United opposition and the presidential system

United Opposition leaders during a church service at Around the Globe Deliverance Ministries in Kamulu along Kangundo road on June 5, 2026. [Kanyiri Wahito, Standard] 

The internal contradictions within Kenya’s united opposition spilled into the public square last week, exposing a coalition held together more by a common opponent than a shared governing vision. Within days, DP leader Justin Muturi endorsed Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka while sharing a platform with Jubilee presidential candidate Fred Matiang’i.

PLP leader Martha Karua said there was no agreed formula for selecting a flagbearer, while former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua argued the coalition should wait until closer to the election before naming its candidate. Muturi instead called for an early decision. What should have projected unity instead exposed competing ambitions within the coalition.

Many Kenyans have interpreted these developments as evidence that the opposition may struggle to remain united long enough to mount a credible challenge against President William Ruto in 2027. Yet, perhaps we are asking the wrong question. The more important question is why choosing one presidential flagbearer becomes such a make-or-break political battle. The answer lies less in the personalities involved than in the architecture of Kenya’s political system.

What we are witnessing is what peace scholar Johan Galtung described as negative peace: the absence of open conflict without genuine consensus. The opposition principals remain together because they share a common objective of defeating the incumbent. Beyond that, each is pursuing the same prize. Their unity is therefore temporary, conditional and constantly tested by presidential ambition.

This is not a new phenomenon. Since the return of multiparty democracy in the early 1990s, Kenya has repeatedly grappled with the consequences of concentrating political power in one electoral outcome. The 2010 Constitution strengthened constitutional safeguards, devolution and the separation of powers, but deliberately retained a strong presidential system to provide stability and clear executive authority after years of political turbulence. Yet high-stakes presidential politics has remained a defining feature of Kenya’s democratic journey. The latest TIFA survey illustrates this dilemma. William Ruto remains the single most preferred presidential candidate, while opposition support is divided among Kalonzo Musyoka, Fred Matiang’i, Rigathi Gachagua, Edwin Sifuna and others. Collectively, they command significant support, yet the presidential system requires them to unite behind one candidate to be electorally competitive. That is the opposition’s ultimate test.

The core challenge is not elections themselves. It is that Kenya’s constitutional design makes the presidency the principal route to executive power. Winning means directing government and making key appointments. Losing, however narrowly, means exclusion from executive power. The 2022 presidential election reflected a country almost evenly divided. Ruto won with 50.49 per cent of the vote against Raila Odinga’s 48.85 per cent. Constitutionally, there had to be a winner. Politically, however, the result left nearly half the electorate outside executive power. Can a candidate supported by almost half of all voters simply be regarded as a loser? That question goes to the heart of democratic inclusion. Kenya has repeatedly experienced the consequences of these high stakes.

The 2007–2008 post-election violence remains the starkest reminder of what can happen when elections are viewed as winner-takes-all contests. Every presidential election conducted under the 2010 Constitution has ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court, demonstrating just how fiercely contested that office has become.

This is not an argument Kenya’s presidential system has failed, nor is it a call for an immediate constitutional overhaul. Rather, it is an invitation to reopen a national conversation about whether our constitutional design is producing unintended political pressures that deserve thoughtful reflection. As 2027 approaches, Kenyans will understandably focus on personalities, alliances and opinion polls. Yet the united opposition’s negative peace may be telling us something bigger than the future of one coalition. It exposes a constitutional question Kenya has never fully resolved: should so much political power rest in one office? Whether the answer lies in a parliamentary system, a hybrid model or carefully considered reforms within the current presidential framework is open to debate.

- [e-mail]