Making Sense of Kenya's Contested 2017 Election

Abstract

Kenya held its second General Election under the 2010 Constitution, and its sixth since the introduction of multiparty politics, on 8 August 2017. Citizens cast their votes for six positions: The Presidency; Governor; Senator; Member of Parliament (MP); Women’s Representative; and Member of County Assemblies (MCA). Prior to the August eight elections, opinion polls indicated that the presidential election would be closely contested - the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta, was polling at 47%, while the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, was at 43%, with 5% of the voters remaining undecided. The presidency was not the only tight race; Governors’ and the MCA seats were equally closely contested. The two major political coalitions that contested the 2017 elections were: The Jubilee Party, the incumbent coalition headed by Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who were both seeking a second term; and the opposition coalition, the National Super Alliance (NASA), led by Raila Odinga, with Kalonzo Musyoka as his running mate. Smaller political parties, such as the former ruling political party, the Kenya African National Union (KANU), the Third Way Alliance and the Labour Party also fielded presidential candidates ; however, their impact at the presidential level was insignificant. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioners, who oversaw the 2013 general elections, left office owing to political pressure from the opposition . The Commissioners were accused of being involved in various corruption scandals, such as “the Chicken gate scandal,” thus their impartiality and independence were seriously questioned. A new team was put in place to oversee the 2017 general elections, which was led by Wafula Chebukhati, who served as the chairman. The team underwent rigorous vetting and scrutiny by Parliament, and were eventually appointed after unanimous approval by the House. The new commissioners did little to boost public confidence in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. The IEBC remained mired in controversy regarding the procurement of election materials and its appeal against a lower court’s ruling confirming the finality of presidential results (which was announced at the constituency level rather than at the national level by the IEBC’s Chair). The IEBC was seen to be opposed to transparency due to past discrepancies in vote counts—in both 2007 and 2013—between constituency- and national-level results.