By Isaac Dan Bw’Onyancha
Kenya is sliding back into a familiar but dangerous political order. The daily delegations to State House, ferried in buses from across the country to pledge loyalty in exchange for development favors, are a clear echo of the nyayoism perfected under KANU and President Daniel arap Moi. For twenty-four years, Moi ruled through a network of patronage, ensuring that loyalty to the presidency, rather than citizenship rights, determined who accessed development.
President William Ruto, a political student of Moi, appears determined to revive this model. The delegations to State House have become grand theatres of patronage, often involving between 5,000 and 6,000 visitors at a time. Each of these spectacles is estimated to squander in excess of Ksh. 60 million, with every attendee reportedly receiving around Ksh. 10,000.
This massive hemorrhage of public resources happens even as Kenyans decry lack of basic medication in hospitals, parents struggle to raise school fees, roads remain in a poor state, and payslips continue to shrink under heavy taxation.
The symbolism could not be more striking: citizens are reduced to beggars of presidential favor while their basic needs remain unmet.
The funding of these delegations is itself problematic. The recently established single revenue portal has placed unprecedented financial control in the hands of the Executive. Both the Controller of Budget and the Auditor-General have raised concerns over its opaque procurement, weak oversight, and questionable utilization.
Instead of strengthening service delivery, these resources are increasingly channelled into freebies, empowerment programs run by the Deputy President, and mobilization schemes managed by youthful loyalists. Even the Speaker of the National Assembly has been drawn into this orbit, blurring the boundaries between independent arms of government.
This governance model, built on political patronage, stands in direct violation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Article 10 enshrines equity, inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability as national values. Article 174 defines the objects of devolution, including equitable resource sharing and democratic exercise of power. Article 201 insists on openness and accountability in public finance.
Together, these provisions were designed to dismantle presidential largesse and place citizens at the center of governance through structured participation. Development, under the Constitution, is a right guaranteed equally to all Kenyans, not a presidential token dispensed selectively to loyalists.
The tragedy is not only the resurgence of these practices but also the complicity of once-respected voices of democracy. Leaders such as Raila Odinga and Siaya Governor James Orengo, who once stood at the forefront of the struggle against imperial presidency, have now chosen to accommodate this order.
Their silence and participation lend legitimacy to the very practices that the 2010 Constitution sought to bury.
If unchecked, this culture will erode the gains of devolution, weaken institutions, and entrench inequality. It will re-establish a political order where citizens must sing praises at State House to secure services that are constitutionally guaranteed. Political patronage defined Moi’s years of turmoil. Its return under Ruto is not merely a step backwards; it is a betrayal of the democratic promise that Kenyans fought for and enshrined in the 2010 Constitution.
Kenya’s democracy cannot thrive on patronage. The country needs principled leadership, vigilant institutions, and active civic voices to resist this creeping imperial presidency before it takes firm root.
Isaac Dan Bw’Onyancha is a governance and leadership expert, commentator, and Director of Public Participation and Civic Education in Nyamira County.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal and do not represent the official position of his working station and/or Kisii Press Club.