What it takes for a democratic states to become dictatorship

What does it take to turn a country’s leadership from democratic to dictatorial? A quick initial search on the internet provides some pointers to determine whether you are living under a budding dictatorship. These include intimidation and terror by the dictator to suppress civil liberties; the use of mass propaganda to maintain public support; lack of political pluralism (say, by banning or subsuming rival political parties); disregard for individual rights; and control through laws, police and spying. Let us then analyse these and other ideas more broadly using current happenings in Kenya as a hypothetical example.

Typically, dictatorships centralise power in a manner that overrides checks and balances. In such regimes, the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary becomes blurred, with the ruling elite consolidating control over all arms of government. In Kenya, the executive branch has increasingly wielded disproportionate power, sidelining institutional accountability mechanisms. One of the most glaring examples of this was the impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua by the legislature, which was a process that seemed pre-determined and destined to occur. The Judiciary, too, has faced some challenges of its own, with its decisions, such as that regarding the Housing Bill being disregarded entirely. Decisions are made unilaterally, often without consultation or regard for public opinion, fostering a culture of impunity. In fact, the government has viewed the concept of public participation to be such a thorn in the flesh of their decision making that they have sought to override its importance.

One of the clearest indicators of a dictatorial regime is the use of state-sponsored violence to silence critics and instill fear. It goes without saying that recently, in Kenya, reports of abductions and extrajudicial killings of protesting youths and youths critical of the government online have surfaced with alarming frequency. These acts, allegedly perpetrated by State security forces or their proxies, target individuals who dare to challenge the government or its policies.

Dictatorial regimes rely on fear as a tool of control. By instilling terror amongst citizens, the government discourages organised resistance and ensures compliance. In Kenya, the targeting of activists and protesters serves not only to silence individuals but also to send a chilling message to the broader population: Dissent will not be tolerated, and challenging the status quo comes with grave risks. This climate of fear undermines democratic engagement as citizens are deterred from participating in political processes or advocating for their rights. Over time, this leads to a passive and disempowered populace, unable or unwilling to hold the government accountable.

It cannot be denied that since the quelling of protests in June of last year by means of extreme violence, many Kenyans have expressed fear at the prospect of going back to the streets to demand progress for the nation. As well, the government has employed a new tactic, speaking directly to parents and demanding that they discipline their children or else, the government will. Every week, thanks to the abductions and the numerous bodies that have been turning up around the country, parents are shown on the news weeping for their missing children. This terror trickles down into the home, as parents beg their children not to speak up against the government, and not to attend the protests due to the certain danger awaiting them on the streets. Death as a tactic to control dissent, being the most violent tactic, will also always be the most successful.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Kenya’s current regime is the prospect of continued authoritarianism that has been threatened by the leadership. The recent response by members of the ruling party, to the public outcry against the abductions is telling of what is to be expected. It has been, both expressly as well as implicitly, made clear that the abductions will continue. Even Oscar Sudi publicly fantasised over what he would do to the youth to shut down their dissent were he to be given the office of Cabinet Secretary in charge of Interior Affairs. The battle for the pursuit of justice, now more than ever, now faces the internal battle for self-preservation and the overriding fear of negative consequences. Let us hope that courage wins.