The 2013 election marked the inaugural simultaneous election of 47 county governors, establishing for the first time the devolved two-tier government system mandated by the 2010 Constitution. The county elections constituted a radical decentralization of Kenya's historically centralized state structure, transferring significant budgetary resources, legislative authority, and administrative responsibility from Nairobi to 47 county-level governments. The gubernatorial contests occurred simultaneously with the presidential, parliamentary, and senatorial elections on March 4, 2013, creating unprecedented administrative complexity and transforming Kenya's political economy fundamentally.
The devolved system reflected constitutional provisions that allocated 15% of national government revenue to county governments and delegated significant service delivery responsibilities to counties, including healthcare, education, agricultural extension, and local infrastructure development. This devolution was intended to address longstanding regional inequality, wherein the central government had concentrated resources in Nairobi and priority regions while marginalizing peripheral counties. The new system theoretically allowed counties greater autonomy to tailor governance to local needs and priorities, while also creating new opportunities for political leadership and resource accumulation outside the presidency.
The 47 new counties were created through constitutional boundary delimitation processes that proved politically fraught. Constituencies that had been parliamentary electoral districts were reorganized into counties, with boundaries theoretically reflecting geographic, ethnic, and administrative logic but in practice reflecting contested political negotiations. Certain regions, particularly in Central Kenya and the Rift Valley, benefited from boundary arrangements that created favorable electoral conditions for Jubilee-aligned candidates, while other regions complained that boundary delimitation had disadvantaged them. The IEBC's management of boundary delimitation was itself subject to political controversy and allegations of bias.
The gubernatorial contests revealed political dynamics distinct from the presidential election. While the presidential and parliamentary elections heavily tracked ethnic and coalition lines, the gubernatorial races produced more varied outcomes, with candidates succeeding or failing based on local organization, personal networks, business performance, and community reputation. Some counties elected governors aligned with the presidential coalitions, while others elected candidates from regional parties or independents. For example, in Wiper-aligned regions, regional party governors competed successfully against both Jubilee and ODM candidates. In some Luhya areas, Luhya-based parties produced gubernatorial winners despite having supported the national opposition coalition.
The 2013 gubernatorial election results thus fragmented political authority in ways that the presidential and parliamentary results did not. The Jubilee coalition dominated the presidency and parliament but held only approximately 65% of gubernatorial positions, meaning that CORD-aligned governors controlled significant subnational resources and platforms. This fragmentation created opportunities for sub-national political entrepreneurship and autonomy, as governors built local power bases independent of national coalition structures. The county system thus created multiple competing centers of political power and resource control that had not previously existed in Kenya's centralized state structure.
The gubernatorial elections also demonstrated the variable quality of county-level electoral administration. Some counties conducted elections smoothly, while others experienced significant irregularities, violence, or administrative failures. The simultaneous administration of presidential, parliamentary, senatorial, and gubernatorial contests across 47 new counties imposed unprecedented logistical demands on the IEBC and exposed resource and capacity constraints. The 2013 county elections thus marked both the beginning of decentralized governance and the beginning of a sustained learning curve regarding how to administer elections equitably and competently across multiple tiers and geographic areas.
The success and trajectory of the devolved system remained uncertain in 2013. While constitutional and institutional architects had envisioned devolution as a means to address regional inequality and improve service delivery, the first year of implementation revealed significant challenges: underfunding relative to responsibilities, weak institutional capacity in some counties, and political opportunism wherein county governors accumulated personal wealth rather than advancing public welfare. The 2013 gubernatorial elections thus inaugurated a system whose ultimate impact on Kenyan democracy and development remained unfolding.
See Also
2013 Election 2013 Election New Constitution Context 2013 Election IEBC 2013 Election Results 2013 Election Regional Patterns 2013 Election Long-Term Impact
Sources
- Nyamboga, Stephen and Karanja, Lucy. (2013). Devolved Government in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. Institute for Social Accountability.
- Constitution of Kenya. (2010). Fourth Schedule: County Boundaries. Retrieved from https://www.ck.org/
- International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2013). Kenya's 2013 County Elections: Assessment Report. Retrieved from https://www.ifes.org/