Kenya's March Fourth Election: "Lessons for Governance in the Future"

Kenya's presidential election, held on the March 4, 2013, was one of the most closely watched events in the nation's history. Political analysts all over the world made predictions as to whether or not the election was likely to lead to violence similar to that which occurred in 2007/8, and breathed a collective sigh of relief when the optimists were vindicated. Understanding the factors that led to this outcome is crucial to create meaningful lessons for governance in the future. Our last article on the Kenyan presidential race pointed out that elections alone are necessary, but not sufficient for democracy. In order to move forward, Kenya and other developing democracies should endeavor to learn from both successes and mistakes.

The European Union Election Observation Mission to Kenya commented that "Kenyans should be congratulated for their sense of civic pride and responsibility" and judged that "overall the atmosphere was calm and the democratic spirit of Kenyans prevailed." This positive statement should not, however, lead to the conclusion that the election was conducted flawlessly. Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto and their Jubilee Alliance won the first round by approximately 8,500 out of 12 million votes. This narrow lead heightened attention to possible misconduct by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), which was set up by the new constitution. As a result, runner up Raila Odinga filed a legal appeal, arguing that the results should have led to a second round, as neither candidate could have reached the required 50% had the polls been properly conducted. The Kenyan Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Jubilee Alliances election victory. Critics of the election pointed to issues involving rejected ballots and the return to the system used in 2007, after the failure of newer technologies such as the "Biometric Voter Registration system," which cost Kenyans 95 million USD.

What stood out, despite the controversy surrounding the electoral procedure, was the willingness by all the parties involved to uphold the legitimacy of the Kenyan political institutions and to put to practice the democratic messages that had been often repeated during the campaigns. Raila Odinga, after the Supreme Court ruling, publicly stated that "The court has now spoken. I wish the president-elect, honorable Uhuru Kenyatta, and his team well." Understandably, a sense of loss still prevailed among Odinga's supporters. Some rioting resulted in places such as the lakeside city Kisumu, where five people were killed. Overall, however, the response of the political leaders was to urge caution and promote peace, which had a considerable effect on their support bases.

One could argue the driving force behind the peaceful conduct of the election was Kenya's new constitution. After the violence in 2007/8, the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Process (KNDR) was initiated, which led to the promulgation of the new constitution on August 27, 2010.  Since then, efforts have been made to apply the reforms in time for the 2013 general elections. Although not all the reforms have yet been successfully completed, the new constitution still managed to give Kenyan's a sense of hope and progress that was vital in ensuring a break from the past. Furthermore, many of the institutional reforms that had already taken place renewed trust in a system that had previously been viewed as corrupt and broken.

The police force is one good example of positive institutional change in comparison to the 2007 election. Advancing towards March 4th following unfortunate violence in the Tana District, there were concerns that progress in the security forces had not been substantial enough. The Inspector General of Police, David Kimaiyo, escalated security closer to the election and deployed approximately 100,000 police around Kenya, focusing on the 33,000 polling stations. This heightened police presence acted as deterrent, allowed voters to relax while queuing for their turn at the polling station, and managed small-scale conflicts as they arose.

Other factors that contributed to the success of the election were not purposefully planned. The Jubilee alliance brings together the Kikuyu, and the Kalenjiin, who have traditionally been at the center of conflicts in Kenyan history. The Rift Valley area was the site of ethnic clashes between these two groups throughout the 90s, which carried on until 2008. As the largest ethnic group in Kenya, the Kikuyu have historically held political power, leading to the marginalization of smaller groups. If the broad inter-ethnic alliances such as Jubilee and CORD that contested this election become the norm then this may go some way to mitigate the tensions that still exist after decades of inter-ethnic conflict.

Overall, while the calls for peace from the international community, celebrities and Kenyans themselves were an immense positive force, the emphasis on peace may have sidelined some of the important concerns that must be tackled if the democratic success is to be sustainable. The issues touched on above of leadership, institutional development and alleviation of ethnic tensions are important in and of themselves for the development of the country, and should not be perceived as only remedies for a successful election. Many of the causes of discontentment among the population, such as corruption, problems with land tenure and feelings of disenfranchisement have deep historical roots that cannot be patched over by a single electoral success. Looking forward, the Kenyan government must ensure that the half of the country that did not see their candidate win carries on trusting the state to provide for them and protect them.

*This post was written by the Africa Program and Leadership Project staff. Main contributions by Suraiya az-Zubair, and edited by William Schultz.

Nairobi, Kenya polling station in Kilimani, photo attributed to Zulusafari/Creative Commons