The present thesis is devoted to answering the problem formulation: How has democratization in Kenya developed in the case of the constitutional review process in the country in between the general elections of 2002 and 2007, and why have these developments regarding democratization (and/or the lack thereof) been created? This is pursued through analyzing the constitutional review process in Kenya in between the 2002 and 2007 elections as a single, retrospective, clinical case study, drawing upon four different theories in producing the comprehensive and nuanced answering of the problem formulation called for by the design of the thesis. The analysis is based in qualitative demos and key informant interviews, as well as in existing articles and analyses. Hence, in analyzing how democratization has developed in the case, a modified version of Dahl’s model of democracy is utilized. This analysis argues that Kenyan democratization has developed towards more de facto freedom of expression, associational autonomy, and a somewhat higher degree of enlightened understanding in the case. However, the overall assessment arrived at through the analysis with regards to de facto responsiveness, elected officials, effective participation and control of the agenda is that developments towards democratization have by and far been lacking. Furthermore, no constitutional de jure democratization developments were created in the case. Regarding the second part of the analysis, focusing on explaining why these democratization developments were (or were not) created, in the analysis drawing upon Rudbeck’s model it is argued that the somewhat expanded freedom of expression and association are the results of the President’s calculations that the costs of continuing suppression would exceed the costs of giving in to some extent. With regards to the lacking developments regarding democratization, these seem to have been caused by a combination of the President and his supporters’ attempts at resisting democratization by relying on alliances with members of civil society, development partners (DPs), as well as changing political actors in combination with other strategies and developments that have decreased the potential for popular contention to pressure for democratizing constitutional reforms. However, certain of these employed strategies also meant that the review process became very controversial and as such contributed to creating a heightened level of enlightened understanding. Using historical institutionalism, it is argued that the institution of the constitution (which has constituted part of the enabling foundation for the strategic actions of the President), the CKRA (CKRA) (due to its institutional inefficiencies) and that of ethnicity (with the asymmetrical power relations embedded in it) appear also to constitute a significant part of the explanation of the lack of both de facto and de jure democratization. Moreover, although also hampering democratization, ethnicity may also have contributed to the improved level of de facto enlightened understanding. Analyzing the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Programme (GJLOS RP) as an institution, it is furthermore argued that the de facto democratization concerning freedom of expression and associational autonomy has partly been created due to strategic calculations by the GoK under influence of donor employed norms. However, the creation of GJLOS has also been an explanatory factor in accounting for the lack of de facto and de jure democratization in the case, as its highly asymmetrical effects on domestic power relations have enabled Kibaki and his supporters to resist giving up executive power In the analysis drawing upon Foucault, it is argued that the rules of correlation between the good governance discourse and that on constitutional review in Kenya have rendered the Presidential position less central in influencing the discursive practices in relation to the review process, contributing to a heightened de facto inclusion of adults and freedom of expression. However, the rules of correlation between the two discourses also seem, due to the emphasis being more on the object of management than on politics in the good governance discourse, to have made possible the lack of de facto democratization. Moreover, it is argued that the lack of democratization has been created also by a combination of the introduction the concept of ‘contentious issues’, the lack of a discursive hegemony on constitutional review after the referendum, as well as certain discursive redistributions following the referendum.