Transparency Before the Ballot

For decades, Kenya’s politics has been defined by ambiguity, personality cults, and a deliberate withholding of critical information from the electorate. Presidential campaigns often revolve around charisma, ethnicity, and dramatic populist promises rather than a clear, verifiable blueprint of governance. Yet elections determine not just who occupies State House but who will run key ministries, shape public policy, manage billions in public funds, and influence Kenya’s developmental trajectory for decades. It is therefore both logical and necessary to demand that presidential candidates disclose their cabinet secretaries, their assigned portfolios, and the Head of Public Service before elections. Such a requirement is not merely procedural; it represents an essential reform aimed at restoring integrity, transparency, and competence within Kenya’s governance ecosystem.

The current system encourages political theatrics over substantive leadership. Candidates spend years campaigning without revealing the individuals who will wield real executive power alongside them. Consequently, voters make decisions based on incomplete information, often only discovering the true composition of a government after the election is concluded. This ambiguity creates fertile ground for last-minute political horse-trading, tribal appeasement appointments, and the recycling of unqualified loyalists rewarded for political allegiance rather than merit. Mandating pre-election disclosure of cabinet nominees would disrupt this culture of opportunism. It would force candidates to assemble credible teams early, demonstrate foresight, and articulate a governance philosophy rooted in competence rather than convenience.

Requiring presidential candidates to deposit their manifestos with the Chief Justice before campaigns begin is another transformative step. Manifestos in Kenya are notorious for their vagueness and their short-shelf-life utility during election seasons. Many are forgotten, altered, or contradicted once the winner assumes power. Depositing them with the judiciary elevates the manifesto from mere campaign literature to a formal social contract. It creates a benchmark against which a government’s performance can be evaluated objectively. It also reinforces the principle that political promises are not ornamental but binding commitments to the people. This move would promote issue-based politics and discourage whimsical post-election policy shifts that undermine public trust.

Requiring candidates to name their Head of Public Service is equally significant, perhaps even more so. The Head of Public Service is the nerve center of government operations, responsible for coordinating ministries, ensuring policy coherence, and managing the machinery of the state. This position influences every arm of the Executive and indirectly shapes national priorities. Yet it is historically filled with little public scrutiny, often serving as a political balancing act. By forcing candidates to disclose who they intend to appoint to this office, the public gains insight into a candidate’s administrative ethos. Are they inclined toward technocracy or patronage? Do they value managerial competence or political loyalty? Such transparency reveals the underlying architecture of a candidate’s leadership long before they assume office.

The broader impact of this reform is profound. It shifts Kenya from personality-driven politics to team-based governance. A presidency is not a one-person enterprise; it is a complex ecosystem requiring specialized knowledge, ethical grounding, and administrative capacity. When candidates present their prospective teams early, citizens can evaluate the collective intellectual strength and ideological coherence of the proposed government. It would become easier to differentiate serious national leaders from populists who rely on rhetoric while lacking the capacity to assemble a competent administration. Voters would no longer be forced to choose blindly but could make informed decisions based on the actual individuals poised to run key sectors such as finance, security, health, education, foreign affairs, and infrastructure.

This reform would also strike at the heart of tribal politics—a persistent cancer in Kenya’s democratic evolution. Tribal mobilization thrives in environments where information is scarce, and uncertainty is high. Politicians exploit ethnic fears by promising vague “representation” after elections, only to later distribute cabinet posts as political favors rather than expressions of national unity. If cabinet nominees are known beforehand, it becomes impossible to manipulate communities with empty assurances. The electorate can see the ethnic, gender, and professional composition of a proposed government and evaluate whether it reflects inclusivity, competence, and national identity. This limits political conmanship, dismantles patronage networks, and forces politicians to compete based on vision rather than divisions.

Moreover, transparency in cabinet selection would elevate public discourse. Citizens would scrutinize the track records, academic qualifications, integrity profiles, and policy positions of each nominee. Civil society, the media, and professional bodies would have the opportunity to interrogate the suitability of prospective officeholders. This creates a culture of accountability long before the government is even formed. It also empowers voters to reject candidates whose proposed teams lack diversity, integrity, or professional merit. In essence, it democratizes the formation of the Executive by making it a public process rather than an internal negotiation among political elites.

The reform also enhances stability and predictability in governance. Investors, international partners, and local institutions prefer clarity. A candidate who presents a clear cabinet lineup communicates seriousness, preparedness, and governance maturity. It signals to domestic and foreign stakeholders that Kenya is committed to institutional transparency and continuity. A government formed through open processes is less likely to be plagued by infighting, conflicting mandates, and abrupt policy reversals. Instead, it is built on a foundation of deliberate appointments and coherent planning.

Importantly, requiring candidates to reveal their teams weeds out those who lack the networks, relationships, and competence to assemble qualified leadership. It exposes career opportunists who thrive on ambiguity and political maneuvering but struggle to build credible policy teams. Kenya has witnessed multiple administrations whose early days were marked by confusion, contradictory directives, and inability to fill key positions, all symptoms of leaders who campaigned without envisioning a functional government. Compelling candidates to present their teams before elections ensures that only serious, prepared contenders advance in the political arena.

Ultimately, this reform aims at restoring sanity in governance. Kenya’s political dysfunction thrives on secrecy, patronage, and improvisation. Transparency in cabinet appointments is a direct antidote to these problems. It creates a political culture rooted in openness, meritocracy, accountability, and respect for public intelligence. It redefines leadership as a holistic enterprise, not a personal ambition. And most importantly, it gives citizens the power to assess the entirety of a proposed government—not just the person at the top.

In a country where public trust in politics is increasingly fragile, such reforms are not just desirable; they are urgently necessary. Kenya cannot continue gambling its future on the hope that individuals who conceal their intentions before elections will suddenly govern with integrity afterward. Democracy thrives on clarity, not mystery. By compelling presidential candidates to reveal their cabinet teams, deposit their manifestos with the Chief Justice, and name their Head of Public Service ahead of time, Kenya can begin the long overdue process of draining the swamp of political conmanship, tribal manipulation, and incompetent leadership. It is a reform whose time has come—and one that could fundamentally reshape the integrity and effectiveness of our nation’s governance.