We will pay the price for normalising electoral malpractices

Thursday’s by-elections held in different parts of the country offer a sobering picture of how easily campaigns slip into disorder. Reports of confrontations, accusations of bribery, and attempts to influence polling arrangements have again surfaced. These reveal a political culture where chaos is treated as a strategic asset. When intimidation becomes a routine campaign tool, it inevitably discourages qualified and ethical aspirants who prefer order, clarity, and respect for the voter.

Amidst the chaos, a new trend is emerging. Voters openly acknowledge that campaign money flows aggressively and in opaque ways. Many understand that cheering, jeering, or confronting an opponent often has financial motivation. Voters are becoming more aware of these schemes than before. Yet this awareness is contradictory. People still participate in the very practices they say they do not support.

This contradiction is not unique to Kenya. Philosophers have long observed that people can desire what is right while acting in ways that contradict that desire. Voters want good leaders, but some still accept inducements that weaken their voice. Candidates promise ethical service, yet some abandon these promises once immersed in the rewards and pressures of power. These tensions mirror the classic human struggle between aspiration and action. This moral contradiction makes it easier for thugs and opportunists to dominate politics because they exploit social weakness rather than confront it.

Slowly emerging is the recognition that, even with this awareness, voters increasingly display a form of agency that complicates the picture. Many take inducements but still vote according to their true preference. However, we can’t morally sanitise such voter behaviour. While this may look like a quiet rebellion against manipulation, it remains a compromise that erodes the integrity of the electoral process. Voting is a civic duty grounded in conscience, not an exchange of benefits. When inducements become normal, qualified aspirants who refuse to bribe are punished for their integrity. This weakens the quality of those willing to step forward for leadership.

These patterns generate a necessary reflection. Campaigns marked by chaos, violence, and inducements deny dignified candidates the space to engage the public meaningfully. Where there is disorder, ideas are drowned out. Where bribery dominates, merit is sidelined. Over time, sincere aspirants withdraw from the political arena, leaving a smaller pool of individuals who are comfortable navigating criminal tactics. It becomes a self-reinforcing cycle in which leadership is defined by survival rather than service.

The law remains clear that voter bribery is a criminal offence. However, the incidents observed over the past month of campaigns show how deeply normalised the practice has become. If these trends continue unchecked, the 2027 General Election risks being overwhelmed by the same behaviour on a national scale. Qualified candidates who want clean campaigns will simply walk away, unwilling to subject themselves or their families to the dangers and indignities of thug-driven politics. The result is a vacuum that attracts exactly the type of leaders who cannot serve the public good.

We know from our Kenyan context that campaigns shaped by bribery and orchestrated chaos rarely produce leaders who respect their constituents. Experience shows that those who gain power through intimidation or inducements often run public institutions with the same logic. They are more likely to nurture patronage networks, silence dissent, and neglect the common good. For this reason, many of our institutions are run down. The confusion and chaos in the education sector, for instance, are a result of systemic failures over the past few years.

When chaos becomes the accepted language of politics, and bribery becomes the unspoken currency of elections, the political field narrows to those who benefit from that environment. Qualified aspirants retreat. Thugs step forward. Democracy pays the price. Yet the facts also suggest that Kenyans recognise this trend. The question is whether voters and leaders alike are ready to confront the contradiction between what we desire in our politics and what we sometimes tolerate.

I don’t think it would be difficult for a praying country like Kenya to sanitise its politics. But we are thoroughly intimidated by political thuggery to do so. But for how long?

Dr Mokua is Executive Director of Loyola Centre for Media and Communication