Is Our Problem the Presidency or the President? Unmasking Kenya’s Leadership Crisis
By Dr. Gilbert Ang’ana
Executive Summary
Kenya’s leadership crisis goes beyond individual presidents to a deeply entrenched culture of an “imperial presidency.” Drawing from a sentiment analysis of Kenya’s five presidents, this article explores the persistent gap between campaign promises and delivery. It exposes the systemic flaws in the presidency as an institution, including centralisation of power, patronage, and weak accountability. I outline critical reforms to be enhanced: strengthening institutions, deepening devolution, fostering civic empowerment, and promoting meritocracy. Ultimately, the way forward lies in reimagining the presidency as a servant institution, not a seat of unchecked power, driven by accountability and shared leadership.
The Lingering Question
Kenya’s political history, from its independence in 1963 to the present, reveals a concerning trend. The grand promises made by presidents during their campaigns frequently do not materialise once they take office. Recently, I shared initial findings from a sentiment analysis centred on Kenya’s five presidents: His Excellencies Jomo Kenyatta, Daniel Arap Moi, Mwai Kibaki, Uhuru Kenyatta, and Dr. William Ruto. The data revealed a disheartening reality: a substantial gap exists between the electoral promises and the actual fulfilment of agenda items in each administration. This finding compels us to consider a crucial question: Is the issue with the individual president or the presidency as an institution? This inquiry is crucial for shaping Kenya’s future. Discerning whether the challenges in Kenya’s leadership stem from the individuals in the State House or from the inherent structure and culture of the presidency, stakeholders, including citizens, political parties, and governance institutions, can devise more effective and targeted solutions.
Personality vs. Policy
Each president assumes office with a distinct persona, a comprehensive vision, and a campaign manifesto replete with commitments. Jomo Kenyatta’s rhetoric of unity, Moi’s “Nyayo philosophy” advocating peace, love, and unity, Kibaki’s pledges for economic reform, Uhuru Kenyatta’s initiatives for digital transformation and the Big Four Agenda, and Dr. William Ruto’s bottom-up economic model, each leader has articulated objectives that resonated with the electorate. Nevertheless, the essence of leadership transcends mere promises; it encompasses delivery, integrity, and sustainable impact. The personality of each president has significantly influenced their governing style.
Kenyatta Sr. maintained a nationalist yet centralised approach, Moi solidified patronage and survival politics, Kibaki exemplified technocratic leadership, leading to relative economic growth, Uhuru navigated a complex legacy of infrastructure development tainted by corruption, and Dr. Ruto inherited economic hardship while advocating for a people-centred economic revival. However, none have entirely evaded the criticism of overpromising and underdelivering. This highlights a persistent concern: even the most capable individuals appear to underperform once in office. What accounts for this phenomenon?
A Flawed System?
The presidency in Kenya transcends the status of an office. It constitutes a superstructure deeply imbued with executive power, control, and historical complexities. Colonial legacies, the centralisation of authority, and a winner-takes-all political culture have shaped it. The 2010 Constitution endeavoured to rectify some of these challenges by introducing devolution alongside institutional checks and balances. Nevertheless, the presidency continues to possess a disproportionately significant degree of power. Appointments, budgetary allocations, national security, and foreign policy are all consolidated under a singular office. This institutional overreach frequently hampers even the most well-intentioned presidents. The bureaucratic inertia, entrenched interests, and political expectations surrounding the presidency erect significant barriers to reform. Furthermore, the personalisation of power, whereby state functions and presidential will become increasingly indistinct, has transformed the presidency into an emblem of both hope and despair. This situation fosters a political culture wherein development is perceived as a privilege conferred by the president, rather than an entitlement accessible through a functional system.
What the People Are Saying
The sentiment analysis I conducted examined a broad spectrum of public data, encompassing social media posts, media articles, public speeches, and policy reviews. The analysis revealed a consistent trend of disappointment following elections. The initial euphoria associated with electing a new president often rapidly transforms into skepticism and ultimately disillusionment. Key themes that emerged include:
- Broken Promises: From infrastructure to healthcare, presidents have frequently failed to fulfil their declared commitments.
- Corruption Fatigue: Each presidency has grappled with systemic corruption, thereby eroding public trust.
- Personalisation of Power: Numerous citizens have voiced concerns that the presidency functions more like a monarchy than a democratic institution.
- Lack of Accountability: Oversight institutions remain either feeble or co-opted, which enables the president to operate with impunity.
This data does not solely implicate individuals; rather, it illustrates a systemic issue that endures irrespective of who occupies the office. Looking at the global context, mature democracies have successfully separated the individual from the institution. The presidency of the United States—though not a perfect example due to the current challenges, still has positive aspects to highlight—while powerful, is constrained by rigorous checks from Congress, the judiciary, the press, and civil society. In contrast, Scandinavian countries, with their robust parliamentary systems, distribute power to prevent overreliance on a single office. Conversely, in Kenya, the presidency remains a central locus of power. Even cabinet secretaries, governors, and heads of parastatals often await presidential directives before taking action. This bottleneck results in inefficiency and restricts innovation in governance.
It is evident that the issue extends beyond the individuals who ascend to the presidency; it also encompasses the institutional and cultural framework of the presidency itself. Kenya operates within an “imperial presidency” model, whereby the head of state concurrently functions as the head of government and the principal authority for national decision-making. This culture encourages: Patronage over performance; loyalty over merit; secrecy over transparency; and centralisation over subsidiarity. Such a system undermines critical thinking, deters the growth of independent institutions, and perpetuates a cycle of unfulfilled promises.
What Needs to Change?
Enhancing the oversight institutions, including the Auditor General, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, and Parliament, to ensure accountability of the presidency is an avenue that has not been fully explored in Kenya. While efforts have been made to strengthen devolution, further actions are needed to grant counties greater autonomy, financial independence, and legislative flexibility. Furthermore, the emergence of a more active and vibrant youth demographic in Kenya provides a beacon of hope. Nonetheless, additional efforts are essential to cultivate a citizenry that is engaged, assertive, and well-informed. The parliamentary culture across the countries, the National Assembly, and the Senate must evolve to formulate development policies that extend beyond the political cycles of presidencies and leadership. The practice of depending on presidential patronage must cease; appointments to public positions should be grounded in competence rather than loyalty or ethnic affiliations.
Ultimately, political parties should evolve into institutions founded on ideology and accountability, rather than merely serving as vehicles for electoral success. It is imperative to foster a national dialogue regarding the scope and limitations of presidential authority. The responsibility also lies with citizens. Apathy, hero worship, and low civic awareness have allowed the presidency to operate unchecked. Civil society, media, academia, and faith institutions must reclaim their space in governance discourse. Citizens must: Vote wisely and issue-based; demand transparency and performance; resist ethnic mobilisation; and engage in policy processes.
Kenya finds itself at a pivotal crossroads. The presidency ought to function as an instrument of transformation rather than merely a platform for unfulfilled promises. To advance, it is imperative that we reconceptualise the role of the presidency not as the singular driver of development but as an integral part of a system characterised by shared leadership. The inquiry should not focus on whether the president is competent or incompetent; rather, the critical question is whether the current structure of the presidency is designed to effectively serve the populace. We must urgently transition from a model of personalisation to one of institutionalisation, moving away from idolization and towards accountability. If we genuinely seek progress, we must cease our fixation on the individual in office and begin to reformulate the functions of the presidency. Only in doing so will we disrupt the cycle of hope and disappointment that has come to define our political landscape.
About the Author, Dr. Gilbert Ang’ana
Gilbert A. Ang’ana is a 2024-2025 Policy Leader Fellow at the EUI’s Florence School of Transnational Governance and a Founder/CEO at Accent Leadership Group. Gilbert’s research interests include leadership, governance, sustainable development goals, and transnational policy.