Electoral despotism in Kenya : land, patronage and resistance in the multi-party context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Africa, the new electoral freedoms of the 1990s often ushered in not less but more violence and corruption. Somewhat paradoxically, democratization appeared to lead to greater despotism. Current theories of democratic transitions fail to adequately explain this negative "fall out". On the one hand, by focusing on formal institutional change, most transitions theory marginalizes the "informal" politics of patronage and violence. On the other hand, theorists of "informal" politics tend to assume that formal institutional change does not impinge on patrimonial dynamics. This thesis explains how the advent of electoral freedom challenges patrimonialism and, in the process, deepens local despotism. By a careful look at the Kenyan case, this thesis argues that the re-introduction of multiple political parties posed a genuine challenge to highest level patronage networks. This challenge consisted of "patronage inflation": competitive elections escalated demands for and promises of patronage just as international conditionalities and economic difficulties led to a decline in traditional supplies of patronage. Further, with multiple political parties, voters gained bargaining power to demand both resources and accountability. A critique of patrimonialism emerged into the public realm, particularly from those who had lost out in the spoils system, the growing numbers of poor and landless. These challenges were met by counter-strategies on the part of those most set to lose by a turnover in elections. With the introduction of alternative political parties, President Moi and key patronage bosses instigated localized but electorally beneficial violence in the form of "ethnic clashes". In their struggle to maintain patrimonial dominance, they also increasingly turned to less internationally scrutinized public lands as a patronage resource, leading to increasing and increasingly violent "land grabbing". This triggered counter mobilizations which aimed at reasserting local co
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".