The Election Trap

 Maybe We Can Shift Course: Elections and the Economy in Kenya

Elections are unpredictable, and so is the economy during these periods. On one hand, democratic transitions can usher in improved governance, stronger institutions, and policy reforms that support economic growth. On the other, elections can just as easily produce pitiable economic performance due to abrupt changes in government policies, political systems, and investor confidence, particularly when electoral processes disturb peace, law, and order. In Kenya, where elections are intensely competitive and politically consequential, the relationship between electoral politics and economic stability is both visible and worth interrogating.

Research shows that the political environment of a democratic country can influence the performance of the national economy in several ways. Public expenditure levels, investment flows, and social protection measures are among the most measurable indicators of this relationship, meaning their impact on growth rates can be examined and assessed. Kenya’s experience provides a clear illustration. The 2007 general election, remembered widely and vividly for the violence that followed the disputed results, led to the loss of hundreds of lives, the displacement of thousands of people, destruction of property, and a disruption of economic activity across the country. It became a moment that exposed how quickly political instability can ripple into economic decline.

In many democratic systems, predicting economic performance is closely tied to the stability of the political environment. Voters tend to evaluate governments using economic indicators such as inflation rates, interest rates, financial market performance, and perceptions of foreign investment. Governments are therefore aware that economic performance can shape electoral outcomes. This awareness often leads to strategic decisions about public spending, taxation, and development programs as elections approach.

Money, perhaps unsurprisingly, sits at the center of this dynamic. It is difficult to talk about modern democracy without acknowledging the role of financial resources in sustaining political competition. Money mobilizes supporters, strengthens political parties, and enables candidates to communicate their policies to voters. While it is not the only determinant of electoral success, popular participation and fair contestation remain essential elements of democracy, financial resources undeniably influence the conduct and nature of elections. Elections themselves are mechanisms through which governing authority is transferred, giving citizens the opportunity to evaluate leadership and reward or sanction political performance.

Yet organizing democratic elections, particularly presidential ones, is expensive. Campaigns require logistics, mobilization efforts, advertising, and organizational networks that demand substantial financial investment. In Kenya, campaign financing has become notoriously costly. The country consistently ranks among the most expensive electoral environments in the world in terms of per-voter cost and overall electoral spending. The 2022 general election, for example, cost approximately KSh 44.17 billion, information that you can freely find in the National Treasury report of 2022. Such figures highlight the high stakes associated with political office and the enormous resources required to compete effectively.

With stakes that high, elections often become contests not only for political power but also for control over public finances and economic policy. Incumbent governments may use policy instruments strategically to improve their chances of reelection. This sometimes results in what scholars describe as a displacement effect, where fiscal decisions become shaped by political calculations rather than economic priorities. Government spending may increase, public sector employment may expand, and wages for government employees may rise, all in an attempt to strengthen political support.

Electoral periods themselves have increasingly become moments of uncertainty. Elections in many countries represent some of the most significant threats to national stability. Kenya’s 2007–2008 electoral crisis stands as a stark example. The post-election violence that followed was not merely a political dispute; it evolved into a political, economic, and humanitarian crisis. It disrupted production, weakened business confidence, and exposed the fragility of economic systems during periods of political instability.

Political competition in Kenya has also intensified since independence, making elections progressively more competitive. Historical examples demonstrate how political leaders have sometimes used economic resources to maintain political influence. During his presidency from 1978 to 2002, Daniel arap Moi reportedly relied on patronage networks that involved manipulating government contracts, appointing loyalists to powerful positions, and distributing public land in efforts to consolidate political support. Such practices illustrate how economic governance can become intertwined with electoral strategy.

The broader economic consequences of electoral instability are also well documented. Elections pose the risk of destabilizing an economy if the political environment becomes chaotic or uncertain. Businesses may reduce operations, investors may withdraw capital, and production levels may decline. The ripple effect of political uncertainty can therefore slow economic growth and weaken investor confidence, particularly in countries where political stability remains fragile.

Fiscal policy also tends to shift noticeably during electoral cycles. Scholars argue that fiscal decisions are often shaped more by electoral pressures than by development priorities. As elections approach, governments may prioritize highly visible development projects, accelerated infrastructure initiatives, or expansionary spending policies designed to appeal to voters. In Kenya, initiatives such as the Affordable Housing Project or programs promising employment opportunities abroad for young people are often introduced or intensified during politically sensitive periods.

While these initiatives may address legitimate development needs, they can also contribute to short-term economic strategies that prioritize electoral advantage over long-term fiscal sustainability. Expansionary policies introduced during election periods may widen budget deficits, increase public borrowing, and undermine macroeconomic stability. The International Monetary Fund refers to these fiscal patterns as “election-year slippages,” where government spending rises and fiscal tightening is postponed during election periods, leading to inflationary pressures and unsustainable borrowing.

The motivations behind these policy decisions are not difficult to understand. Political leaders seek reelection, and voters tend to evaluate incumbents based on economic performance. Voting behavior in many democracies is retrospective, citizens assess whether their economic conditions improved or deteriorated under the incumbent government. Consequently, policymakers may attempt to engineer favorable economic conditions before elections, even if those conditions are difficult to sustain afterward.

Yet the institutional frameworks governing campaign financing and political accountability remain relatively weak. Kenya’s legal framework regulating election funding remains limited, although legislation such as the Political Parties Act of 2011 requires transparency and accountability in political party finances. Without stronger enforcement mechanisms, the relationship between political competition and economic decision-making may continue to produce distortions in public budgeting and economic governance.

Economic development depends on a combination of political and institutional factors. The stability of political systems, the efficiency of state administration, the strength of legal institutions, levels of corruption, and openness to global markets all influence economic outcomes. Elections interact with each of these factors, sometimes reinforcing them and sometimes exposing their weaknesses.

For investors and businesses, uncertainty is often the most immediate consequence of election periods. Political transitions create questions about future policies, regulatory changes, and economic priorities. Investors therefore tend to adopt a cautious approach during elections, delaying major investment decisions until the political environment stabilizes and the direction of economic policy becomes clearer.

This reality leads to an important question: do elections themselves influence economic growth? Evidence suggests that they can. According to scholarly work direct elections have had measurable effects on leadership changes and governance structures, which in turn shape economic outcomes. While the relationship between elections and economic performance may not always be straightforward, it is clear that electoral politics can influence economic behavior and policy decisions in meaningful ways.

Kenya’s experience demonstrates that elections are not merely political events. They are economic moments as well, moments when uncertainty rises, policies shift, and expectations change. Whether these moments lead to economic progress or economic disruption depends largely on the strength of institutions, the credibility of electoral processes, and the ability of political leaders to balance electoral ambition with responsible economic governance.

Perhaps the clearest example of how elections shape economic governance in Kenya can be observed in the current administration of William Ruto. Since taking office in 2022, his government has pursued a mixture of ambitious economic reforms, aggressive diplomacy, and controversial fiscal policies, many of which appear closely tied to the political calculus of securing a second presidential term.

On the international stage, the administration has sought to elevate Kenya’s diplomatic influence. One of the most visible examples was Kenya’s leadership in the multinational security mission in Haiti. In 2024, hundreds of Kenyan police officers were deployed to the Caribbean nation as part of an international effort to combat gang violence and restore order. The mission was endorsed by the United Nations and supported by Western partners, positioning Kenya as an emerging security actor on the global stage. While supporters framed the intervention as humanitarian leadership and a demonstration of Kenya’s global relevance, critics questioned whether the country should be projecting security abroad while domestic challenges, including unemployment, public debt, and rising living costs, continue to strain the economy.

At the same time, the administration has intensified diplomatic engagement with the Middle East and other international partners. Part of this strategy has involved bilateral labor agreements that allow thousands of Kenyan youths to seek employment abroad, particularly in Gulf countries. The government presents this initiative as a solution to youth unemployment and a way of increasing remittances into the Kenyan economy. Yet the policy has also sparked debate. Some view it as a pragmatic response to limited job opportunities at home, while others interpret it as an admission that the domestic economy is struggling to absorb its own labor force.

Domestically, the government has also prioritized large-scale development initiatives, particularly the Affordable Housing Programme. Framed as both a social protection measure and an economic stimulus, the housing project is intended to create jobs, expand urban housing supply, and stimulate sectors such as construction and manufacturing. For many observers, however, the timing and scale of such initiatives raise a familiar question in political economy: are these long-term development strategies, or are they policies designed to build political support ahead of future elections?

Economic pressures during the current administration have also been significant. Kenya entered the 2020s facing rising public debt, a growing fiscal deficit, and increasing demands for public services. In response, the government introduced a series of tax reforms intended to raise additional revenue and stabilize public finances. One of the most controversial measures was the Finance Bill of 2024, which proposed sweeping tax increases aimed at generating billions of shillings to address the country’s budget deficit and debt obligations.

Instead of stabilizing the political environment, however, the proposed tax measures triggered one of the largest waves of protests in Kenya’s recent history. Youth-led demonstrations erupted across the country, driven largely by frustration over the rising cost of living, unemployment, and perceptions of government excess. The protests reached a dramatic peak when demonstrators stormed the Parliament building in Nairobi, leading to violent confrontations between protesters and security forces and several reported deaths.

In the end, the government withdrew the Finance Bill following intense public pressure. Yet the episode revealed a deeper tension within Kenya’s political economy. On one hand, the government argued that increased taxation was necessary to manage debt and finance development projects. On the other hand, many citizens viewed the proposed measures as further economic hardship imposed on an already struggling population.

Despite these tensions, Kenya’s economy has shown mixed performance during this period. The country remains one of East Africa’s strongest economies, recording economic growth of 4.9 percent in 2022 (the election year), 5.7% in 2023, 4.7% in 2024, and 4.9% in2025. Inflation has moderated compared to earlier peaks, dropping from 7.7% in 2023 to 4.5% in 2024 to 4.1% in 2025 according to Central Bank reports. Yet these macroeconomic indicators often mask the lived reality for many Kenyans, particularly young people facing unemployment and rising costs of living.

The protests themselves revealed a generational shift in Kenyan politics. A digitally organized and politically conscious youth population increasingly demands transparency, accountability, and economic opportunities. Their activism reflects a broader frustration with governance systems that appear disconnected from everyday economic struggles.

In this sense, the current political moment in Kenya illustrates the central argument of this discussion: elections are not simply political rituals. They are economic turning points. Policies introduced during electoral cycles, whether through taxation, spending programs, or diplomatic initiatives, shape how economies perform and how citizens experience governance.

As Kenya moves toward its next electoral cycle, the challenge will be whether political leaders can balance electoral ambitions with responsible economic management. The real test of democracy may not only be whether elections occur, but whether the policies surrounding them strengthen the economy rather than destabilize it.

Perhaps, then, the real question remains the same: can Kenya shift course?

Can Kenya shift to a political culture where voters are no longer swayed by cheap money or last-minute handouts during campaign seasons? A system where the electorate evaluates leaders based on governance, integrity, and delivery rather than short-term incentives. In many parts of the country, campaign periods still bring a familiar spectacle: politicians distributing money, promising quick solutions, and appealing to emotions rather than presenting credible policy solutions. Yet democracy was never meant to be transactional. It was meant to be accountable.

Can Kenya shift to a system where political manifestos actually matter? Where campaign promises are not simply tools for winning elections but commitments that leaders feel obligated to deliver. Too often, political manifestos become fashionable documents during campaigns, filled with ambitious promises, trending language, and sweeping visions, only to disappear once elections are over. Governance then becomes reactive rather than strategic, responding to political pressure rather than implementing a clear long-term national agenda.

Perhaps the shift must also involve rethinking how Kenya approaches its most valuable resource: its youth. In recent years, government policy has increasingly emphasized exporting labor, particularly to Gulf countries, as a way of addressing unemployment. Thousands of young Kenyans are now seeking opportunities abroad in domestic work, construction, and other forms of blue-collar employment. While these opportunities may provide temporary relief for unemployment and generate remittances for the economy, they also raise an uncomfortable question: should a country with Kenya’s talent, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit rely primarily on exporting its workforce?

What if the goal instead was to build an economic environment that allows young people to innovate, create businesses, and generate opportunities at home? Kenya has already demonstrated its potential in technology, digital entrepreneurship, and creative industries. With the right investments in infrastructure, education, and financial support for startups, the country could transform youth unemployment into a driver of innovation rather than a reason for migration.

Another important shift may involve reconsidering the enormous financial resources devoted to elections themselves. Kenyan elections are among the most expensive in the world, costing billions of shillings every electoral cycle. While credible elections are essential to democracy, the scale of expenditure raises legitimate questions about priorities. What would it mean if even a fraction of those resources were redirected toward economic development, education, or industrial growth?

The problem becomes even more pronounced when incumbents begin to shape economic policy around electoral survival. Pre-election spending surges, highly visible development projects, and expansionary fiscal policies often emerge during campaign periods. While these policies may generate short-term political goodwill, they can also distort economic planning and create long-term fiscal pressures. When governance becomes driven primarily by the need to win the next election, economic management inevitably becomes short-term.

Kenya’s democracy has made remarkable progress over the decades. Competitive elections, vibrant political debate, and an increasingly engaged citizenry demonstrate that democratic participation remains alive. Yet the events of recent years, from economic protests to growing dissatisfaction among young voters, suggest that many citizens are beginning to question whether political competition alone is enough.

Maybe shifting course does not require abandoning democracy, but rather deepening it. It means building a political culture where leadership is judged by competence and delivery rather than rhetoric and patronage. It means strengthening institutions so that economic decisions are guided by national interest rather than electoral strategy. And it means recognizing that the legitimacy of elections ultimately depends on whether they improve the lives of citizens.

Kenya stands at a crossroads where politics and economics continue to intersect in powerful ways. Elections will always be moments of uncertainty, but they do not have to be moments of economic disruption. With stronger institutions, more informed voters, and leadership committed to long-term development, democratic transitions could become catalysts for stability rather than sources of instability.

Perhaps then, the real shift is not simply political or economic, it’s civic. A shift in how leaders govern, how institutions function, and how citizens choose their leaders.

And if that shift happens, Kenya’s elections might finally become what they were always meant to be: a pathway not only to political power, but to national progress.