Why The Proposed Election Laws By Ruto Are A Dark Turn for Kenya’s Democracy And A Danger To Our National Security, Must Be Rejected In Total

Kenya’s electoral system stands as a fragile pillar of our democracy, painstakingly built through years of struggle, sacrifice, and reforms. The proposed changes to our election laws under the guise of “streamlining” power transitions are not only regressive but also a direct affront to the constitutional principles enshrined in our democratic framework. These laws, spearheaded by President William Ruto’s administration, are a calculated step back into the shadows of authoritarianism reminiscent of the Moi era.

The establishment of a “Transition Centre” to support the president-elect and deputy-elect raises alarms about unnecessary bureaucratic excesses that could be weaponized to consolidate power. By design, Kenya’s transition process is already clearly laid out in the Constitution, particularly under Article 138, which ensures a seamless handover. Adding such structures opens a Pandora’s box of political manipulation, where transitions could be influenced behind closed doors under the guise of “support.”

Equally troubling is the proposal to grant the president-elect and their deputy security and perks equivalent to sitting leaders. This provision reeks of elitism and undermines the very essence of democratic transitions, which should be a service to the people rather than a lavish reward for political victors. Such benefits not only place undue strain on taxpayers but also create a dangerous culture of entitlement that erodes accountability.

Read Also: How Ruto’s Regime Has Failed To Protect Our Critical National Documents

The most glaring assault on democracy is the punitive penalties proposed for obstructing the handover process. A fine of up to KES 10 million or 10 years of imprisonment is excessively draconian and could be exploited to silence dissent. This provision criminalizes legitimate criticism and peaceful resistance, essential components of any thriving democracy. It echoes the dark days of the KANU regime when dissent was met with imprisonment and fear ruled the land.

Perhaps the most sinister of these proposals is the plan to scrap the IEBC’s requirement to live-stream election results. In an era of technological advancement and growing demands for transparency, this move is not only illogical but also suspicious. Live-streaming election results is a critical tool for accountability, allowing citizens to verify the integrity of the process in real time. Removing this safeguard opens the door for manipulation and secrecy, a betrayal of the hard-fought reforms that followed the post-election violence of 2007-2008.

The Constitution of Kenya, under Article 81, mandates free, fair, transparent, and credible elections. These proposals directly contradict this principle, undermining public trust in the electoral process. How can we claim to uphold the rule of law when the very laws being proposed serve to erode it?

Kenyans have consistently voiced their demand for open governance, and the sentiments on the ground are clear. Citizens want transparency, not backdoor dealings; accountability, not impunity; and progress, not regression. The people see these proposals for what they are—an attempt to centralize power, suppress dissent, and curtail freedoms.

This administration must remember that the Constitution belongs to the people, not the ruling elite.