Free and fair? Citizens’ assessments of the 2013 general election in Kenya

Abstract

Kenya's peaceful 2013 election came as a relief to domestic and international observers, who feared a repeat of the brutal 2007––2008 post-election violence. Many observers conflated this relative peace with electoral credibility, but analysis of a post-election national opinion poll reveals a more complex picture. Most Kenyans did feel that the 2013 election was free and fair, but their conception of free and fair is rooted more in the historical context of the election than in technical electoral procedures. Personal experiences of irregularities at the level of polling stations do not play a statistically significant role in shaping voters’ opinions about electoral credibility. Instead, voters are more influenced by their ethnicities, their confidence in electoral institutions and by how highly they prioritised peace. These findings reveal the importance of local context and history in conceptions of electoral integrity on the ground.

[Libre et équitable ? Évaluation par les citoyens de l’élection générale de 2013 au Kenya.] L’élection de 2013 au Kenya qui s'est déroulée sans heurts a été perçue comme un soulagement par les observateurs nationaux et internationaux, qui craignaient que les violences brutales survenues en 2007–2008 après les élections resurgissent. De nombreux observateurs ont associé cette paix relative à la crédibilité électorale, mais une analyse d'un sondage d'opinion au niveau national après les élections révèle une image plus complexe. La plupart des Kényans ont senti que l’élection de 2013 était libre et équitable, mais leur conception de la liberté et de l’équité prend sa source davantage dans le contexte historique de l’élection que dans les procédures électorales techniques. Les expériences personnelles d'irrégularités au niveau des bureaux de vote ne jouent pas un rôle significatif au niveau statistique dans la formation des opinions des électeurs à propos de la crédibilité électorale. Les électeurs sont plutôt influencés par leur origine ethnique, leur confiance dans les institutions électorales, et par la mesure dans laquelle ils donnent la priorité à la paix. Ces résultats révèlent l'importance du contexte local et du passé dans les conceptions de l'intégrité électorale sur le terrain.

Keywords:

• Kenya
• elections
• legitimacy
• ethnicity
• peace
• institutions

Mots-clés:

• Kenya
• élections
• légitimité
• ethnicité
• paix
• institutions

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my research assistants, Tashi Maseland and Tom Parker, for their invaluable help and dedication to this project. I am also indebted to Gabrielle Lynch for her helpful suggestions and guidance, and to Sadru Chandani for his insightful commentary and brilliant assistance with data management.

Note on contributor

Seema Shah is a Programme Officer in the Electoral Processes Department at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). She received her doctorate from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her research interests include electoral politics, election-related violence and electoral integrity.

Notes

1. Notable examples include guidelines published by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the African Union, the European Union and the Organization of American States as well as by the Carter Center, the UN and the National Democratic Institute.

2. See Lynch (2008, 559–561) for a discussion of narratives within the Kalenjin community.

3. A summary of the AfriCOG petition can be found on the People's Court website at http://www.thepeoplescourt.co.ke/2013-04-09-13-37-50/summary/129-summary-petition.

4. The original model included tests of confidence in the IEBC, the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and the judiciary generally. Since the judiciary and the IEBC were the strongest variables, the final model included only these two.