Shareholder politics

The Kenya Kwanza Government had promoted shareholder politics, only those who voted for them deserved development projects. [File Standard]. 

Remember the shareholder narrative? At the dawn of the Kenya Kwanza administration, a distinct rhetoric emerged, urging those who found themselves in the Opposition, and anyone else who lost the election, to keep their distance from the new regime. The rationale was simple, if deeply flawed: the victorious coalition had forged agreements where seats, privileges, and state resources were distributed strictly based on the number of votes each region or political party brought to the table.

 Unsurprisingly, this narrative felt inherently exclusionary to the significant portions of the country that did not vote for the Kenya Kwanza government. Even within the ruling coalition, murmurs of discontent arose. Observers noted that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua was advancing a polarising narrative, one that seemed to demean those who did not overwhelmingly back the coalition. It painted a picture of a nation divided not by ideology, but by political dividends.

 Now, as we navigate the political landscape heading into the next general election, new formations are already taking shape. Whether it is within the ruling United Democratic Alliance (UDA) or the Opposition seeking to forge a formidable counter-force, the risk of creating yet another "shareholder purpose vehicle" is alarmingly real. History offers a sobering lesson: with the notable exception of KANU and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) under Raila Odinga’s leadership, political parties in Kenya have rarely survived two general election cycles. This fragility stems precisely from the fact that many of these outfits are not built on enduring ideologies, but are merely temporary vehicles for political shareholders to negotiate power.

 It will require true patriotism and visionary leadership to reconceptualize our power-sharing formulas and avoid birthing another regime of mere shareholders. If the sole criterion for governance remains "whoever delivers the most votes gets the most government positions," ethnic polarization will never end in this country. Consequently, smaller ethnic communities will continually be marginalized, denied any realistic chance to lead or significantly influence the nation’s trajectory.

 Secondly, while it is standard democratic practice that a winning coalition or political party exercises state power, apportioning the majority of senior government positions to only two or three tribes out of the 43 in Kenya is a recipe for instability. Such an approach systematically undermines the spirit of national peace, unity, and liberty enshrined in our Constitution. A nation cannot thrive when large segments of its population feel alienated from the very state that is meant to serve them.

 

Thirdly, the fundamental logic of the shareholder model is purely transactional. In contrast, a political party or coalition that genuinely cherishes national development and long-term legacy will inherently embrace inclusivity in its power-sharing structures. A transactional political model inevitably focuses on what each faction can extract from the state, rather than what each citizen and community can contribute to nation-building. It reduces governance to a zero-sum game of elite bargaining.

 Fourthly, a strong, developmental government succeeds not through political patronage, but through the deliberate recruitment of top advisory experts, seasoned technocrats, and the implementation of robust participatory processes. It prioritizes the creation and strengthening of institutional systems of governance, standing in stark opposition to the politics of tokenism and clientelism. True statecraft requires competence and a commitment to public service, not just political loyalty.

 Ultimately, the shareholder approach to governance is not just politically fragile; it is fundamentally morally incorrect. Public office is a sacred trust, not a corporate board where dividends are paid out only to majority investors. True leadership dictates that once an election is over, the government assumes the duty of serving all citizens equally, embracing both the winners who voted them in and the losers who cast their ballots elsewhere.

 As new alliances are negotiated, Kenyans must demand more than just a reshuffling of political shareholders. We need coalitions built on a shared vision for the country’s development, inclusivity, and a commitment to dismantling the transactional politics that have long held our nation back. Only then can we build a government that truly belongs to all Kenyans, not just the highest bidders at the ballot box. How the next government navigates this will determine its legacy.