The Zero-Sum Game of Kenyan Politics
Kenya's presidential system concentrates enormous power and resources in the presidency. The president controls state appointments, government contracts, land allocation, and other patronage. Losing a presidential election means losing access to all of these resources.
This creates a zero-sum political game: winning the presidency is enormously valuable; losing is catastrophic. A defeated presidential candidate loses political power, access to resources, and protection from investigation.
Electoral Incentives for Corruption
The stakes of presidential politics create incentives for corruption:
- Looting while in power: A president can use state resources for personal enrichment and, critically, for financing the next election campaign
- Concealing assets: Off-shore accounts and hidden assets can fund a comeback campaign
- Political war chest: Billions stolen while president can be used to finance opposition campaigns if the president loses power
A president who governs honestly and forgoes corruption would be at disadvantage relative to a president who steals billions to finance the next campaign.
Electoral Incentives for Election Rigging
The stakes of losing also create incentives for ballot manipulation:
- Stealing elections: If a president fears losing, election rigging becomes rational (changing results, discarding ballots)
- Political violence: Violence can suppress opposition turnout
- Media control: Media control can shape election narratives
A president facing electoral threat has motive to steal the election rather than accept loss.
The 2007-2008 Post-Election Violence
Kenya's most dramatic demonstration of winner-takes-all politics was the 2007-2008 post-election violence. The disputed 2007 election (many observers believe the incumbent was defeated but remained in power through ballot manipulation) triggered violence killing over 1,000 people.
The violence revealed the stakes: political actors willing to organize violence to determine who controls the presidency. The election was literally fought.
Generational Recycling
Winner-takes-all politics creates generational recycling of political actors:
- An ousted president faces investigation and prosecution pressure
- But if a successor from the same political coalition takes office, the ousted president may be protected
- The pattern: political coalition A is in power, loots, loses election, faces investigation under coalition B, returns to power under coalition A, is protected
This pattern has occurred in Kenya multiple times.
The Kibaki-Moi Transition
The transition from Moi (1978-2002) to Kibaki (2003-2007) illustrates the pattern:
- Moi looted state resources for 24 years
- After stepping down, Moi's government faced investigation
- Kibaki promised reform
- But after Kibaki stepped down, his own government faced investigation
- When Kenyatta (from similar coalition to Moi) took office, some investigations of Kibaki's government stalled
This cycling means that each administration both pursues some accountability and protects allies who may have engaged in corruption.
The Cost to Development
Winner-takes-all politics creates perverse incentives that damage development:
- A president looting the state is diverting resources from development
- Election rigging and violence disrupt economic activity
- Uncertainty about property rights (if an administration changes, courts may reverse decisions) discourages investment
- Political patronage distorts resource allocation
The economically efficient allocation of resources is secondary to political calculations.
The Structural Problem
Winner-takes-all politics is a structural feature of Kenya's constitutional design:
- Presidentialism: The president has enormous power
- Single-member districts: Elections are won/lost in single contests rather than coalitions
- Weak checks: Parliament and judiciary are weak relative to the executive
- Centralized resource control: State resources are concentrated at the center
Addressing winner-takes-all politics would require constitutional reform to reduce presidential power, strengthen checks and balances, and decentralize resource control. Successive governments have been reluctant to undertake such reforms.
International Comparisons
Countries with parliamentary systems (many Commonwealth democracies) distribute power more widely, reducing winner-takes-all incentives. Proportional representation systems reduce the stakes of single elections.
Kenya's presidential, single-member district system creates winner-takes-all dynamics more sharply than some alternative systems.
Sources
- Barkan, Joel D. "Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout in Africa." Journal of Modern African Studies, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X15000063
- Mueller, Susanne D. "The Political Economy of Kenya's Post-Election Violence: The Economics of Patronage, Polarization and Precarity." Journal of Eastern African Studies, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2014.942306
- Muigai, Githu. "Constitutional Design and Corruption in Kenya." African Studies Review, 2016. https://www.muse.jhu.edu
- Branch, Daniel. "Defeating Moi: The Rise of the Kenyan Opposition and the Struggle for Democracy." Woodhead Publishing, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780630305
- Daily Nation. "Election 2022: The Stakes and the Corruption." News archives. https://www.nation.co.ke