Last week, Kenyans were treated to a peculiar occurrence. Instead of politicians handing out cash to citizens, the tables were turned and the politicians could be seen carrying baskets and plastic bags of donations from the citizens, to ostensibly fuel their cars. But perhaps, this event, though pleasantly surprising, was not peculiar after all. A month or so before, during the by-elections campaign for Ol Kalou, citizens decided to dig into their pockets to ostensibly buy a suit for one of the aspirants who had been described in a derogatory manner by the opposing camp. In true “chaama” (collective) spirit, the locals decided that their son needed to not only have the resources to win the by-election but would also look smart while at it. These two events, similar but unrelated, are part of a broader conversation that should concern all of us: the financialization of politics and the impact on our governance systems especially in Africa.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) recently published the Campaign Financing Regulations as well as the Spending Limits for the 2027 General Elections. The Regulations come against the backdrop of unsuccessful attempts to operationalize the Campaign Financing Act, passed in 2013 to regulate campaign contributions, expenditure and financial accountability in electoral processes; and which subsequent Houses of Parliament have passed over since. The effect is that the country continues to operate without a campaign financing mechanism, in contravention of constitutional expectations. The regulations are therefore in effect, a recent but timely effort to implement a court backed approach that would see IEBC by-pass the parliamentary requirement, on condition that public participation process is done satisfactorily and broadly. Parallel to this process, IEBC also published the Election Campaign Contribution, Spending Limits and Authorized Expenditure for the regulation, management, expenditure and accountability, with parties and candidates self-regulating under IEBC oversight.

The rationale for regulation of election campaign finance is threefold: Firstly, the need to prevent the corrosive effects of money in election campaigns, and its potential to contaminate the electoral process. Secondly, the need to ensure political equality among candidates to reduce the possibility of rich and moneyed candidates outspending and crowding out modest spenders, which could potentially alter the character of elections from a public choice process to a private enterprise dominated by the rich. Thirdly, the need to ensure transparency in election campaigns through robust campaign contribution disclosure mechanisms to prevent the use of illicit financial resources being channeled into election campaigns.

While these are welcome steps and we hope that this will be the election that finally sees these provisions actualized, the numbers, including those proposed, point to a worrying trend on the high cost and financialization of politics. Recent studies show that Kenya is amongst several countries (including Ghana which averages 700,000 USD) on the continent with the highest costs of running for office. The numbers published by IEBC themselves are sobering. Under the draft regulations, presidential candidates would be allowed to spend Kshs. 4.435 billion during the campaign period, while political parties would face an overall spending limit of about Kshs. 17.7 billion. Lower down the ballot, the limits are pegged to geographical size and voter population – a candidate for governor, senator or women representative in a vast county like Turkana, for instance, could spend as much as Kshs. 123 million. Whether these ceilings level the field or simply formalize a contest only the wealthy can enter is precisely the question citizen participation must confront.

But the problem is not local nor peculiar to Kenya. At the recent conference on the Financialization of Politics in Africa, held in Accra, Ghana, participants heard how this rising trend is undermining democracy and keeping key segments of the population, notably women and young people away from politics. A significant amount of this electoral related spending is on citizenry, as vote buying and inducement is common, either directly or through state largesse. It is often assumed that the main stake for citizens is the money and other benefits they get from the political aspirants, before the vote and hence the “cash for the vote”, which has been very rampant. The result is a democracy for sale.

This commodification of democracy means that once the electoral process is over, those who put in the money call the shots. Political office is now deemed as an investment, since resources spent on campaigns must be recouped through tenders, political appointments, institutional and elite political capture, corruption and unequal political participation. Consequently, political aspirants spend time thinking of how to raise the astronomical figures required to run for office, and if lucky to get elected, how to recover the resources spent.

This is why the Bungoma and Ol Kalou experiences should give us hope. A citizenry that has issue-based stakes in an election should be encouraged. There is a quiet democratic logic to this. A candidate bankrolled by one financier owes that financier; a candidate funded by ten thousand citizens owes the ten thousand. When that many hands raise a leader, that leader answers to many. Small, broad-based giving not only lowers the cost barrier but reorients loyalty downwards, back to the voter, where in a healthy democracy it belongs. Demands for accountable and inclusive governance also take a deeper meaning when citizens have interest not just in the process but the outcome. There is precedence too. Across the world, we have seen communities contribute significantly to candidates with positive results. Barrack Obama’s 2008 campaign was largely driven by small contributions from citizens who believed in his presidency and what it promised. In Kenya, we have had young outliers who defied the competition of big money to emerge victorious. Hon. Mwirigi and Hon. Toto come to mind.

The question, then, is, how much money should be allowed to influence elections? This is a hard question to answer and should perhaps be contextualized to respective country interests. And so, as IEBC and other stakeholders seek to address this question through the regulations and spending limits, it is important to factor in the citizens. Regulations may be one way, but culture, citizen behavior and systemic changes should go hand in hand. The 2026 Accra Declaration on the “Regulation of Political Finance to Advance Democratic Integrity in Africa” has given a roadmap, with a strong multi-faceted call to action from all stakeholders. Very critically, citizens and voters must be at the center of this recalibration and decentering of money in politics. They must demand transparency, reject financialization of politics, including when it benefits them and defend democratic institutions. Our democracy will be better for it. And so will the citizenry.