The people’s scorecard: When political theatre replaces leadership and accountability becomes a casualty

By Mr. Fredrick Kipchumba Chelimo – PWD

Email; [email protected]

“A leader seeking another mandate must return to the people with evidence of what has been accomplished, honesty about what has failed, and a credible plan for what remains undone. Public office is not a personal entitlement, and the ballot is not a reward for political theatrics; it is the people’s verdict on the stewardship of their trust.”

Kenya is once again drifting into the familiar theatre of electoral politics, where motorcades command attention, megaphones dominate public spaces, rallies become exhibitions of political strength, and even funerals and social gatherings are increasingly converted into platforms for campaigning. Across the political divide, leaders are perfecting the art of commanding audiences, trading accusations and ridiculing their opponents, often with remarkable energy and little corresponding explanation of their own performance. Beneath this spectacle, however, lies an uncomfortable question that every Kenyan should be asking: when did the pursuit of political attention become more important than the responsibility to account for public service?

Citizens did not elect leaders to spend their mandates manufacturing enemies, exchanging insults or endlessly attributing failures to their predecessors and political rivals. They entrusted them with the responsibility of legislating, governing, overseeing public expenditure, creating opportunities and improving the conditions under which ordinary people live. Leadership is not demonstrated by the ability to deliver the most devastating political insult or assemble the largest crowd. It is demonstrated by sound decisions, institutional integrity, responsible management of public resources and measurable improvements in the lives of citizens. Where promises remain unfulfilled, the public deserves explanations grounded in facts, not elaborate performances designed to redirect attention.

As the 2027 General Election approaches, Kenyans must reclaim the right to interrogate leadership on their own terms. Members of Parliament should account for their legislative contributions, oversight responsibilities and constituency priorities. County governments must explain their budgets, procurement decisions, development projects and the quality of services delivered. The national administration must demonstrate how its policies have affected employment, taxation, healthcare, education, agricultural productivity and the cost of living. These are not unreasonable demands from an impatient electorate; they are the minimum obligations arising from the social contract between those who govern and those who confer authority upon them. The essential questions remain straightforward: what was promised, what was achieved, what failed, how public money was used, and who is prepared to accept responsibility?

Of particular concern is the growing tendency to substitute political generosity for sustainable development. Cash handouts and personal donations may offer temporary relief to households struggling to meet immediate needs, but they cannot compensate for the absence of employment, affordable healthcare, quality education or reliable infrastructure. A struggling parent who accepts assistance should not be expected to surrender the constitutional freedom to choose political leaders independently. Public resources are not the personal wealth of politicians, and public programmes are not acts of charity. Even private generosity, however well intentioned, must never become an instrument for purchasing loyalty or silencing legitimate criticism. Citizens need opportunities that restore dignity and independence, not recurring inducements that leave the underlying causes of poverty untouched.

The people’s scorecard must therefore begin with the realities of household life. When families must choose between food, rent, school fees and medical treatment, economic policy cannot be judged by impressive announcements alone. When young people possess qualifications but cannot secure meaningful employment, leadership must explain what is being done to bridge the gap between education and economic opportunity. When patients struggle to access affordable treatment, healthcare reforms must be assessed by their practical outcomes rather than administrative proclamations. Likewise, the fight against corruption must be measured by transparent procurement, responsible expenditure, effective investigations and credible consequences for wrongdoing, irrespective of the political standing of those implicated.

For persons with disabilities, the distance between political rhetoric and lived reality is particularly revealing. Accessibility, reasonable accommodation, inclusive education, equitable employment and meaningful participation in public decision-making are rights and obligations, not favours bestowed by sympathetic leaders. Legislation and policy commitments lose their meaning when persons with disabilities remain excluded from employment, public infrastructure, essential services and decisions concerning resources intended to improve their welfare. Genuine inclusion must be reflected in budgetary allocations, accessible institutions, fair procurement opportunities and verifiable outcomes. A government cannot credibly celebrate inclusion while leaving the people concerned to struggle for recognition and access to provisions already guaranteed by law.

Public appointments provide another revealing measure of the quality of governance. Whenever political loyalty, personal flattery and sycophancy displace professional competence, the consequences extend beyond the individuals appointed. Public institutions lose expertise, decision-making deteriorates, and citizens ultimately pay the price through inefficiency and declining confidence. Public service must be guided by merit, integrity, qualifications and demonstrated ability, not by proximity to political power. Leaders who surround themselves with agreeable voices at the expense of honest advice may secure temporary political comfort, but they weaken the institutions they are entrusted to protect.

Equally important is the question of electoral transparency. Any parliamentary proposal to restrict the live-streaming of election proceedings deserves rigorous public scrutiny. At a time when confidence in electoral institutions is essential to peaceful democratic competition, reducing the public’s ability to observe proceedings could deepen suspicion unless supported by compelling reasons and credible safeguards. Live-streaming alone cannot guarantee an election’s integrity, but public access, reliable records, independent verification and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms collectively strengthen confidence. Electoral institutions must not merely insist that their processes are credible; they must make that credibility demonstrable. Any changes affecting transparency should be evidence-based, openly debated and consistent with constitutional requirements.

Above all, Kenya must abandon the destructive belief that elections are do-or-die confrontations in which political survival justifies intimidation, manipulation or the exploitation of hardship. An election is an opportunity for citizens to review their social contract, assess competing visions and determine who deserves the privilege of public office. Incumbents must defend their records, while challengers must demonstrate competence and present realistic alternatives. Neither political hostility nor promises unsupported by credible plans should be allowed to substitute for accountability.

The coming electoral season must therefore become more than a competition for crowds, alliances and commanding headlines. It must be a national examination of integrity, performance, inclusion and stewardship. Citizens must judge leadership by what happens in their homes, hospitals, schools, farms, workplaces and communities, as well as by the openness and reliability of the institutions that protect their democratic choices.

“The people’s vote is not a certificate of permanent ownership; it is a temporary instrument of public trust. Those who seek its renewal must prove that they have served with integrity, governed with competence and remembered that power belongs to the people. When the ballot speaks, political noise must fall silent before the evidence of leadership.”

The post The people’s scorecard: When political theatre replaces leadership and accountability becomes a casualty appeared first on The Mt Kenya Times.