To get a job in Kenya, political connections are the new CV

In Kenya today, it is the politically connected who secure jobs. Meritocracy has been eroded, while nepotism is on an upward trajectory. The situation was evident in the recent Social Health Authority (SHA) appointments, where members of the Somali and Kalenjin communities reportedly secured a lion’s share of county positions because their tribesmen occupy senior positions in government.

Has Kenya become a nation that loudly sings the chorus of equity, equality, justice, and fair play, yet consistently does the very opposite? We put on a grand display and even wear the wristwatch, but seldom demonstrate discipline or punctuality.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Aden Duale, and President William Ruto come from the Somali and Kalenjin communities respectively. It is therefore widely perceived that the recent list of county-level hires under the SHA insurance scheme demonstrates a troubling pattern: that Kenyans who lack representation at the highest levels of leadership risk remaining trapped in the mire of unemployment, despite possessing all the requisite qualifications for the roles.

More recently, Dr Ida Odinga, widow of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and well past the conventional retirement age, was appointed to a coveted diplomatic post as Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The appointment has inevitably stirred debate about merit, generational equity, and the signals such decisions send to a restless and watchful public.

Adding to the controversy, her youngest daughter, Winnie Odinga — herself a beneficiary of political patronage as a member of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) — remarked on television that young Kenyans are being denied opportunities. The contradiction has not gone unnoticed: she decried the marginalisation of youth while appearing to support her mother, now over 70, taking up a prominent international role.

To many observers, this dissonance captures a deeper national frustration. In a country weighed down by millions of qualified yet unemployed young people, Kenya is hardly short of professionals capable of serving with distinction in diplomacy and global governance, including at UNEP. If we are to restore public trust, we must resist dressing self-interest as public service, or presenting patronage as patriotism.

Why have double standards and hypocrisy become so deeply entrenched in our national politics? Even as the Kenyan President speaks of empowering the youth and expanding opportunities for them, his administration stands accused of favouring his own community in key national appointments. It is difficult to ignore the widespread perception that a significant number of the most coveted government and public corporation positions are occupied by individuals from the President’s Kalenjin community.

We have, over time, grown accustomed to opportunistic political arrangements that appear to enrich a select few families while the nation itself struggles. Kenyans must confront an uncomfortable reality: political elites often prioritise their own survival above the welfare of ordinary citizens. What is showcased on television frequently resembles carefully managed public relations, crafted by those who rise to power on the backs of a burdened majority. True leadership calls for honesty, sacrifice, and dedication to the common good — virtues that remain in short supply within Kenya’s political sphere.

Article 232(1)(c) of Kenya’s Constitution sets out clear principles for public service, including the need for ethnic and regional balance, merit, equity, and equality in appointments. Yet weak enforcement and political manoeuvring often allow leaders to favour their own support bases. The result is a system that encourages ethnic competition for political office, rather than a focus on merit, national interest and the common good.

Is it not troubling when a leader entrusted with national stewardship distributes public resources and employment opportunities along narrow communal lines, only to later issue appeals for “Umoja wa Wakenya” while seeking votes? Kenyans must remain alert and demand better.

Call it brain drain, professional migration or simple demoralization-our doctors, nurses, engineers, and other skilled professionals are leaving in search of fairer opportunities because the country has failed to value their contribution. Who will design our roads, and care for our patients if this trend persists?

Political nominations, promotions, and appointments are widely viewed as skewed in favour of the well connected. A contact at the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) confided that teaching appointment letters often end up in the hands of those linked to the ruling elite. Even military recruitments in the country are said to be less than fair, with major political figures allegedly allocated their own slots. If this continues unchecked, where will the sons and daughters of the hoi polloi find a foothold in Kenya’s job market?

During a recent stopover in Doha, I was struck by the sheer number of Kenyans working at Hamad International Airport. One cannot help but feel a mix of pride and nostalgia when meeting a compatriot abroad. They recognise you instantly and, before long, greet you warmly in Swahili -“jambo ndugu” - with an easy laugh. We are a capable and industrious people, yet we operate within a dysfunctional system that too often rewards mediocrity rather than merit.

The human cost of this dysfunction is severe. Disillusioned and deprived of prospects, countless young people are driven towards perilous alternatives. Some risking their lives in foreign conflicts, others especially young Kenyan women are enduring harsh domestic labour conditions in the Middle East. It is telling that Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary, who also oversees Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, Musalia Mudavadi, has indicated plans to visit Russia to address the plight of Kenyans reportedly trapped there after being lured by promises of work, only to find themselves drawn into fighting in the war with Ukraine.

Meanwhile, enduring perceptions of nepotism across successive administrations have entrenched the belief that certain communities — presently including a notable presence from the President’s Kalenjin community — disproportionately occupy influential positions in the civil service and state corporations. This fuels the conviction that political power translates directly into communal advantage, intensifying ethnic calculations in presidential contests and undermining the foundations of national cohesion.

 

 

Africa's Broken Promises: Why Regional Bodies Are Democracy's Biggest Obstacles

Africa’s multilateral institutions were established to drive democratic renewal, good governance and economic progress, yet they have increasingly become arenas of rhetoric rather than effective action. The African Union (AU) and regional bodies such as SADC, ECOWAS, EAC, COMESA and IGAD were conceived as safeguards against autocracy, military rule and constitutional abuse. Instead, they have often equivocated in the face of repression, hesitated during conflict and normalised democratic decline, eroding public trust at home and weakening Africa’s moral standing in the global stage.

This institutional frailty is stark in conflict management. The Tigray war, which erupted in November 2020, exposed the AU’s reluctance to confront powerful member states despite grave humanitarian consequences, including mass displacement and severe suffering. In Sudan, instability has persisted since the October 2021 coup that derailed the civilian transition. Rival generals continue their power struggle while mediation efforts yield little progress. Regional statements abound, but enforcement is absent. The AU Peace and Security Council has struggled to take decisive preventive action, demonstrating that mediation without leverage is little more than ritual.

Electoral governance, the foundation of democratic legitimacy, reveals similar weaknesses. In Kenya, repeated disputed elections, court battles and episodic violence highlight deep mistrust in electoral institutions and elite bargains presented as reform. Since the return of multiparty politics in the early 1990s, only the 2002 presidential election has been widely accepted as free and fair; subsequent polls have frequently been marked by unrest, displacement and deaths.

Uganda’s political space remains constrained by prolonged incumbency, securitised governance and suppression of dissent. Tanzania, once praised for stability, has in recent years restricted opposition activity and media freedoms, with reforms yet to translate into firm guarantees. Regional observer missions often respond with cautious language and diplomatic euphemism, avoiding forthright condemnation. Observation without consequence risks becoming complicity.

The resurgence of coups in the Sahel further underscores democratic regression. Since 2020, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have experienced military takeovers, testing ECOWAS and AU mechanisms designed to deter unconstitutional changes of government. Although Burkina Faso’s current military ruler, Ibrahim Traoré, is praised by some for a reformist posture, rule obtained through a coup undermines democratic prospects and the aspirations of the Burkinabè people.

At the heart of these failures lies a structural contradiction: organisations composed of incumbent leaders are expected to hold those same leaders accountable. Many heads of state, themselves governing under fragile mandates or controversial constitutional manoeuvres, are reluctant to empower supranational bodies that could later censure them. The principle of non-interference persists through elite solidarity, where peer review becomes peer protection.

Leadership at the continental level has also faced scrutiny. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti was elected Chairperson of the AU Commission on 16 February 2025, defeating Kenya’s veteran opposition figure Raila Odinga. His election raised hopes for renewed commitment to institutional integrity and democratic norms. Yet many observers believe his tenure has begun hesitantly, at a time when Africans seek firm, principled and courageous leadership.

These concerns intensified after Tanzania’s 29 October 2025 general election, during which major opposition candidates were barred and political restrictions imposed. Protests followed, and human rights groups reported lethal force by security forces between 29 October and 3 November. Despite the AU Observer Mission concluding that the election did not meet AU principles or international standards, AU leadership congratulated President Samia Suluhu Hassan, prompting questions about consistency and credibility.

Regional leadership has faced similar criticism. Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone at ECOWAS and Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa at SADC are seen by some as insufficiently assertive in defending democratic norms among member states. Observers argue that stronger censure might have been expected over alleged electoral malpractice within the region. One wonders why South Africa has taken a firm stance against Israel over the alleged genocide in Gaza yet has failed to speak with equal clarity about the crises and governance failures on the African home front.

Uganda’s January 2026 election reinforced these concerns. President Yoweri Museveni secured another term amid opposition allegations of intimidation and irregularities. Opposition leader Bobi Wine rejected the results, security forces reportedly raided his residence, and tensions rose. On 17 January 2026, the AU Commission Chairperson commended the election and congratulated Museveni, a move critics viewed as legitimising a contested process. Veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye remains detained on treason charges amid reports of ill health, drawing limited regional protest, though Kenyan lawyer Martha Karua has supported his defence.

Restoring democratic credibility requires practical reforms. Electoral rules, term limits and prohibitions on unconstitutional power seizures must trigger automatic consequences such as suspension or sanctions. Observer missions should become rigorous, evidence-based exercises with honest reporting. Conflict mediation needs stronger security tools, early-warning systems and clear intervention thresholds when governments fail to protect citizens.

Regional bodies must widen participation beyond heads of state to include civil society, judiciaries, legal professionals, journalists and young people. Financial independence through transparent member-state funding is equally vital, ensuring accountability to African citizens rather than external donors.

Africa’s standing will not be restored through declarations alone but through consistent defence of constitutionalism, credible elections and rejection of military rule. As past Pan-African leaders such as Nyerere, Nkrumah, Lumumba and Kaunda embodied, principled leadership rooted in dignity, unity and social justice remains essential.

By strengthening institutions, protecting liberties, curbing corruption and pursuing equitable reform, African leaders can rebuild legitimacy and restore the continent’s political and moral stature.

 

Odinga's Dilemma: Balancing Ambition and Principle in Kenya's Political Landscape

The broad-based Cabinet formed, comprising members of the Orange Democratic Party led by Raila Odinga and his political rival, President William Ruto, highlights a stark contrast with the outcome of the 2018 handshake between retired President Uhuru Kenyatta and Odinga.

The formation of this cabinet was preceded by protests from Kenyan youth, who took to the streets to voice their opposition to the punitive taxes proposed in the Finance Bill 2024-2025. Notably, unlike the 2018 demonstrations, which were largely driven by Odinga's political base, the current protests were spearheaded by Generation Z, who feel betrayed by Odinga's decision to join the government.

Many Kenyans view his move as a betrayal of their cause and a disheartening abandonment of his former crusade for a better Kenya. The same generation that once hailed him as a champion of reform and a symbol of hope now feels disillusioned by his perceived selfish ambitions.

"How can you prioritize appointing your allies to cabinet positions when the youths killed by the same government have not even been buried?' one frustrated youth asked during a recent protest in Nairobi, questioning the urgency of Odinga's actions."

The appointment of ODM's chairman, minority leader, and two deputy party leaders to cabinet positions is a travesty to multiparty democracy, as ODM is a major opposition party in Kenya's legislative organs, the Senate and Parliament with a primary role of providing oversight and holding the government accountable for its excesses. His actions have undermined this critical function, leaving a power vacuum that threatens the very fabric of Kenya’s democracy.

It is ironic that Odinga, who fought for multiparty democracy and was even detained for it during President Daniel Moi's reign, has made this move. Odinga's decision has diluted Kenya's political scene and undermined the vibrancy and national clout of the ODM party.

This development is a far cry from the expectations of Kenyans who revered Odinga as the "Nelson Mandela" of Kenya, given his nine years of detention without trial for fighting for democratic space. They expected him to remain a strong advocate for reform until the end of his political journey, just like Mandela did in South Africa. Instead, his political influence has been severely diminished, regardless of his aspirations to capture the African Union (AU) chairperson seat.

It is widely acknowledged that during times of national crisis, leaders from diverse political backgrounds should put aside their differences and work towards the collective good of the country. While supporters of Odinga may view his recent move through this lens, the majority perceive it as a self-centred decision. This is because Odinga failed to consider the youth in the list of cabinet appointments from his party, despite their significant role in driving the recent protests against the government.

It is worth noting that if Generation Z had not revolted against the current government, Odinga would not have had the opportunity to have members of his party appointed to the cabinet.

In essence, he is reaping benefits from a field he did not cultivate or sow. This perceived lack of consideration for the youth, who were instrumental in creating the conditions for his party's inclusion in the government, has led many to view his move as opportunistic and self-serving.

Critics argue that Odinga's cabinet nominees, including billionaire politicians like Ali Hassan Joho and Wickliffe Oparanya, should focus on creating sustainable enterprises that generate employment opportunities for the poor and marginalized instead of competing for government jobs meant for the underprivileged and unemployed.

Odinga's decision to exploit the situation for personal gain, disregarding the principles of integrity and accountability that once defined his legacy, has raised questions about his true character.

Initiating a political deal with the ruling government when Kenyans strive for self-determination is an unfathomable tragedy for Kenya's democratic future. Odinga's political clout has been punctured, and he should yield the leadership of the Azimio coalition to Kalonzo Musyoka of the Wiper Democratic Movement.

As Odinga nears the twilight of his political career, he must begin nurturing emerging leaders to pass the baton to. To redeem his image, he should own up and apologize unequivocally for betraying the aspirations of Kenya's young people. Otherwise, his political legacy, built over 40 years, maybe tarnished.

It is widely acknowledged that during a national crisis, leaders from diverse political backgrounds should put aside their differences and pursue the collective good of the country. However, while supporters of Odinga may view his recent move through this lens, the majority perceive it as a self-centred decision that prioritizes personal gain over the greater good.

This perception is fueled by Odinga's failure to consider the youth in the list of cabinet appointments from his party, despite their significant role in driving the recent protests against the government. The youth, who were instrumental in creating the conditions for Odinga's party to be included in the government, feel betrayed by his lack of consideration.

It is worth noting that if Generation Z had not revolted against the current government, Odinga would not have had the opportunity to have members of his party appointed to the cabinet. In essence, he is reaping benefits from a field he did not cultivate or sow.

This perceived lack of consideration for the youth has led many to view Odinga's move as opportunistic and self-serving. Some believe the ODM leader is genuine, while others think it's time to expose his web of deceit and pretense.

Critics argue that Odinga's cabinet nominees, including billionaire politicians like Ali Hassan Joho and Wickliffe Oparanya, should focus on creating sustainable enterprises that generate employment opportunities for the poor and marginalized instead of competing for government jobs meant for the underprivileged and unemployed.

Odinga's decision to exploit the situation for personal gain, disregarding the principles of integrity and accountability that once defined his legacy, has raised questions about his true character. Initiating a political deal with the ruling government when Kenyans are striving for self-determination is an unfathomable tragedy for Kenya's democratic future. Odinga's political clout has been punctured, and he should yield the leadership of the Azimio coalition to Kalonzo Musyoka of the Wiper Democratic Movement.

Odinga's newfound alliance with the current government has eroded the confidence Kenyans once had in him. As he approaches the end of his political career, he must start mentoring emerging leaders to ensure a smooth transition and allow a new generation to take the reins. To redeem his image, he should unequivocally own up to and apologize for betraying the aspirations of Kenya's young people. If he fails to do so, his 40-year political legacy may be tarnished, leaving a lasting impact on Kenya's political landscape.

Trump's Racist Depiction of the Obamas: A Shameful Disgrace to the US Presidency

By Joseph Lister Nyaringo

The depiction of former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as primates is among the ugliest racial motifs in modern United States politics by a sitting President. This has back-peddled the country back to an era it claims to have outgrown. When such demeaning imagery is associated with a former President and first lady, the damage radiates far beyond partisan skirmishes.

Depicting the Obamas as apes on “Truth Social” was ill-conceived and deeply offensive. Even though the post was later deleted, the damage had already been done, reinforcing perceptions of racial hostility by President Donald Trump. The episode has further tarnished the President’s standing and inflicted reputational harm on the Republican Party, which continues to struggle to distance itself from rhetoric that alienates large sections of the American population.  

In June 2015, Donald Trump's presidential campaign was launched amidst a toxic storm of xenophobia and racism, setting the tone for a divisive political climate that would define his presidency. At Trump Tower, he infamously declared that Mexican immigrants were "not sending their best", instead bringing "drugs, crime, and rapists".

This rhetoric dehumanised Latin American immigrants and laid the base for a campaign that repeatedly depicted them as threats to the healthy safety and security of the US.

Before Trump assumed the presidency, he became the most prominent public figure to amplify the so-called birther conspiracy. He falsely claimed that Obama, the first Black president of the US, was not born in the country and therefore illegitimate. He persistently demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate, which was publicly released, showing that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

Trump’s apparent jealousy of the former president is rooted in a stark contrast of records and reputations. Obama left office with zero scandals. No indictments! Today, he remains a respected global figure, with a standing reinforced by the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won barely less than a year as president. This is the coveted prize Trump desperately wanted to win last year, but it passed him by. By resorting to racially charged depictions during Black History Month, against the backdrop of aggressive immigration enforcement that disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, Trump has damaged his reputation and demonstrated zero positive view on race relations in the US.  

During an Oval Office meeting on immigration in 2018, Trump was reported to have said that the United States should not accept immigrants from what he described as “shithole countries”, referring to Haiti, El Salvador and several African nations. He suggested that his preference is for immigrants from countries such as Norway. Although he later denied this, the damage was already done.

Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric did not abate during his presidency. During the 2024 campaigns, he made inflammatory claims about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, suggesting they were “eating the pets” of residents. Officials and community leaders in Ohio swiftly debunked these allegations. In the same vein, Trump publicly disparaged Somali immigrants, referring to them as “garbage”, dismissing their contributions and advocating their removal from the US back to Somalia.

Trump, along with the Christian nationalists who echo or excuse his racial slurs, among them televangelist Paula White Cain, Pastor Lance Wallnau, Pastor Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse, and John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, should be ashamed for tolerating or amplifying such a record on race relations. Likening Michelle Obama and Barack Obama to apes is not merely offensive; it is a slur with a poisonous history that has long been used to dehumanise Black people and deny their God-given right, dignity, and decency.

If President Trump casts himself as a Christian apologist, he must confront the Gospel teachings of Jesus, who preached love of neighbour, the equal worth of all people, and justice that uplifts the marginalised. Christ condemned the use of religion to exclude or humiliate and identified himself with “the least of these”. A faith that invokes Christ while disparaging people based on skin colour is not merely inconsistent but a betrayal of his core message of love, equality, and justice.

The US is founded on ideals of equality, fairness and justice, embedded in its Constitution and civil rights framework. Although the nation has long struggled with racism and discrimination, it has sought to redefine itself through sustained civil rights movements. When a leader of Trump’s stature repeatedly uses racially charged or demeaning language, the political and social consequences are therefore severe.

If such rhetoric goes unchecked, it risks normalising prejudice and deepening division rather than promoting unity. It fuels hostility towards vulnerable communities, erodes minority trust in democratic fairness, and weakens America’s moral standing globally, further straining relations with allies who see such conduct as incompatible with democratic values.

One may reasonably ask whether a healthy democracy is sustained by insults, xenophobia and racial slurs, or by robust debate, principled dissent, and respect for human dignity. History shows that democracies thrive not when leaders divide and demean, but when they elevate public discourse and affirm the equal worth of all citizens, regardless of origin, colour, social class or political affiliations.

It is also worth noting the contradiction in Trump’s own personal circumstances. His family and political circle reflect international and cross-cultural ties, from his foreign-born spouses to a vice-president married to a woman of Indian ancestry. This underscores the irony of invoking narrow ideas of race and nationality while benefiting from the diversity that enriches American society.

Ultimately, democratic leadership is defined not by provocation or fear, but by respect, dignity, and inclusion. True leadership unites, protects all citizens, and advances equality and justice. America’s strength lies in its diversity, and its leaders are obliged to recognise and honour that reality.