Time to rethink Negotiated Democracy in northern Kenya

Peaceful elections are necessary, but peaceful selection alone is not enough.[File, Standard]

The promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 marked one of the most significant governance reforms in the country’s history. By establishing 47 county governments under Chapter Eleven, the Constitution devolved political, administrative and fiscal authority to the grassroots with the aim of promoting democratic governance, equitable development and meaningful citizen participation. Article 174 outlines the objectives of devolution, including enhancing accountability, recognising Kenya’s diversity, promoting equitable sharing of resources and bringing government closer to the people.

For Northern Kenya, devolution represented a historic opportunity to reverse decades of political marginalisation and underdevelopment. Communities that had long felt excluded from national decision-making expected locally elected leaders to better understand their priorities, improve service delivery and accelerate socio-economic transformation. While devolution has undoubtedly expanded access to public resources and improved infrastructure in many parts of the region, governance outcomes remain uneven. One factor increasingly deserving public reflection is the continued practice of Negotiated Democracy.

Negotiated Democracy emerged during the early years of devolution as a locally driven political arrangement through which councils of elders, clan leaders and, in some cases, religious leaders sought consensus on preferred candidates before elections. In fragile pastoral communities where electoral contests had often intensified clan rivalries, the model was widely embraced as a practical mechanism for preventing conflict, reducing campaign costs and preserving social cohesion.

Its contribution to peace should not be underestimated. During the transition to devolved government, many communities viewed consensus politics as a responsible way of avoiding divisive elections. Traditional institutions that had long mediated disputes over land, livestock and communal resources extended their influence into electoral politics with the genuine intention of safeguarding stability.

More than a decade later, however, it is appropriate to ask whether Negotiated Democracy still serves the constitutional aspirations of democratic governance or whether it has gradually become an obstacle to accountability, merit-based leadership and sustainable development.

The Constitution vests sovereign power in the people under Article 1 and guarantees every citizen the political right to make free choices through regular, free and fair elections under Article 38. Democratic legitimacy therefore rests on the informed choice of citizens rather than decisions reached through elite consensus. While Article 11 recognises culture as the foundation of the nation and protects traditional institutions, these institutions were never intended to replace constitutional democratic processes.

Increasingly, political competition in parts of Northern Kenya appears to be shifting from the ballot box to closed-door negotiations among influential community leaders. Although these arrangements may reduce political tensions, they can also narrow electoral competition and limit citizens’ opportunity to assess candidates on competence, integrity, policy ideas, experience and leadership ability.

Governance scholars have consistently argued that accountability depends on meaningful political competition. Robert Dahl’s theory of democratic pluralism emphasises the importance of citizens having genuine alternatives when choosing leaders, while Amartya Sen argues that democratic participation strengthens accountability and ultimately improves development outcomes. Similarly, institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme identify accountable leadership, effective institutions and active citizen participation as essential pillars of sustainable development.

The concern, therefore, is not consensus-building itself but the possibility that negotiated political settlements may prioritise clan arithmetic over merit. Qualified individuals with sound professional credentials, innovative policy ideas and proven leadership experience may find themselves excluded simply because they fall outside predetermined political arrangements.

The consequences extend beyond elections. Leaders who emerge through negotiated political settlements may subsequently face pressure to reward various interests through appointments to public office. Although inclusivity remains an important constitutional value, appointments based primarily on political obligations rather than competence risk weakening public institutions, reducing administrative efficiency and undermining service delivery in critical sectors such as health, education, agriculture, water and infrastructure.

County Assemblies are not immune to these dynamics. The Constitution envisages them as independent institutions responsible for legislation, budget approval and executive oversight. Yet where political leaders emerge from similar negotiated arrangements, oversight may be weakened by political pressure or shared obligations, reducing transparency and limiting effective accountability.

The broader consequence is a persistent development deficit. Northern Kenya’s challenges cannot, of course, be attributed solely to Negotiated Democracy. Historical marginalisation, insecurity, climate shocks, inadequate infrastructure and institutional capacity constraints all continue to affect development. Nevertheless, the quality of political leadership remains one of the most important determinants of how effectively public resources are utilised and public institutions perform.

Experiences across Northern Kenya illustrate a mixed picture. Some counties that adopted Negotiated Democracy have recorded notable progress in infrastructure, healthcare, education, local revenue generation and public service delivery. Others, despite receiving substantial resources through devolution, continue to experience stalled development projects, weak financial management and limited economic transformation. These contrasting outcomes suggest that consensus politics does not inevitably produce poor governance. Rather, success depends largely on the calibre of leaders selected and the strength of institutions that uphold transparency, professionalism and accountability.

As preparations for the 2027 General Elections gather momentum, communities across Wajir, Garissa and Mandera counties have, in recent months, convened numerous clan consultative meetings and endorsement forums to deliberate on candidates for elective office. While these forums are often intended to preserve unity and minimise political tensions, they also demonstrate that Negotiated Democracy remains deeply embedded in the region’s political culture. Their growing frequency presents an important opportunity for reflection on whether the model continues to advance the constitutional ideals of democratic participation or increasingly limits political competition and voters’ freedom to choose among qualified candidates.

The answer is not to abandon traditional institutions. Councils of elders remain indispensable custodians of culture, respected mediators of conflict and promoters of peace in pastoral communities. Their role in preserving social harmony deserves continued recognition and support. 

What requires reconsideration is their role in electoral politics. Elders can continue offering moral guidance, mediating disputes and encouraging peaceful elections without determining electoral outcomes. Political leadership should ultimately be decided by citizens through transparent, competitive and credible elections. Political parties must strengthen internal democracy, while civic education should empower voters to evaluate candidates on integrity, competence, experience, policy vision and performance rather than clan affiliation alone.

Negotiated Democracy served an important purpose during the formative years of devolution by helping reduce electoral conflict. However, the next phase of Northern Kenya’s democratic evolution requires a transition from negotiated leadership to accountable leadership. Sustainable development demands not only peaceful elections but also leaders who possess the competence, integrity and vision to transform public resources into tangible improvements in people’s lives.

The approaching 2027 General Elections provides Northern Kenya with an opportunity to reaffirm both its rich traditional heritage and the constitutional values upon which Kenya’s democracy is founded. Peace and unity remain indispensable, but they should reinforce, not replace the people’s sovereign right to choose their leaders freely. Ultimately, the future of Northern Kenya will be determined not simply by how peacefully leaders are selected, but by how effectively they govern once entrusted with public office.

The writer is the MCA for Habaswein Ward, Wajir County.