Election result

Kenya is not unlike any other country where democratic deepening requires a 'two-steps forward, one-step back' outlook.

And unlike 2007, the constitution also provides new dispute mechanisms to encourage any petitioners to pursue legal, as opposed to violent, objections to results. The lessons from 2013 and 2017 indicate that the media, parties, civil society and citizens should be as vigilant as ever. The new constitution enhances election management, some of which the commission has improved on from its predecessor. A new Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission replaced the Electoral Commission of Kenya. It was responsible in 2007 for creating anxiety about the manner of tabulation and announcement results. On the other, it helped to quell tensions between Odinga and Kenyatta’s supporters. It was designed to improve the transmission of results from polling stations to the commission’s headquarters. It specifically empowers a Supreme Court to hear and be the final arbiter on all electoral petitions. The verdict was based on evidence from petitions and its own investigation. The constitution and subsequent legislation improved managerial oversight and operations by specifying that the new electoral commission’s appointment of commissioners must be non-partisan. This was due to the inability of laptops and fingerprint scanners to work properly or receive power at many polling stations. Many of its provisions regarding the bodies responsible for managing the election and adjudicating any disputes continue to underscore many opportunities – as well as challenges – Kenya faces with democratic deepening. Kenya has held its seventh national election since the reintroduction of multiparty competition in the early 1990s.