International election observation missions from numerous countries, regional organizations, and international bodies deployed observers to Kenya during the 2017 election cycle, providing independent assessments of both the August 8 initial election and the October 26 re-run. The international observer community played significant roles in validating institutional performances and in shaping interpretations of electoral legitimacy, though observer missions were divided in their assessments of the nullification decision and the October re-run election's legitimacy.
The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) deployed an extensive observer presence, providing comprehensive monitoring of campaign conduct, election-day procedures, and result tabulation. The EU mission's August assessment was broadly favorable to the election's technical conduct, noting that while irregularities had occurred, the election had generally proceeded in an orderly manner. However, the EU mission's post-nullification assessment acknowledged the Supreme Court's constitutional authority and noted that procedural violations had indeed occurred that justified the Court's concerns. The EU position thus evolved from initial acceptance of the August results to acknowledgment that the Supreme Court's nullification grounds were substantively grounded.
The African Union (AU) also deployed observers, emphasizing the continental significance of Kenya's electoral process and the implications of the nullification decision for African democratic practices. The AU's assessment was more cautious regarding the Supreme Court's authority, with some AU officials expressing concern that judicial invalidation of elections could set precedents whereby courts would systematically override electoral outcomes. This concern reflected anxiety among some African governments regarding judicial authority to constrain executive power.
The Commonwealth Observer Group deployed observers emphasizing democratic principles and constitutional governance. The Commonwealth assessment was divided regarding the nullification decision, with some members characterizing it as a positive assertion of judicial independence while others expressed concern about judicial overreach. The Commonwealth's varied response reflected the politically contentious character of the nullification decision and the genuine disagreement among observers regarding its propriety.
International observer assessments of the October 26 re-run election were complicated by the opposition boycott. Observers noted that while the October election proceeded without significant administrative incidents, the absence of competition rendered the election's legitimacy questionable. The dramatic reduction in turnout and the geographic concentration of October voting in Jubilee-supporting regions meant that the October result, while procedurally valid, lacked the representative character that competitive elections typically possess.
The observer community was divided regarding whether the October re-run constituted a legitimate second election or whether the boycott fatally compromised the election's legitimacy. Some observers viewed the October election as procedurally valid and as providing legitimate basis for Kenyatta's continued presidency. Others suggested that an election without opposition participation, even if procedurally correct, could not generate the legitimacy that democratic governance requires. This observer division reflected fundamental disagreements about the proper relationship between procedural electoral compliance and substantive democratic legitimacy.
International observers also analyzed the violence that accompanied the 2017 election, with human rights observer missions documenting security force conduct and electoral-related violence. The observer community's assessments generally credited allegations that security forces had used excessive force in response to opposition protests and that electoral violence had resulted in numerous civilian deaths. These human rights assessments affected international diplomatic engagement with Kenya and influenced international perspectives on Kenya's democratic trajectory.
The observer community's assessments were influential in shaping Kenya's international positioning and in framing international responses to the electoral crisis. Countries and international organizations using observer assessments to guide their Kenya policies divided between those emphasizing the Supreme Court's historic assertion of judicial independence and those concerned about the nullification's implications for electoral stability. The divergent international responses created ambiguity regarding international community consensus on the 2017 election.
Post-election, international observer assessments emphasized both achievements and concerning aspects of Kenya's electoral trajectory. Observers credited Kenya's ability to conduct two consecutive elections without state breakdown and praised the Supreme Court's judicial independence. However, observers also noted persistent challenges including political violence, IEBC institutional capacity constraints, and the absence of accountability for security force conduct. These balanced international assessments reflected the complex reality of Kenya's 2017 election as a simultaneously positive and concerning moment in Kenya's democratic development.
See Also
2017 Election 2017 Election August 8 Vote 2017 Election October Re-run 2017 Election Supreme Court Nullification 2017 Election Violence
Sources
- European Union Election Observation Mission. (2017). Kenya 2017 General Elections: Final Report. Retrieved from https://www.eueom.eu/
- African Union. (2017). Kenya 2017 Elections: Observation Report. Retrieved from https://www.au.int/
- International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2017). Kenya 2017: Observer Analysis and Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.ifes.org/