An evaluation of access to Voting Rights for Persons with Mobility-impairment in Nairobi County

Abstract

The study examined access to voting rights for persons with mobility-impairment in four constituencies within Nairobi County in Kenya. Voting rights are protected in international, regional and national law. Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), underscores the equal right of PWDs to participate in political life. Article 2(5) and (6) of Kenya\s Constitution has domesticated these provisions as part of Kenya’s legal system. Consequently, Article 54 of Kenya’s Constitution guarantees PWDs reasonable access to all places. These broad provisions have been implemented by Section 3 of the Elections Act, 2011 and Section 29 and 30 of the Disability Act, 2012. The state has a duty to protect voting rights for PWDs and those with mobility-impairment in particular. However, these are general provisions that have not guaranteed PWDs full participation in the voting process in a manner that is consistent with democratic principles. The aim of the study was to establish how persons with mobility impairment exercised their voting rights during the 2017 general election. Respect for the right to vote for PWDs is only observed on paper since they experience insurmountable challenges in the process. These challenges not restricted to the actual voting period include: inadequate laws and policies, illiteracy and poverty, stigma and cultural attitudes, physical accessibility in registration and access to electoral centre’s. The low voter turnout among persons with mobility-impairment in the 2017 elections in Kenya is simply a manifestation of the greater likelihood of experiencing voting difficulties. The study was based on three hypotheses: first Kenya’s laws are inadequate in as far as the protection of voting rights for persons with mobility impairment is concerned. Secondly, persons with mobility impairment face many barriers that impact their exercise of voting rights. Thirdly, structures and systems put in place to enable persons with mobility impairment exercise their voting rights have not been successful. The study used qualitative methods especially descriptive survey research design to assess the level of participation in voting for persons with mobility impairment in Kenya for the year 2017. The justification for the study was that persons with mobility impairment are not considered in schemes designed to facilitate free and fair elections. Two primary data collection instruments were employed to collect information from the respondents, the questionnaire and the interview guide. The questionnaire was specifically distributed to persons with mobility impairment, while the interview guide was used to collect data from IEBC, the Association of Physically Disabled Kenya (APDK) and Kenya Institute of Special Education (KISE). In the 4 constituencies less than 30% of persons with mobility impairment were able to vote owing to architectural and other physical barriers, attitude barriers, lack of information and communication, ineffective legal, policy and regulatory environment, lack of transport to polling stations and fear of political violence. Some recommendations to improve access to voting rights for persons with mobility impairment would include addressing some of the challenges articulated above. In particular, the following would be key; introduction of electronic voting, special queues, early voting and mobile polling stations for persons with mobility impairment. Enhancement of awareness campaigns, amendment of electoral laws, construction of disability-friendly buildings with wide doors, low tables, increase the number of polling stations, recruitment of staff sensitive to persons with mobility impairment and enforcement of existing laws to address political violence.