Ethnic politics ‘holding back democracy’

While noting that the country remains one of the more institutionally advanced states in the Horn of Africa, deep structural weaknesses continue to undermine democratic consolidation.

The report is dubbed Democratisation Structural Constraints, Political Dynamics and Future Prospects in the Horn of Africa.

The study argues that Kenya, like much of the region, is struggling with weak institutional constraints, limited political pluralism and the dominance of executive power.

This is despite performing better than its neighbours in several governance indicators.

It notes that while Kenya has made significant democratic gains since the return of multiparty politics in the 1990s, including competitive elections and relatively strong institutions, these gains remain fragile.

“Kenya has travelled a considerable distance from its prolonged experience as a de facto one-party state. Since then, Kenya has undergone significant democratic transformation, regularly conducted competitive multiparty elections and experienced peaceful transfers of power,” the report notes.

However, it warns that repeated electoral violence, particularly the 2007-08 crisis, exposed the vulnerability of Kenya’s political system in moments of intense competition.

At the heart of Kenya’s democratic challenge, the report identifies ethnicisation of politics as a persistent problem. Political competition, it says, is still largely organised around ethnic blocs rather than ideology or policy platforms.

“Political parties, electoral coalitions and patronage networks are largely organised along ethnic lines,” it states.

"Consequently, some groups enjoy privileged access to state resources, while others are systematically excluded, reinforcing perceptions of inequality and grievance."

The report further argues that this dynamic has turned elections into contests for control of state resources rather than instruments of accountability.

“Kenya exemplifies a polity in which communal contenders compete for a share of centralized power rather than merely aiming at autonomy. Kenya has yet to de-ethnicise national political life,” it adds.

Closely linked to this is the issue of elite capture, where political and economic elites are seen to benefit disproportionately from control of the state, reinforcing inequality and weakening public trust in institutions.

The report also flags corruption as a persistent structural problem, noting that despite legal and institutional frameworks, enforcement remains weak.

Regional inequality and historical exclusion are also identified as major democratic fault lines, particularly in Northeastern and Coastal Kenya, where communities continue to feel marginalised from national political and economic life.

The report highlights long-standing grievances linked to state formation, securitisation and uneven development, arguing that these conditions weaken trust in the state and fuel cycles of insecurity and underdevelopment.

It also points to concerns over civil liberties and governance constraints, including pressure on journalists, restrictive laws and allegations of excessive force by security agencies, even in the context of a relatively active civil society.

Despite these challenges, the report acknowledges Kenya’s relative strengths in the region, particularly the independence of its judiciary and the role of courts in checking executive power.

It cites landmark rulings, including the Supreme Court’s handling of the 2022 presidential election petition and the High Court’s 2023 decision that nullified the housing levy, as evidence of institutional resilience.

Still, the report concludes that Kenya’s democratic trajectory remains uneven, with progress in formal institutions not yet matched by deeper political transformation.

“Elections risk becoming arenas for elite rotation rather than mechanisms of genuine popular accountability,” it warns.

The Horn Centre for Democracy argues that Kenya’s democratic future will depend on addressing structural inequalities, reducing ethnic polarisation and strengthening accountability institutions in order to move from procedural democracy to substantive democratic governance.