4.1 Article

The failure of the constituent process in Kenya

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icon/moad091

Keywords

constitution; constitution-making process; failure of the constitution-making process; Kenyan constituent process; Kenyan referendum

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After gaining independence in 1963, Kenya entered its democratic era, but its constitution underwent several reforms that transformed it from a democratic model to an authoritarian one-party system. Two decades later, political changes and the wave of democratization led to calls for constitutional change. The key factors contributing to the failure of the constitutional-making process were the strong influence of political forces and their partisan use.
Kenya began its democratic era after its declaration of independence and the adoption of its first constitution in 1963. However, this supreme norm of the country would undergo countless reforms by the political elites from the very beginning, mostly to satisfy the partisan demands of the political leaders at the moment. These reforms succeeded in transforming the initially democratic model into an authoritarian, one-party system. After two decades of corruption and abuse of power, the political changes in the country and the wave of democratization after the fall of the Berlin Wall fueled the popular clamour for constitutional change. This article analyses the development of the constitution-making process, which began with the first constitutional amendments introduced to the constitution of the independence, as well as the main factors that led to the rejection of the new draft constitution in the ratification referendum held on 21 November 2005. A key element contributing to the failure of the whole process is the strong influence of political forces in the process and the partisan use of all of them to achieve their political advantages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available