Want to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact UsWant to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact Us
Read this story on Esheria.
Introduction
March 7th 2024 will remain plastered in the minds of Kenyans. This day was pinnacle in that it proved that the more things change the more they remain the same. This day evidenced that in Kenya, political power is not simply won at the ballot box; it is frequently secured through a series of high-profile deals, handshakes, and power-sharing pacts that have defined the country’s turbulent political landscape over the past three decades. Raila Odinga, a veteran opposition leader known as much for his fiery rhetoric as for his repeated ability to “shake hands” with former rivals, epitomizes this phenomenon. His political journey from aligning with President Daniel Arap Moi to joining forces with Mwai Kibaki and then with Uhuru Kenyatta in the aftermath of the 207 elections, and now with President William Ruto illustrates both the strengths and the deep flaws in Kenya’s system democratic space. A proof that Kenya is but a consociational democracy.
Consociational Democracy? Are we one?
Consociational democracy, a model built on the principles of power sharing among diverse and often rival groups, is designed to manage conflict in a deeply divided society. In theory, such a system helps to protect minority interests and prevent any single group from monopolizing power. This form of democracy is practiced in countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Lebanon and Northern Ireland. In Belgium for example, the country is divided between Dutch-speaking Flemish and French-speaking Walloons. IN Lebanon, Government positions are allocated among religious sects, that is a President must be Maronite Christian, Prime Minister Sunni Muslim, Speaker Shia Muslim for peace to hold. ON the contrary, we do not as a country qualify a tinge to the arrangements set by the mentioned countries. Kenya’s version of this model appears to be laced with greed and self-interest. While the constitutional framework and legal mechanisms aim to guarantee fair representation and stability, the recurring pacts in which political actors most notably Raila Odinga enter into agreements with their adversaries suggest that these deals are often driven more by opportunism and the desire to secure personal gain than by a genuine commitment to national unity. Funny thing is that unity is often used as an excuse…and only politicians can decide whether the country is united or not.
A History of Divided Politics in Kenya
Since independence, Kenya’s political landscape has been shaped by deep ethnic and regional divisions. The legacy of colonial rule left behind a country where power was concentrated in the hands of a few dominant groups. As Kenya transitioned from a one-party state to a multiparty system in the early 1990s, the challenges of accommodating a diverse society became ever more apparent. With elections often aligning along ethnic lines, power-sharing arrangements have been seen as a way to prevent majoritarian rule from sidelining minority interests. Kenya’s 2010 constitution was a milestone in this regard, as it enshrined devolution and set up structures intended to balance power across regions and ethnic groups. Yet, while the legal framework may be progressive on paper, the real-world application of power sharing has repeatedly been compromised by deals that serve elite interests
Raila Odinga’s Journey Through Political Handshakes
Few politicians in Kenya have as storied a history of political deals as Raila Odinga. His career is defined by a series of high-stakes handshakes that have allowed him to remain relevant even when he lost elections.
The Moi Era: A Cautious Alliance
1997 marked the beginning of “greetings” for Odinga. After the bitterly contested 1997 elections in which Moi and KANU retained power,he surprised many by reaching out to President Daniel Arap Moi. Despite his history of opposition, Raila joined a cooperation agreement with Moi in 1998. Who would have thought about this? He was at the fore front of castigating Moi and his bad leadership that was characterized by abductions, extra-judicial killings, mismanagement of the economy just to mention a few. This was the first sign of opportiunism from him and the ushering of consciational democracy. Raila’s decision to align himself with the government enabled him to secure a position in Moi’s Cabinet. By accepting a role as Minister for Energy, he not only preserved his political career but also demonstrated a willingness to compromise in order to gain access to power and the benefits that came with it. In my opinion, Raila was sacrificing his opposition credentials for personal gain, effectively setting a precedent for his future political maneuvers
The Kibaki Coalition: Managing Post-Election Crisis
The 2007 general elections in Kenya are remembered as one of the most violent in the country’s history. Disputed results and widespread allegations of rigging plunged the nation into chaos, leading to brutal post-election violence that claimed over a thousand lives. Amid this crisis, international mediators brokered a deal that resulted in a grand coalition government. Raila Odinga, despite being the leading opposition candidate, was brought into government as Prime Minister in April 2008. This power-sharing agreement was a classic example of consociational democracy: two rival factions, instead of engaging in endless conflict, agreed to share power to restore stability. However, it also underscored a troubling truth. While the coalition was meant to guarantee representation for both sides, it also provided an avenue for political elites to consolidate power. Raila’s ascension to the prime ministership was seen not only as a necessary compromise to end violence but also as an opportunity to secure a share of the spoils of government. The Nusu-Mkate government, though successful in curbing violence, ultimately maintained the status quo, one in which political survival was closely linked to personal enrichment.
The 2018 Handshake: A symbol of reconciliation, compromise or both?
After the tumultuous 2017 general elections, which were again marred by controversy and tension, Kenya witnessed another dramatic political moment. On March 9, 2018, former President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga famously shook hands on the steps of Harambee House. This moment, widely referred to as “the handshake,” was celebrated by many as a historic act of reconciliation that promised to put an end to years of bitter rivalry and political violence. Yet, for some observers, the handshake was emblematic of a more cynical political reality. It appeared that both leaders were more interested in preserving their positions and ensuring their share of power than in forging a genuine path to national unity. What is even funnier is that the then Deputy President William Ruto called this form of government “ a mongrel”. He discussed in rallies how Mzee wa Kitendawili had “disturbed” Moi, Kibaki, Uhuru and asserted that he is the only one who cannot “take that crap”. While the handshake helped to calm tensions temporarily, it did little to address the underlying issues of inequality and greed that have long plagued Kenya’s political system. Moreover, the symbolic act set the stage for future alliances that, rather than transforming Kenya’s democracy, merely reinforced the notion that political deals are the currency of power
Now, in 2025, Raila Odinga has once again joined forces with the government—this time with President William Ruto. In a move that echoes his previous agreements. This recent pact is the fourth major political handshake in which Raila has participated, following his deals with Moi, Kibaki, and Uhuru Kenyatta. Under the current agreement, both leaders have pledged to work together on key socio-economic and political issues. One can still read between the lines, the unwritten deal. THis deal iis nothing more than a pragmatic arrangement designed to secure the interests of a political elite.
Impact of handshakes on the Constitution and governance
The Constitution promised a new era of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability,a vision of power shared among diverse communities to keep the nation united. Yet behind the legal jargon and progressive provisions lies a political reality where backroom deals, ethnic favoritism, and unchecked abuses of power often derail these lofty ideals. In plain English, the law tells us that power should be divided fairly, but in practice, many of those who negotiate these power-sharing deals do so more to line their pockets and protect their interests than to serve the public. Article 10 of the Constitution declares that “the Constitution is the supreme law of Kenya” and that all public institutions must operate under its principles of inclusivity, accountability, and transparency. But when political pacts are sealed in private meetings, the spirit of Article 10 often gets lost in translation. Instead of open debate and public accountability, we see deals crafted behind closed doors, where personal ambition overshadows the common good.
Parliamentary oversight, a critical safeguard designed to check executive power, is also at risk. Article 174 mandates that the distribution of national revenue must be equitable between the central government and the counties. Yet in reality, funds sometimes flow disproportionately to regions aligned with powerful ethnic groups, reinforcing a system where ethnicity becomes a ticket to government largesse. This not only undermines the idea of fair resource allocation but also allows certain political actors to build patronage networks that secure their power for years to come. Corruption and abuse of power are constant companions to these secretive arrangements. Article 233 requires public officers to perform their duties with integrity and prohibits them from abusing their positions. But when power-sharing deals are used as a stepping stone to lucrative cabinet positions or other benefits, the line between public service and personal profit quickly blurs. Instead of serving Kenya, some leaders use these deals as a smokescreen to divert state resources into their own pockets, leaving ordinary citizens to shoulder the cost of corruption.
Ethnic profiling is another dangerous byproduct of these arrangements. Article 27 guarantees that every person is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection. Yet the very practice of carving up power along ethnic lines often means that decisions—about who gets which ministry, or which region gets a larger slice of the national budget—are made based on tribal allegiances rather than merit or need. This selective distribution fuels resentment among marginalized groups and perpetuates a cycle of division, even as the Constitution demands unity and equality.
The Future of Kenya’s Democracy
The persistent reliance on power-sharing deals in Kenya raises critical questions about the future of the nation’s democracy. Can a system that is so deeply intertwined with personal greed and opportunism truly deliver the promises of stability and inclusion? Or is Kenya destined to remain trapped in a cycle where political bargains serve the interests of a few at the expense of the many? What is the essence of holding election if at the end of the day the losing candidate will always team up with the winner?
In my opinion, the legal and constitutional frameworks that were designed to promote fairness and inclusion are undermined when the rules are bent to serve the interests of a few. As Kenya continues to evolve, there is an urgent need for reforms that not only formalize power-sharing but also hold political actors accountable for the promises they make. Ultimately, the story of Kenya’s consociational democracy is a cautionary tale. It reminds us that even the most well-intentioned systems of power sharing can be hijacked by greed if political actors lose sight of their public responsibilities. For Kenya to truly deliver on the promise of democracy, its leaders must move beyond the endless cycle of opportunistic handshakes and work together to build a political system that is transparent, accountable, and genuinely inclusive.
