Kenya’s electoral system requires sweeping reforms to restore public trust, protect its integrity and ensure political stability and a functioning democracy, a study now says.
Among its key proposals, the report calls for the tightening of election campaign financing rules and strict enforcement of compliance to stem misconduct and uphold vote integrity.
Titled “Building Resilient Democracies: Campaign Finance Issues and Reforms in Kenya”, the report highlights the dangers of excessive use of money in politics, which corrupts the electoral process, disenfranchises voters and denies citizens ethical and accountable leaders who can create a meaningful change in society.
“The use of money in politics and the lack of transparency in sources of funding and how resources are used has the potential of contributing to corruption and the manipulation of voters,” it says.
The study calls for the establishment of an independent unit in the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to oversee and regulate campaign funding to curb illicit financial flows and undue influence of voters.
The IEBC has weak systems for checking and regulating how candidates and political parties source and spend money.
In addition, the study calls for a regular audit of financial accounts of political parties to ensure transparency and responsibility to the public. Party financing mechanisms also need reform to promote equity, accountability and value for money for the taxpayers.
Frameworks for the disbursement of cash to political parties should be reviewed to promote equity and predictability. According to the records by the Registrar of Political Parties, there are 91 fully registered political parties and 32 with provisional registration in Kenya.
Of the 91 fully registered parties, some 48 receive state funding based on their representation in Parliament.
The report calls for strict enforcement of electoral and governance laws and regulations to level the playing field and empower citizens to exercise their democratic rights through fair voting.
Conducted by three University of Nairobi scholars – Dr Oscar Otele, Prof Karuti Kanyinga and Prof Winnie Mitullah – and supported by the Brookings Africa Growth Initiative, the findings come 14 months to the General Election and provide suggestions for sealing loopholes that perennially distort the will of the people.
Already, parties and aspirants have started electioneering, spending money that ends up not being classified or recorded under election campaign financing.
In a critical analysis of election campaign financing, the report highlights persistent violations of election regulations by the monied political class, party leaders and government functionaries, rendering voters helpless bystanders in the electoral process.
The net result is that dishonest and unfit candidates get their way through the ballot and legitimise fraud and unethical practices in national leadership.
Since the introduction of multi-party elections in 1992, Kenyan voters have watched in disbelief as their decisions about national leadership are thrown out through flawed electoral processes.
Women and young men queue for cash handouts from a politician in Kisumu on July 16, 2022. Politicians have begun campaigns for 2027.
Photo credit: File | AFP
Kenya has held seven elections under the multi-party system in the last 34 years, yet only one – 2002, which ended Kanu’s 40-year hold on power – passed without significant controversy.
The rest have been marred by irregularities, raising questions about their credibility. Consistent electoral malpractices erode public confidence, fuel voter apathy and weaken democratic governance, the report says.
Notably, it highlights the high cost of elections in Kenya at all levels, arising from unregulated spending and lack of safeguards for illicit campaign funding, which give unfair advantage to the political elite, shadowy businesses and their surrogates at the expense of honest and promising leaders.
A vicious cycle of evil is recreated where a few individuals with ill-gotten money buy their way to power and in turn use their offices to amass more wealth and award tenders and favours to their benefactors.
“When candidates for electoral office buy their way into political leadership, they prioritise recouping their investment as opposed to serving public interest,” the study says.
“Furthermore, expensive campaigns make it harder for new voices to emerge or get into politics to shape political decisions. This is in addition to turning politics into a marketplace where political services are monetised and transacted in a manner that undermines public interests.”
The study notes that Kenya has several laws aimed at regulating electoral practices and campaign financing, but they are hardly enforced because of lack of political will, limited institutional capacity and turf wars between responsible agencies.
The Constitution mandates the IEBC to regulate election campaign funds, while the Election Campaign Financing Act provides the legal framework for obtaining and managing financial resources. However, the Act is yet to be fully enforced due to political mischief as lawmakers put hurdles to block its implementation so as to cushion themselves against public scrutiny.
Related to this, overlapping roles and turf wars among agencies responsible for managing electoral processes – namely IEBC and the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties – undermine effective implementation of the relevant laws and regulations. The agencies also lack the institutional capacity and resources to enforce electoral laws, allowing politicians to flout regulations with impunity.
Compounding the problem is the absence of a clear and comprehensive definition of campaign financing. Beyond direct cash handouts to voters, inducements often take more subtle forms, such as fundraising for vulnerable groups or the distribution of small material gifts, practices that can easily pass as acts of goodwill, yet function as tools of electoral influence.
Matters are complicated when incumbents exploit the advantages of office to dish out development projects as inducements to voters, blurring the line between legitimate public programmes and partisan campaign tactics.
Paradoxically, many of these projects stall once elections are over, leaving citizens in triple jeopardy – manipulated, deceived and shortchanged.
Whereas much of the blame for the muddled electoral process rests with the political class, voters are equally complicit through acts of omission and commission.
Many eligible voters abstain from voting, elect leaders with questionable records, encourage bribery by extorting cash from aspirants and hardly hold those in power to account by questioning their excesses.
The study calls on the civil society and the private sector to take a keen interest in the electoral process by checking the excesses of the political elite, leveraging their strength to frame campaign issues, demanding accountability from candidates and pushing out loud-mouthed and manipulative characters.
In reforming the electoral process, Kenyans need to tackle the question of ethnic mobilisation and personalisation of leadership. Pre-occupation with ethnicity polarises the political landscape, excludes those from small communities and denies the country credible and quality leaders, it says.
Personalisation of leadership creates a hero-worship culture, weakens political institutions and undermines the principles of good governance.
The report says parties need to be democratised and strengthened for civic mobilisation and engagement rather than individual-based vehicles for seeking political power and discarded soon after an electoral cycle. Even those which thrive after elections hardly survive without their founders, underscoring the fragility of multi-party politics.
The researchers are pushing for a paradigm shift in how elections are conceived, organised and conducted to bestow dignity and civility to the process.
They argue that the conception of elections as a zero-sum game where the winner takes it all gives incentives to aspirants to spend a lot of money to secure victory, debasing politics and weakening democracy.
In the final analysis, the report argues that failure to make operational the election campaign financing law risks weakening the electoral process, alienating voters and undermining democracy.
A situation in which the monied determine electoral outcomes entrenches inequality, normalises illicit financial flows, deepens elite capture and legitimises corruption to the detriment of citizens’ well-being, the report concludes.
