AAU Student Projects - visit Aalborg University's student projects portal
A master's thesis from Aalborg University
Book cover


Demokratisering og forfatningsreform i Kenya: En beskrivende og forklarende analyse af demokratisering i Kenya i casen forfatningsreformprocessen imellem valgene i 2002 og 2007.

Translated title

Democratization and constitutional review in Kenya: A descriptive and explanatory analysis of democratization in Kenya in the case of the constitutional review process in between the general elections of 2002 and 2007.

Author

Term

4. term

Publication year

2008

Pages

110

Abstract

Dette speciale undersøger, hvordan demokratiseringen i Kenya udviklede sig under forfatningsgennemgangen mellem de generelle valg i 2002 og 2007, og hvorfor fremskridt enten skete eller gik i stå. Det er et enkelt retrospektivt casestudie, der bygger på kvalitative data og interviews med nøglepersoner samt eksisterende analyser og anvender fire teoretiske perspektiver. For at vurdere ændringer bruges en modificeret udgave af Robert Dahls demokratimodel, som skelner mellem udvikling i praksis (de facto) og i loven (de jure). Studiet finder beskedne de facto fremskridt: mere ytringsfrihed, større råderum for foreninger og et noget højere niveau af offentlig, oplyst forståelse. Derimod var der kun ringe forbedringer i myndigheders lydhørhed, folkevalgtes ansvarlighed, borgernes effektive deltagelse eller deres kontrol over den politiske dagsorden – og ingen demokratiserende forfatningsændringer i loven. For at forklare mønstrene argumenterer analysen med udgangspunkt i Rudbecks model for, at præsidenten tillod visse friheder, fordi omkostningerne ved fortsat undertrykkelse oversteg omkostningerne ved delvise indrømmelser. Manglen på bredere demokratisering udsprang af strategier fra præsidenten og hans allierede – alliancer med dele af civilsamfundet og udviklingspartnere, skift blandt politiske aktører og andre tiltag – som reducerede potentialet for folkelig mobilisering til at presse på for forfatningsreformer. De samme strategier gjorde også gennemgangen meget kontroversiel og øgede paradoksalt nok den offentlige forståelse. Set gennem historisk institutionalisme begrænsede flere institutioner forandringen: forfatningen som ressource for præsidentiel strategi; ineffektivitet i CKRA; og etnicitet med ulige magtforhold. Etniske dynamikker kan også have bidraget til højere offentlig bevidsthed. Ved at analysere Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Programme (GJLOS RP) som en institution argumenteres der for, at donornormer medvirkede til, at Kenyas regering udvidede de facto ytrings- og foreningsfrihed, men at GJLOS samtidig havde stærkt asymmetriske effekter på den indenlandske magtbalance, som gjorde det muligt for præsident Kibaki og hans støtter at bevare den udøvende magt og blokere de facto og de jure reformer. En foucauldiansk analyse viser, at samspillet mellem 'god regeringsførelse'-diskursen og diskursen om forfatningsgennemgang gjorde præsidentens position mindre central i at forme debatten, hvilket bidrog til større inddragelse af voksne borgere og mere ytringsfrihed. Samtidig gjorde det styringsorienterede fokus i god regeringsførelse det muligt, at demokratiseringen forblev begrænset. Endelig bidrog indførelsen af 'kontroversielle spørgsmål', fraværet af en dominerende fortælling efter folkeafstemningen og efterfølgende forskydninger i diskursen yderligere til manglen på demokratisering.

This thesis examines how Kenya's democratization evolved during the constitutional review process between the 2002 and 2007 general elections, and why progress occurred or stalled. It is a single retrospective case study that uses qualitative data and key-informant interviews, together with existing analyses, and applies four theoretical lenses. To assess change, a modified version of Robert Dahl's democracy model is used, distinguishing between developments in practice (de facto) and in law (de jure). The study finds modest de facto gains: more freedom of expression, greater space for associations, and a somewhat higher level of public, 'enlightened' understanding. By contrast, there was little improvement in government responsiveness, accountability of elected officials, effective public participation, or citizens' control over the agenda, and no democratizing constitutional change in law. To explain these patterns, the analysis drawing on Rudbeck's model argues that the President allowed some freedoms because the costs of continued repression outweighed the costs of partial concessions. The lack of broader democratization arose from strategies by the President and his allies—alliances with parts of civil society and development partners, shifts among political actors, and other measures—that reduced the potential for popular contention to press for constitutional reform. These same strategies also made the review highly contentious, which paradoxically increased public understanding. From a historical institutionalist perspective, several institutions limited change: the constitution as a resource for presidential strategy; inefficiencies within the CKRA; and ethnicity, with its unequal power relations. Ethnic dynamics may also have contributed to higher public awareness. Examining the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Programme (GJLOS RP) as an institution, the study argues that donor norms helped prompt the Government of Kenya to widen de facto freedoms of speech and association, yet GJLOS also had highly asymmetrical effects on domestic power that enabled President Kibaki and his supporters to retain executive power and block de facto and de jure reforms. A Foucauldian analysis shows that the interplay between 'good governance' discourse and the discourse on constitutional review reduced the President's centrality in shaping debate, helping broaden adult inclusion and free expression. At the same time, the managerial focus of good governance helped make limited democratization possible. Finally, the introduction of 'contentious issues,' the absence of a dominant narrative after the referendum, and shifts in discourse following the referendum further contributed to the lack of democratization.

[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]