NAIROBI: 2027 general elections, which are open to all Kenyans, there are numerous enquiries about the existence of genuine political parties in the country.
Are these small groups of individuals trying to gain recognition as presidential candidates or leaders to deceive Kenyans for their own benefit?
These and other emerging debates among highly respected Kenyans and scholars are leaving us with wide-open minds and mouths about the course of this upcoming election.
I find Prof PLO Lumumba’s recent critique of Kenya’s political system both provocative and sobering for those who are unaware. He contends that Kenya has failed to establish genuine political parties rooted in ideology due to the historical push for constitutional reform in the 1990s.
Rather, the contemporary landscape is characterised by the presence of fluid groups of individuals who are driven more by personal ambition, particularly the desire to be included on the presidential ballot, than by policy principles.
His analysis raises critical questions about the nature of democracy in Kenya, the role of political parties and the influence of personality-centred politics.
My analysis examines Prof Lumumba’s argument, placing it within Kenya’s political development and assessing its effects on democratic maturity, accountability and governance.
This analysis could potentially shed light on these issues for other EAC nations. Kenya experienced a period of intense political reform between 1993 and 2001, following the reintroduction of multi-party democracy in 1992, as history reminds us.
It was clear that political parties would develop as carriers of ideology, embodying different visions on topics such as healthcare, education, agriculture and economic policy.
Lumumba recollects that reformers envisioned parties that would serve as institutions that outlive individual politicians, provide ideological differentiation and articulate distinct policy alternatives.
However, this vision has still not been significantly realised after more than three decades. Instead of strong political organisations, Kenya relies on what can best be described as “electoral vehicles” temporary platforms built to secure elections and often dismantled afterwards.
I believe that Lumumba’s critique is fundamentally based on the assertion that Kenyan politics is dominated by individuals whose sole aim is to secure a place on the presidential ballot.
This phenomenon manifests in various ways, such as politicians frequently switching parties in search of favourable platforms, the formation of new parties shortly before elections and the proliferation of presidential candidates with minimal institutional backing.
Lumumba suggests that the primary motivation is not ideological loyalty, but rather personal branding and ambition.
The presidency becomes less of a duty to serve the public and more of a symbolic achievement, a line on a CV that reads, “I once ran for president.”
ALSO READ: PLO’s hard-hitting analysis on Kenya’s governance, economic crisis
This development lessens the importance of presidential elections. Voters encounter noise rather than substance when candidature is motivated by ego or fame instead of a clear national agenda.
Prof Lumumba sharply criticises the nature of political campaigns in Kenya, describing them as itinerant spectacles where politicians move “from funeral to wedding to rally to church.”
He offers little more than accusations against opponents. This observation highlights a deeper issue: The lack of policy focused discourse.
Personality clashes, historical grievances, ethnic mobilisation and populist rhetoric dominate campaigns, rather than structured debates on agricultural reform, healthcare systems, education quality and industrialisation.
It is common for policy to be vague and repetitive, as shown by statements like “we will improve education” and “we will fix agriculture,” which lack specific plans or measurable objectives.
The result is a political culture that lacks accountability because commitments are neither precise nor trackable. The nature of political alliances in Kenya is another essential aspect of Lumumba’s argument.
He notes that coalitions may bring people together; however, this unity is often transactional rather than based on ideology.
Usually, these alliances form around elections, bargaining over power-sharing deals and then break apart soon after the electoral results are declared.
My analysis shows that this leads to a system where loyalty is fleeting, policy coherence is lacking and governance becomes a struggle to balance competing interests.
Lumumba’s assertion that many opposition figures have previously held positions in the same government emphasises this fluidity.
Political actors often move from government to opposition and back again without significant shifts in their ideology.
This reinforces the idea that “they are all the same” by blurring the boundary between alternative visions.
Lumumba’s assertion that political office in Kenya has become “the shortest route to ill-gotten wealth” is perhaps the most contentious part of his assessment.
Despite its starkness, this claim aligns with a widely held public perception. People motivated by rent-seeking rather than service are drawn to politics if it is seen as a way to access state resources, influence procurement processes and amass personal wealth.
This has several dangerous consequences, including the rise of high-stakes competition, which leads to fiercely contested and sometimes violent elections due to the significant rewards of victory.
Additionally, the erosion of meritocracy, competence and integrity, along with entrenched corruption where leaders may prioritise recouping campaign investments over providing public services, is often ignored in favour of political expediency.
Although extreme, Prof Lumumba’s warning that individuals may be “prepared to kill and maim” to gain power reflects the harsh reality of electoral violence in Kenya.
An internationally esteemed academic sibling, Prof Lumumba’s critique is especially strong in its scepticism toward new political formations. He argues that many alliances labelled as “new” are simply reconfigurations of the same actors.
This is the point where his reference to George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm becomes relevant: The animals looked at each other, from man to pig and pig to man, with no clear difference.
The message is clear: Political rebranding does not mean real change. New ideas are not guaranteed by familiar faces in new groups and voters are often tricked into expecting change when little actually occurs.
This cycle of false renewal stalls democratic progress. Despite each election promising a fresh start, structural problems persist.
Although Prof Lumumba’s critique is persuasive, it is essential to examine the structural factors that sustain this system.
Weak Party Institutionalisation. In Kenya, while they take pride in having the most comprehensive constitution in Africa, many parties lack grassroots structures, stable internal funding mechanisms, and internal democracy. As a result, they are centred on dominant personalities.
Kenya’s politics have long been heavily influenced by ethnic considerations. Parties are often used as platforms for ethnic coalitions and as tools for negotiating power, as leaders tend to mobilise support based on identity rather than ideology.
In Kenya, the presidential system emphasises individual prominence, unlike other EAC economic regions.
Compared to parliamentary systems, where parties are the main force, presidential elections often highlight individuals. Kenya has laws regulating political parties; however, enforcement varies.
There are few consequences for partyhopping and opportunistic alliances. The implications are considerable if Lumumba’s assessment is correct.
Long-term planning suffers from the absence of ideological anchors, leading to policies that shift with changing leadership.
Voters cannot hold leaders accountable for party manifestos that are vague or inconsistent. Public trust in the political system is eroded by recurring cycles of unmet expectations.
Economic repercussions: Unstable governance characterised by personality can hinder economic growth, escalate policy uncertainty and deter investment.
Prof PLO Lumumba’s critique is not just an academic observation; it serves as a warning about the current state of Kenya’s democracy.
His statement that “there are no political parties, only individuals” highlights a significant structural issue: The difficulty in establishing politics beyond personalities.
Although some might argue that his view is overly pessimistic, it aligns with observable facts, including campaigns that lack meaningful policy debate, weak party structures and shifting alliances.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Kenya has political parties in name, but whether it has parties in substance.
Kenyan politics may stay a struggle of individuals seeking power rather than a debate of ideas until ideology, policy, and institutional integrity are given priority over personal ambition, as Lumumba suggests. Often, it is the ordinary citizen who bears the heaviest burden of this conflict.
