The formal charging of three prominent Kenyan politicians, (and one hanger-on) with crimes against humanity presents Kenyans with possibly the first opportunity to witness an example of their leaders being held accountable for their actions, since Kenya became independent 50 years ago.

Until now, the country has endured a culture of political impunity that saw one president die peacefully in a presidential bed, and another retire in some comfort, despite numerous allegations of serious “bad manners” while they were in power.

It was perhaps therefore quite logical for the current state managers to expect that this was the way Kenyan presidentialism and all its attendant maladies, worked.

The indictments of the civil service head and some coalition party members now challenges this perception.

Of particular symbolism is the indictment of Uhuru Kenyatta, who was working as both deputy prime minister and finance minister, and, as the scion of the republic’s first president, is the closest thing it has to a crown prince. It suggests that an historically entrenched attitude of disregard for the lives of little people forms the very culture of the state.

Elections are supposed to work by presenting citizens with an either/or set of choices of who is to govern them. After their 2008 election, Kenyans ended up instead with a situation where all the choices on offer ended up as the government. This, plus the violence that preceded it, is the best evidence of how aware all concerned are, that the election results were extremely dubious, at best, and outright fraudulent at worst.

The resultant Kofi Annan-brokered compromise was intended to prevent a resumption of the violence and give this Kenyan political elite enough time to clear up the mess they had created.

This opportunity was ignored. Buoyed by a self-satisfied sense of invincibility, the new Kenyan coalition government simply turned their minds to the seemingly more pressing issues related to “managing” the public purse.

Despite two extensions by first Mr Annan, and then later one more from the ICC’s Mr Ocampo himself, the government displayed an astonishing disregard for the need for concrete action to address the aftermath of the electoral mayhem, that was as cavalier as it was callous.

The disinterest in the plight of the bulk of the persons displaced into camps by the fighting, or the need to process the nearly 5,000 cases of persons suspected of participating in it, could almost be expected. After all, having benefited from the failure to count their ballots, one could hardly expect these august gentlemen to show an interest in any other aspect of voters’ lives.