. Whilst Justice is admiringly applauded, injustice on the other hand is frowned upon, condemned and rebuked.

But is the just man better than the unjust? Adeimantus in contention with Socrates on the topic of Justice, which is captured neatly in Plato’s Republic, seems to agree that the unjust man would fare better than the just man. He opines that people resort to justice and shun injustice because of the fear of punishment that their course of injustice would bring upon them. He maintains audaciously that people in general would be unjust if they could get away with it.

I agree with Adeimantus to some extent. Humans are not loyal angels or gods; we gravitate easily towards what is bad and what provides instant gratification without so much thought about possible future consequences. That explains why most people prefer to be unjust. The temporary enjoyment of unjust gains and instant gratification are sometimes too irresistible for the base desires of the fallen flesh.           

To do good or to be just require so much effort, probably ten times more than the effort required to engage in an unjust endeavor.

As a result, we have in a world where though there is an abundance of resources for everyone, millions of people cannot afford basically three square meals a day, let alone a decent shelter. Why won’t this be the case when politicians cannot help increasing their already vast wealth through corrupt and unjust means? Religious leaders are too weak (or too ‘wise’) to tell their congregants the truth, as this would inevitably curtail the torrent of largesse that is cascading down into their deep, mysteriously bottomless pockets. Many commercial enterprises are so enthusiastically advertising and promoting brands that they know are not good for the public for the sake of getting money quickly – prolific manufacturing of fake medicine is the order of the day in some countries, greedy and ruthless depletion of forest or natural reserves for myopia business interests, release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere by giant corporations without so much thought about the health of the citizens, etc

It seems injustice in the short term and from the perspective of the individual is not only tempting but also profitable. All those who engage in unjust means are bound to increase their stock of wealth, improve their living conditions arguably at the expense of the masses and highly likely to optimize happiness. 

Many a person has wondered if the mighty arm of the universal law of cause and effect is not too strong and long enough to reach unjust people. If the unfailing law of cause and effect is always in force and moving speedily and searchingly to identify and reward or punish people for their actions, then why do unjust ones continue to flourish? It appears that cause and effect is only true in the case of personal sins and evil committed against specific individuals or groups while it is powerless and inoperative on evil or sins perpetuated against the larger society in general or the community as a whole without any targeted individual or individuals.

The writer of Ecclesiastes noted the apparent delay of judgment on the unjust in his explanation of the causes of the increasing spate of immoral actions. He writes: “Because sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad.” (Eccle 8:11)

It is little wonder that injustice is extremely enticing. If there is no judgment or afterlife, then the course of injustice is ‘noble’ and ought to be pursued.  The bible writer of the book of Proverbs, clearly conscious of this dilemma, lovingly admonished good people not to be envious or enticed by the unjust gains and enjoyment of corrupt people because there is an afterlife where God would reverse the reward system to favor the just. He noted “

One of the numerous lovers of justice who have been cruelly tormented by the enticements of the unjust life was an Israelite by name Asaph in Psalm 73.  Asaph was also caught up in the same justice/injustice quandary when he saw how the unjust ones of his day were flourishing in peace and seemed happy whilst the just ones ironically were the ones grieving. His only consolation came when in an attempt to discern the future of the unjust, he entered the grand sanctuary of God where he was satisfactorily reassured that the unjust ones were placed on a slippery ground by God, a noteworthy point which once again reminds us of judgement or punishment for the unjust now and a rewarding and a pleasurable afterlife for the just in the coming righteous new world.

This brings us back to Adeimantus initial factual observation that, without punishment or judgement, people will choose the path of injustice.  In this evil age that humanity finds itself, injustice reigns supreme and it is the unjust ones who shine brilliantly. To be just virtually means to be self-denying, self-sacrificing, idiot, and to fight against one’s own rapid advancement in life.

Nonetheless, the course of justice undeniably yields good fruits in spite of the fact that it is challenging to pursue. Honour, Respect, Glory, Integrity are but few of the gains from a life-course of justice. It is pretty interesting how Adeimantus is swift to point out that it is these rewards, and not the love of justice itself, that propel people to act justly, while forgetting that it is the same rewards – instant gratification and temporary enjoyment of unjust gains- and not love of injustice itself, that motivate people to act unjustly.

In and of itself, aside all the entitlements and rewards both courses of justice and injustice hold, justice seem better than injustice. The just man, albeit poor materially, is always at peace with himself which form the basis of true happiness and inner joy, an ultimate goal of human existence which even all the manifold benefits of injustice can never furnish.  Debatably, the course of injustice only yields momentary pleasure and robs its agent of serene peace and true joy in life.

Socrates’ city-state analogy also validates the importance of justice over injustice. Socrates notes that a just man is the result of a well-ordered soul and society would be just if people (building on the premise of the earth-born theory) are permitted to do that which they are best inclined or naturally positioned to do – that is allowing Philosophers rule, strong men guard and protect the city, and the ordinary people produce.

Although at the micro level, unjust actions benefit those who engage in it, the consequences of their unjust actions negatively affect the entire society. Society would be just and peaceful if individuals strive to pursue the path of justice. A terrifying rise in unjust practices by members of a given society would only serve to increase pain and hardship in the society, trigger off strife and class struggles or conflicts, and last but not least, skyrocket the spate of criminal activities in the society. Society then becomes nearly uninhabitable and life becomes  “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

                        

How To Make Wise Career Decisions

“Because I’m thinking in a broader way, I feel like I am able to make better decisions” – Takafumi Horie

When the subject of career decisions or choices comes to mind, one fundamental fact must be accepted – A choice is, most often, nothing more than a best guess—a hopeful step in a new direction. You can only be sure of the right path when you have enough information of both risk and benefits. As it pertains to career decisions, I find the concept of ‘career anchors’ very instructive and directional.

The concept of ‘career anchors’ is not a completely new concept, I believe. Though, many may not be aware of it. I encountered this concept sometime back and it was a ‘light bulb moment’ for me. All of a sudden, basis for career choices became clearer to me just like the dawn of a new day!

‘Career anchors’ became renowned by the original research of MIT Professor Emeritus Edgar H. Scheinin the mid-1970s. Schein described ‘career anchors’ as a self-concept formed by individuals, which often affect their career preferences or choices. He found that an understanding of ‘career anchors’ would illuminate how people make career choices. Basically, career anchors are perceived areas of competence, motives and values related to work choices or aspirations. Once you know your career anchor, it would help you get a good sense of who you are and what you are after in your career and life. It aims to represent your real self!

Career anchors only evolve as one gain occupational and life experience. However, once the self-concept has been formed, it functions as a stabilizing force, hence the metaphor of “anchor,” and can be thought of as the values and motives that the person will not give up if forced to make a choice. Most of us are not aware of our career anchors until we are forced to make choices pertaining to self-development, family, or career. Yet it is important to become aware of our anchors so that we can choose wisely when choices have to be made.

In Schein’s original research from the mid-1970’s he identified that most people’s self-concept revolved around five anchor categories reflecting basic values, motives and needs. A follow-up study in the 1980’s identified three additional anchor categories making it eight anchor categories in all.

Find below a summarized explanation for each anchor categories for you to do a preliminary career anchors self-assessment.

 - Autonomy/independence – they desire work situations that provide maximum freedom to independently pursue career interests; they need and want control over work; can’t tolerate other people’s rules or procedures; independent consulting and contract work would be a good fit for these people.

 - Security/stability – they are concerned with long-run stability and security of employment; motivated by calmness and consistency of work; don’t like to take chances, and are not risk-takers; stable companies are best bets.

 - Technical-functional Competence – they are intrinsically motivated by the work itself, its technical aspects, and the desire for enhanced technical competence and credibility; in other words, it is the actual work they are concerned with not the organization or the overall mission of their work. They are the specialists.

 - General Managerial Competence – they view specialization as limiting; primarily want to manage or supervise people; enjoy motivating, training and directing the work of others; enjoy authority and responsibility; motivated by the opportunity to develop and use interpersonal and problem-solving skills to climb to general management levels. They are the generalists.

 - Entrepreneurial Creativity – they like the challenge of starting new projects or businesses, have lots of interests and energy, and often have multiple projects going at once; different from autonomy in that the emphasis is on creating new business.

 - Service or Dedication to a Cause – they are motivated by core values rather than the work itself; strong desire to make the world a better place; committed to the service of others. They find NGO jobs amusing.

 - Pure Challenge – they are motivated by the desire to overcome the odds, solve unsolved problems, and win out over competitors; conquering, problem solving; constant self-testing.

 - Life Style – wants to integrate personal, family and career needs; have a high need to balance work and the rest of life; enjoy work, but realizes that work is just one of many parts of life that are important.

What category do you fall under? The whole essence of this post is to awaken your awareness of this concept and for you to get better informed understanding of how it affects your career choices now and later in your career journey.

SOURCE: 

How To Find A Job You Love

“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” – Confucius

VENTURES AFRICA – While trying to find an anchor for today’s post, the above quote credited to Confucius, the great Chinese legend, came to my rescue.  I believe many of you would have come across the above quote at one time or the other and would continue to ask how true is the quote? Can you really choose a job or the job chooses you? On and on, you can go. The aim of this post is to attempt to answer the question –how can I find a job I love?

Permit me to start with myself. I have strong passion for knowledge and that drives most of my offline & online activities a great deal. I love engaging myself in intellectual activities per time; I simply love reading and sharing ideas! Can I make a career around my interests & passion? Yes, I can sure do! But, is that what I do on a full time basis now – partially yes!  Why, you would ask? Truth be told, I didn’t get to know all these about myself in time, I only started to discover myself as my career in HR kicked-off a few years back. Actually, I have a first degree in Chemical Engineering and thanks to early career discovery; I’m close to doing a job I love! My citing all the details above is for a reason which reading till the end of this piece would justify.

Choosing what you love and making it your job, how true is that?  Can it really be achieved, irrespective of location & profession? I found a perfect answer, which I would be sharing with you in a moment.

According to James Citrin and Richard Smith in their book called “The 5 Patterns of Extraordinary Careers” (the book was based on in-depth, original research and extensive experience of the authors), they proposed that there are three critical elements responsible for finding the right fit in a career i.e. find a job you love. These three elements are:

- Playing to your strengths

- Setting your passions free and

- Working with the right set of people

They believed that when “you find your strengths, passions, and cultural fit, you will be happier and more successful in your career. How simple indeed. However, from the thousands of professionals they surveyed ONLY 9 percent believed they are in jobs that fully leverage their strengths, performing activities that they are passionate about in an energizing environment and with people that they like and respect.”

After encountering the above research findings as presented in their book, I came to the understanding of why every employee/job holder is always on the move to change jobs! It is the quest to strike a balance between all three elements. I believe this would hold true for those that make ‘career fulfilment  their main goal and not ‘cash fulfilment’.

- As an employee, ask yourself – does my current job role play to my strength?

- Am I passionate about going to work each morning? Do I love to be with my colleagues at work or say your boss at work?

- And as an employee planning to change employers, ask yourself – will my new role play to my strength? Will I be passionate about my new role? And will I grow career wise with my new employer’s?

These are the main questions you need to ask and consider very deeply.

In closing, finding a job you love is not a day’s job, it requires a lot of balancing act based on the three elements above – your strength, your passion and the people you work with! When the balance is right, you can make bold to say you are doing a job you love!

Till next time, we are all work in progress!

SOURCE:  http://www.ventures-africa.com/2012/04/how-to-find-a-job-you-love/

Peter Akwasi Sarpong briefs us on the history of Christianity in Ghana

Christianity

Christianity entered the land in the form of Catholicism in the latter part of the 15^th century. Whereas this brand of Christianity thrived around Elmina and Cape Coast, it disappeared mysteriously after about 50 years.

Archbishop Peter Akwasi Sarpong

Then came the second wave of Christianity in the 19^th century. This time it was a very fragmented and confrontational Christianity that we had to contend with.

To begin with, the same Christians who brought us the faith from Europe were the self-same people who colonized us. Brandishing the cross in one hand, they held fast to the pistol in the other. It is true that the colonizers were not evangelizers and, in many instances, did not even believe Christianity; yet, their origin and coincidence of their appearance in Ghana identified them as one. They were, therefore, entangled in the supreme contradiction of preaching the freedom of all the children of God, while at the same time they imposed heavy burdens such as the slave trade on us.

What is worse, they preached forms of Christianity that had caught on in their various countries in Europe and which often invariably, at least externally, clashed with one another. Religion and colonial secular interests locked horns with each other, the colonialists bringing along with them the brand of Christianity found in their countries. The catholic Portuguese were ousted by Calvinist Danes who in turn had to give way to Reformed Dutch who vacated their position to Anglican and Methodist British. What was otherwise a military, political or economic colonial situation created an inevitable sectarian conflict among different Christian churches.

Christian denominations were caught up in the struggle for conversions, which made one denomination the enemy or, at least, the rival of another. The different denominations established strongholds in different parts of Ghana. The Methodists were strong in Western and Central Regions, the Presbyterians in the Eastern Region, Anglicans in the urban areas and Catholics spread thinly in the whole land. Greater Accra Region was mainly Presbyterian and Methodist.

The different Christian denominations, by their rivalry ended up dividing Ghanaians, in contradiction to the principle of unity that all nations seek and the cardinal virtue of being one, according to the Lord Jesus Christ’s own words.

The mid-20^th century saw the upsurge of new religious movements: Pentecostal, charismatic, healing, spiritual and independent African churches, to mention a few.

These new Christian churches were either introduced from outside Africa, especially the United States, or from other African countries such as Nigeria. They came at different times and settled but many of them too sprang from Ghanaian roots. Some of these are splinter groups from mainline mother Churches while many others are churches that have sprung up on their own merit. 

The thrust of their ministry seems to be insistence on evangelism, man’s sinfulness, repentance, healing, provision of answers to problems of practical life, literary interpretation of scriptural texts, lively and participatory liturgies, and the use of African mentality in dealing with the faithful.

BY: PETER AKWASI SARPON, ARCHBISHOP OF KUMASI

The 2013 Kenyan Elections: A victory for African Democracy

President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta

On March 4, 2013, Kenyans went to the polls by the millions to elect not only their fourth president but also Senators, MPs for the 290 electoral constituencies, County Governors, Women County Representatives, Civic Wards, in one of the most crucial elections the country has held since independence. It was the country’s first ever general elections held after the 2007 post-election disputes which plunged the country into cataclysmic violence and resulted in the death of about 1200 Kenyans with roughly 600,000 being internally and externally displaced.

 The election was also the first under the new constitution which was adopted in the 2010 referendum. The passage of the new constitution in August 2010 introduced sweeping changes to the political system. It was designed to, among other things, stave off another violent outburst in the March 2013 elections. For instance, the new constitution made the Kenyan electoral commission more independent with the establishment of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). The Judiciary arm of government also saw significant reforms.

The 2013 Kenyan elections was particularly expected to bring the much-needed unity of purpose in the executive arm of the country's fractious coalition government where power was shared between the two candidates of the two major parties which locked horns in the 2007 presidential elections - Mwai Kibaki of the People’s National Unity (PNU) was the president whilst his major political opponent in the last elections, Raila Odinga, served as the prime minister in a deal to achieve peace.

Eight parties contested in this year's elections. However, the real contest was between the two major coalition parties namely, The Jubilee Party led by Uhuru Kenyatta, son of the founder and first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, and The coalition of Reform and Democracy (CORD) led by Raila Odinga . This comes as no surprise at all since Kenya has always been a two party state where despite the prevalence of multiplicity of political parties, only two major parties are capable of winning an election.

The atmosphere in Kenya was characterized by a perfect mixture of excitement and tension from a couple of weeks to the elections day up to the counting and declaration of the results. The sudden excitement was necessitated by the privilege of exercising their constitutional rights of choosing their leaders once again since the country adopted their new constitution which won them the praise and the admiration of the international community. On the other hand, the tension was caused by the looming threat of a possible return to the horrendous scenes of the 2007 elections based on the pockets of rioting and conflicts in key areas and the intensity of unguarded and intemperate snide remarks made by none other than key political actors.

After a close fought contest, Uhuru Kenyatta, who was also one of the deputy prime ministers in the coalition government obtained 50.07% to clinch a first round victory. His major contender, Raila Odinga, came second with 43.31%. According to the electoral commission, voter turnout was 88%.

The elections once again posed a major test to the sustainability and the resilience of Kenya’s Democracy. Nonetheless, the almost serene atmosphere in which the elections was conducted coupled with the high level of participation, the display of sheer fervor and civility in exercising the constitutional rights of voting, and the fact that few serious life-threatening incidents were recorded attest to the successful nature of the elections. It also lends credence to the willingness of Kenyans to secure a stable and more lasting democracy despite pockets of violence and rioting in some key areas of the country.

Alas, the success of this year’s elections has unburdened Kenyans of the guilt from the bloody violence that characterized the infamous 2007 elections and has started erasing the bad memories of 2007. It is quite obvious that many lessons were gleaned from their last abysmal performance at the polls and have been utilized as valuable ingredients for a recipe of wholesome and successful elections.

The country which was once the beacon of hope due to its political stability and enviable economic prosperity in a region plagued with dictatorship, poverty, famine and civil wars but suffered a massive setback during the 2007 elections is determined to reclaim its political and economic glory by working tirelessly towards the path of democratic consolidation and the deepening of democratic tenets using the just ended elections as a launch pad and a political springboard for successful future elections.

Kenyans can breathe a sigh of relief and pat themselves on the back after calmly but fearfully going through waves of escalating tension aggravated by the infamous call by the camp of the CORD party to halt the vote counting during tallying, citing “rampant illegality” across the entire election process and particularly flaws in the ballot count as the sole reasons for their threatening stance.

However, the decision by the defeated Raila Odinga and his CORD party to take their grievances to the courts which is now more independent is nothing but noble and an unequivocal manifestation of the country's willingness and determination to consolidate their democracy and make it work. This is a major plus for a country whose self-inflicted wounds in an unfortunate ghastly bloodbath after the 2007 elections are demonstrably far from healed. 

Indeed, it is a feather in the cap for Kenyans in a region where unfavorable electoral outcomes are hard to accept due to the polarized nature of the political climate worsened by the insidious and most reprehensible yet prevalent tribal us versus them attitude. 

The well acclaimed and much-vaunted success of this Kenyan election is not only a big feat for Kenya's democracy but for the entire African sub-region. For the country to emerge out of the recent election-induced tribal-motivated political turmoil to beat the odds to face and overcome yet another daunting, potentially explosive and passion-inflaming general elections serves as a perfect example for many other African countries struggling with the inevitable challenges of democracy.

Apart from the new constitution that created highly autonomous political structures essential for free and fair elections and important for democratic consolidation, the civil society organizations (CSOs), the media, NGOs, and the introduction of election-monitoring technological devices all contributed to the success of the Kenyan elections.

The excellent role played by the Kenyan media and the CSOs in ensuring smooth and transparent elections cannot be gainsaid. Effective civic education through both the print, broadcast, and the new internet social media went a long way to not only build a groundswell of enthusiasm among the populace, but importantly enlightened the voting public on the 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' of voting, as well as the dangers and penalties of electoral malpractices.

This no doubt contributed to the successful elections in no small way as people were repeatedly sensitized on the importance of political tolerance, the stoking effects of vitriolic speeches, and supremely the need to safeguard, protect and maintain the priceless national peace and unity they have striven hard to achieve to prevent another unnecessary mayhem.

The 2013 Kenyan general elections have ended peacefully unlike the last 2007-08 elections. The hubbub that accompanied its beginning through to its end has gradually faded away. Obviously, Kenya has learned vital lessons from this quadrennial but extremely important bellwether of the strength and resilience of any democracy. The vital political institutions have been tested and stretched to their limits without crumbling in the midst of a turbulent whirlwind of pressure from every angle. It is therefore no wonder that the successful nature of this election has ignited a flickering flame of hope in the hearts of Kenyans and lighted up their eyes with firmly grounded optimism about their democratic future.

It seems Kenyans can now confidently say a warm and permanent farewell to the depressing, distressing and dehumanizing era of electoral violence. It is now time to forge ahead into the future with optimism, hope and patriotism to accelerate the development of their beloved country in absolute democratic freedom.