On Saturday Uhuru Kenyatta was finally declared winner of Kenya’s presidential election, defeating his main rival, Raila Odinga and avoiding a run-off by the narrowest of margins – just 50.07%. In many ways this year’s elections, billed as Kenya’s most crucial election since independence, can be considered a major success for Kenyan democracy and a positive example for other African nations. The 86% turnout was the highest ever recorded in a Kenyan election.

Given the shocking escalation of politically-fuelled violence in the aftermath of the last election in 2007, Kenya has reason to feel proud – and above all relieved – that this year’s vote has passed peacefully. In the 2007 post-election violence 1,200 people were killed and a further 600,000 were forced from their homes. In the lead up to the ballot, international observers and Kenyans alike harboured fears of a repeat of 2007’s bloodshed; however this time around, despite isolated incidents of unrest, the Kenyan people’s prayers for ‘amani’ (peace) were answered.

During the electoral campaign Kenyans mobilised against violence through concerts, rallies and internet campaigns in an impressive display of national unity. Grassroots initiatives for peace were led by religious groups such as the Quakers, who channelled citizens’ demands for peaceful, transparent and fair elections. Their approach, which combined civic education, citizen reporting and local peace building was aimed at defusing tensions, challenging hate speech and holding electoral candidates to account
The victorious Mr Kenyatta, who regrettably is accused of involvement in the orchestration of the 2007 violence, has hailed this year’s peaceful election as a “triumph of democracy” and congratulated voters for having “demonstrated a level of political maturity that surpassed expectations”. But praise for Kenya’s democratic process was not echoed by losing candidate Raila Odinga who has vowed to contest the results, which he claims were rigged.

Despite the fact that international observers have labelled the elections free and fair, Mr Odinga claims that the election commission has “failed Kenyans”. Following Monday’s ballot, glitches with the country’s new electronic voting system and a lack of transparency have hindered the vote counting process, stretching the process over six days as opposed to 48 hours, as initially promised. Odinga alleges “massive tampering of the tally process” and the Supreme Court case, which is already underway, could mean another long wait before Kenyans can be certain that Mr Kenyatta will remain president.

What is promising, however, is that unlike in 2007, the announcement of the disputed results did not trigger an outburst of communal violence. At the last elections, which were surrounded by even greater suspicions of vote-rigging and electoral malpractice, spontaneous looting and rioting broke out in Nairobi’s Kibera slums immediately after the results’ publication. Broadly speaking, however, it was not frustrations regarding electoral fraud, but rather the divisive politics of ethnicity that caused most of the violence.

It can be seen that much of the political violence that has marred Kenya since the reintroduction of multi-party politics in 1991 has been driven by a dangerous tendency towards political tribalism, whereby weak political parties pit ethnic groups against one another in a bid for votes.  Since land and resources can be scarce and political representation represents the only channel through which ordinary people are able to access the state’s resources, it is understandable that Kenyans want to see representatives of their own group in power. Close symbiotic relationships have thus developed between elite politicians and their constituents, involving a trade-off of material benefits for political support. Elections have thus become high-stakes encounters since their outcomes effectively determine the share of resources that an ethnic community will receive from government in the years that follow.

The fact that  three out of five of Kenya’s presidential elections since 1991 have been characterised by serious unrest, makes peace at this year’s election an even greater achievement.

On the face of things, international reaction to this year’s election has been positive. US Secretary of State, John Kerry called the election a ‘historic moment’ and stressed that America would remain a close friend of Kenya. In reality though, the international community is perhaps less enthusiastic about Kenya’s achievement. This is due to the fact that Mr Kenyatta, who currently faces trial at the International Criminal Court on charges of inciting communal violence in 2007, emerged victorious. Indeed the US government made an implicit endorsement for Odinga in advance of the poll when Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, warned that “choices have consequences”.

The international community now faces an awkward situation in its dealings with Kenya  and it remains to be seen how Kenya’s western partners, particularly the UK and the US, will proceed with their strategic East African partner given the need to balance a morally principled stance with important security and trade interests. It is more than likely that given the supremacy of realpolitik in international relations, the latter will take precedence. Kenya’s dynamic economy, the recent discovery of large oil reserves and its status as an important ally in the battle against terrorism and piracy in the region make it unlikely that the West will give Kenya the cold shoulder any time soon.By Fred Searle