concession is someone's choice - he does not have to concede! sio lazima... it does not change who the president is. The problem here is WHAT DO YOU DO IN THAT STEAD! We all agree that police violence is unwarranted but the more you are seen to justify the action of the police the more it is seen that the police are doing it in your name. the claim that "wakikuyu wanatuua" are rife!! Have you ever wondered why people turn against the very people that they associate with them everyday when some of these conflicts arise? Why did Hutus kill Tutsis? Husbands KILLED WIVES! the task of nation building is hard and it starts not by being seen to be sharing stuff or eating together or giving each other stuff. it's has to be seen as a task we do for others... it's maisha bila MADHARAU!!

And this would be so irregardless of whether party Y knew of the facts or not?

If PEV is the violence that emerges after an election, then we can study the kinds of violence that have emerged along our history.

Right now, what forms of violence have taken place? What have been the expressions of violence involved and who have been the actors?

It's good that @hardwood has posted those pictures, because we can interrogate the conversation that has taken place between the participants of violence before, during, and after the elections.

Before elections the state says, 'Because some people disputes election results and express displeasure by looting, killing, etc. We'll bring armed force to deal with you.'

The NASA people lie low. But they also know from precedence that elections can be stolen. So this presentation of force by the state can also be used to steal elections. Especially, if those who're in control of the state in fact have an interest in retaining power and are part of the elections.

People go to vote in peace. But many know that things are likely to explode.

After elections, one party, who has been feeding his people with truths before, says; the elections have been stolen.

Now, let us, for a moment apply a reasonableness test: Is it reasonable for those who believe they are victims of theft to show their displeasure and even participate in acts that would suggest that they are not cowed by the armed forces used by the state?

Or rather, would you resist a robber if you knew you had the means and what you were protecting was worth dying for?

The state, owes duty of care to all citizens; and given it's scope and structure and processes, it can foresee scenarios. It can have intelligent plans of care and execution of relations, and hence if the state indeed had a clean heart then it would do their best to apply fairness and protection to all.

For example, the state could define its terms of engagement and effect confidence building measures such as inviting the opposition leadership in national security plans. So that the opposition doesn't have to act on rumors...

But the state made no such initiatives. Why?

And if you were Raila, feeling and even knowing that there were elaborate plans afoot to ensure that he lost, would you concede that you lost fairly?

I agree!!!