In a referendum election on Aug. 5, Kenyan voters approved a new constitution by a margin of approximately 2 to 1. The newly ratified constitution will replace the existing one, which was written in 1963, shortly after the nation gained its independence from Britain. While the new constitution has been generally viewed as a progressive step for the nation, some remain opposed to its enactment. Among other things, the new constitution includes the addition of a senate to Kenya’s legislative branch and places greater government curbs on political patronage and land-grabbing. Both patronage and land-grabbing have been endemic due to government corruption.

The changes and proposals outlined in the document are the result of a long campaign by Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Their campaign was focused on introducing reforms in light of the highly contentious 2007 presidential election.

The election, which many claimed was rigged in favor of Kibaki, resulted in widespread violence. The unrest shocked the international community, considering that Kenya has generally been viewed as relatively stable compared to its East African neighbors.

According to Assistant Professor of History Joy Coates, who specializes in Kenyan studies, “Kenya has a history of fraudulent elections, but it has generally tried to be a model for other African nations.”

Since gaining its independence from Britain in 1963, Kenya has side-stepped many of the macabre episodes that have affected neighboring countries like Uganda and Rwanda.

However, in the past, citizens and officials have viewed Kenyan democracy with little respect.

Multi-party elections were banned until 1994, and since then, decision-making abilities have remained highly monopolized by the executive branch of government. Additionally, religious and ethnic tensions between Kenya’s Christian majority and Muslim minority and between the Kikuyu, Luo, and other Kenyan tribes continue to create divisions in the country with political ramifications.

Amid the frustration and anger that many Kenyans have felt since the 2007 elections, there has been a general desire to regain Kenya’s status as a model of stability.

Some feel the political leadership in Kenya has attempted to tap into these feelings by proposing the new constitution as a way to regain the trust of Kenyans.

According to Coates, “Kenyans had lost hope in their government, and this constitution seems to be a way to appease people.”

Many Kenyans felt that the 1963 constitution, a relic of the colonial era, gave overreaching authority to the presidency and did not sufficiently address issues of land-grabbing.

However, there remain controversial parts of the new constitution which not all feel will help stabilize Kenya.
Despite approved measures to create more checks and balances, certain clauses in the constitution have provoked concerns about a possible resurgence of religious tensions.

Some Christian leaders feel that the provisions allowing the use of Islamic courts are discriminatory. Many in Kenya’s evangelical community also claim that the constitution allows for loopholes in Kenya’s ban on abortions.

Evangelical voters provided the base for the 33 percent voting against the referendum.

While there is some apprehension among certain groups in Kenya, there is a general feeling of optimism in the country, with hopes that the new constitution will create greater transparency in government and allow for social and economic mobility.

Several campaign posters encouraging a “yes” vote featured Obama’s picture alongside those of Kibaki and Odinga, suggesting that the presence of a Kenyan-descent president in the United States has created a sense of solidarity within the country, and inspired new hope for positive change.

“Kenyans are justifiably proud to have one of their people as the president of the U.S.,” Coates said.

In light of the genocide and corruption that still plague other countries in East Africa, there is a sense of hope that Kenya’s efforts to work towards democracy will not only improve the political situation there, but also act as a catalyst for change in the region.