How to select the opposition candidate

The 2002 presidential election in Kenya is often remembered as a watershed moment in the country’s political history—the end of 24 years of KANU rule and the peaceful transfer of power to the opposition for the first time since independence. However, beneath the democratic gloss, a closer analysis reveals that the process leading to the decisive moment at the ballot box was far from people-driven. It was, in essence, a political arrangement by the elite, with key candidates being selected behind closed doors, not by popular participation or open contest, but by political patronage, backroom deals, and elite-driven decisions.

This pattern has remained consistent in Kenya's electoral history, with presidential candidates being selected by political heavyweights rather than through a transparent, people-centered process. From the days of the one-party autocracy to today’s multi-party democracy, the hand of the political class has loomed large in shaping who appears on the ballot.

Unlike in mature democracies such as the United States, where presidential candidates emerge through a rigorous and participatory process of party primaries, the Kenyan model in 2002 was a reflection of elite consensus and patronage politics.

Pre-2002: A One-Party State and an Autocratic Presidency

From independence in 1963 until the early 1990s, Kenya functioned under a de facto and later de jure one-party system, with KANU as the ruling party and the presidency essentially uncontested. After the assassination of Tom Mboya in 1969 and the detention or exile of other opponents like Oginga Odinga, Jomo Kenyatta consolidated power.

Daniel arap Moi took over in 1978, and under his leadership, Kenya became a de jure one-party state in 1982. Presidential elections were symbolic exercises; there were no real choices for the electorate. The president was endorsed by KANU delegates in staged national conferences, often running unopposed. 

It wasn’t until the return to multi-party politics in 1992 that presidential elections began to include actual contestation, but even then, Moi retained tight control over the nomination process on the KANU side, while the opposition fielded candidates who "owned" the parties they used as vehicles to present themselves to the electorate.

Uhuru Kenyatta: Moi's Project 

In 2002, Kenya finally looked ready for a democratic rebirth. But once again, the political class dictated the menu; the people merely chose from what was served.

President Moi, unwilling to relinquish his influence and facing constitutional term limits, handpicked Uhuru Kenyatta, a relatively inexperienced politician at the time, as his successor. The move shocked many within KANU, particularly seasoned politicians like Raila Odinga, George Saitoti, and Kalonzo Musyoka, who had anticipated a more open and competitive nomination process within the party.

Moi’s decision to bypass established leaders and promote Kenyatta was not based on public opinion, popularity, or internal party democracy. Instead, it was rooted in a patron-client political culture that has long defined Kenyan leadership transitions, where personal loyalty and dynastic ties often matter more than democratic legitimacy.

It was not a party election, nor a vote, just a presidential endorsement. The state machinery quickly rallied behind Uhuru, creating what many viewed as a "project" rather than a candidate.

Kenyatta’s nomination was less about the people’s will and more about Moi’s strategic calculations. His endorsement came with the full weight of the state machinery and KANU’s political apparatus, reducing the nomination process to a mere formality.

Kibaki Tosha

On the other side, the opposition cobbled together the National Rainbow Alliance (NARC), a similarly top-down dynamic between the Kibaki-led coalition and Raila Odinga’s faction that broke away from KANU after the Uhuru Kenyatta nomination debacle.

In a dramatic and historic moment at Uhuru Park, preceded by intense negotiations that took place at Serena Hotel, Raila Odinga famously declared “Kibaki Tosha”, effectively anointing Kibaki as the opposition’s sole presidential candidate, three months away from the general election. While this proclamation galvanized public support and symbolized unity in the opposition, it was ultimately the result of closed-door negotiations and elite bargaining led by a few powerbrokers.

Once again, there were no primaries or party votes, just a political endorsement from a key figure whose political capital had been built through years of struggle against Moi’s authoritarian rule. Raila’s endorsement was widely accepted, not because it reflected a democratic choice, but because it was a unifying moment amid desperation to end KANU’s reign. 

The Kenyan public had no real say in the selection of Kibaki as NARC’s flagbearer. The people were told who to vote for.

While the election result was a triumph for Kenya’s democracy, ending decades of one-party dominance, the process itself raises uncomfortable questions about the depth of that democracy. 

Kenyans were ultimately choosing between two candidates who had been handed to them by political kingmakers, not ones they had personally elevated through a transparent, participatory process.

Thus, the 2002 election, despite its symbolic importance, was less a celebration of people-power and more an illustration of how elite-driven politics can masquerade as democracy.

ODM's Flawed Attempt at Internal Democracy 

In 2007, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) attempted a more structured approach. The party used a delegates system to nominate its presidential candidate. Delegates from across the country gathered to vote, giving Raila the ticket. On paper, this was a welcome shift, a break from unilateral declarations.

But even this process was marred by controversy. Critics argued that the delegate selection itself had been opaque, with some regions allegedly dominated by handpicked loyalists. The result? Raila’s nomination, though procedurally democratic, was viewed by some as a managed outcome. 

The perception of bias weakened the credibility of what could have been a model of internal party democracy.

The UhuRuto Alliance

As President Kibaki's second term came to a close in 2013, the succession question once again revealed elite-driven decision-making. Initially, there were overtures toward Musalia Mudavadi as a compromise candidate from Kibaki’s inner circle. But when it became clear that Mudavadi lacked the necessary political weight, the plan changed.

Under pressure from shifting political winds and the looming ICC indictments, the UhuRuto alliance was formed; a marriage of convenience between Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, uniting the Kikuyu and Kalenjin voting blocs. 

Their Jubilee coalition was based more on ethnic arithmetic and mutual legal survival than ideology, and was sealed by powerbrokers in boardrooms.

America: A People-Driven Process

In the United States, presidential candidates go through an extended and highly public process of primaries and caucuses across all states. Voters from each party participate directly in selecting their nominee through a secret ballot, an essential pillar of participatory democracy.

This system, while not without flaws, ensures that candidates must appeal to a broad electorate within their own party and build grassroots support long before the general election. It is a system that, at its core, trusts the people to decide who should carry the party’s banner - not just the political elite.

In contrast, Kenya’s 2002 election was a case of elite consensus shaping the democratic process. The people were called upon only to vote after the key political decisions, the selection of candidates, had already been made by powerful individuals and small political circles.

For Kenya to deepen its democratic culture, future elections must prioritize internal party democracy, open primaries, and broader citizen engagement - shifting from patronage to participation.

Why the Lincoln-Douglas Model Could Save Kenya’s Democracy from the Political Class

As Kenya looks ahead to the 2027 general election, the country is once again hurtling toward a familiar scenario where the opposition’s presidential candidate is likely to be chosen not by the people, but by a small group of political elites, huddled in backroom meetings, cutting deals and balancing tribal equations. This has become the pattern in Kenya’s post-2002 democratic era: negotiated democracy, not participatory democracy.

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua recently suggested that each opposition leader should first mobilize support across the country and then, come 2026, they’ll “sit down” and decide who among them will be the opposition’s flagbearer. It sounds reasonable on the surface; strategic, even. 

But in reality, it’s a continuation of the same tired script: an elite-driven selection that excludes ordinary Kenyans from the most critical decision of a democracy - choosing who should lead them.

There is a better way.

The Lincoln-Douglas Model

In 1858, two American political rivals, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, toured the state of Illinois, engaging in a series of seven public debates on major national issues of the time, chiefly slavery and governance. 

There were no soundbite-laden TV faceoffs. Each candidate had up to 60–90 minutes to speak, challenge, and defend their views in front of live audiences of thousands. 

The debates were lengthy, nuanced, and often intense. It wasn’t a televised show; it was a civic ritual.

Citizens gathered to listen, evaluate, and judge the character and intellect of each man. While Lincoln didn’t win the Senate seat that year, the debates transformed him into a national figure, and two years later, he became president.

This model, based on robust public engagement, remains a beacon of participatory democracy.

Kenya’s opposition finds itself at a crossroads. 

With William Ruto already campaigning for re-election, the opposition’s path is uncertain and fragmented. There is no clear leader. No unified message. And most dangerously, no people-driven process to identify the candidate who best represents the aspirations of a diverse and demanding electorate.

Instead of retreating to familiar rooms in Karen, Muthaiga, or Capitol Hill to cut deals, the opposition should consider an Open National Debate Series inspired by Lincoln and Douglas to determine who truly deserves to be their 2027 presidential candidate.

How It Would Work: Declare the Process in Advance (Late 2025–Early 2026)

Opposition leaders such as Kalonzo Musyoka, Rigathi Gachagua, Martha Karua, Eugene Wamalwa, or any other serious aspirants declare interest in participating in the debates. The coalition or opposition front establishes a public framework: timelines, moderators, venues, themes, and a neutral secretariat.

County-to-County Debates (Mid-2026)

Candidates travel together to all regions (Mombasa, Kisumu, Eldoret, Nyeri, Nairobi, Garissa, and others), engaging in structured public debates. Each session focuses on key national issues: economy, youth unemployment, education, agriculture, healthcare, corruption, devolution, and national unity.

People as Judges

Citizens attend in person, follow online, listen via radio and TV, and engage through moderated town halls and social media. Polling firms and civil society organizations track public sentiment after each debate, not to declare winners per se, but to reflect popular preferences over time.

Final Convention & People’s Verdict (Late 2026)

A final national convention is held with full public visibility. Based on debate performance, national appeal, policy clarity, and public engagement data, the candidate with the clearest majority support is declared the opposition’s presidential flagbearer. No backroom vetoes. No surprise "handshakes." Just transparent political meritocracy.

Benefits of This Model

1. Restores Public Trust

Kenyans are tired of elite-driven politics. This model hands power back to the people - allowing them to watch, question, and decide.

2. Builds National Cohesion

A candidate who tours all regions and debates in front of diverse audiences shows commitment to unity, not ethnic strongholds. It also encourages aspirants to speak to all Kenyans, not just their base.

3. Separates Leaders from Kingmakers

For too long, candidacies have been secured by proximity to political "owners", not by leadership capacity. Debates reveal thinking, not just party loyalty.

4. Encourages Ideological Clarity

What does each candidate actually believe? What are their policies on taxation, fuel prices, public debt, and education? Long-form debates force politicians to articulate real positions, not slogans. A look at Joe Rogan’s three-hour podcast discussions with Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is a good reflection of the power of this model.

5. Elevates National Political Discourse

Instead of rallies filled with noise, brickbats, and music, Kenya would have civic dialogues, something that deepens democracy and informs voters.

There would be challenges, certainly, but these can be overcome.

Resistance from the Political Class

Expect pushback. Debates threaten the patronage networks that rely on secrecy and power-broking. But if the people demand it, loudly and persistently, leaders will have no choice.

Media Bias or Poor Moderation

The media must agree on neutral moderators and airtime. Civil society groups like Mzalendo Trust or Kenya Human Rights Commission can help oversee fairness.

Risk of Tribal Mobilization After the Fact

While this process won’t end ethnic politics overnight, it de-emphasizes ethnicity by elevating issues. Debates force leaders to explain, not just mobilize. The Riggy G’s of this world prefer a system filled with secrecy and void of issues.

A Civic Rebirth

Kenya doesn’t lack for intelligent, visionary leaders. What it lacks is a democratic system that allows the best of them to rise without running the gauntlet of tribal chiefs and political financiers.

The Kenyan public shouldn't wait to be handed another “preferred” candidate in 2026/2027. They should demand debates, transparency, and a voice in who carries the opposition’s flag.

Meanwhile, Kenya’s opposition has a golden opportunity. If they want to defeat William Ruto in 2027, they must do more than just unite; they must reform the very way they choose their leader.

A Lincoln-Douglas-style debate process offers a bold new path, one that builds credibility, engages the youth, educates voters, and revives a politics of substance.

Kenya’s 2002 presidential race was a historic moment, no doubt. But it was not a people’s revolution at the ballot box. It was a handover orchestrated by political heavyweights. 

Until the country moves toward more people-centered mechanisms of candidate selection, democracy will remain a performance staged by the elite and applauded by a hopeful public.

Democracy begins not on election day, but the day we begin to choose our leaders.

If we get the process right, we’ll inspire a generation.

Calvin S. Nyagudi, MPRSK, a PhD Candidate at Beijing Jiaotong University, is an author and a multi-award-winning scholar.