DR. HESBON HANSEN: Kenya’s democracy must be defended through tolerance, debate and respect for choice
Kenya’s fledgling democracy remains a remarkable story, an evolving system that continues to demonstrate resilience and progress. Years before devolution, James Orengo once spoke in Homa Bay about the struggle for a country where resources would reach the people regardless of who is in power. Today, his recent actions reflect that very ideal.
In one instance, the Siaya Governor welcomes the President to his county, engaging on issues such as nuclear energy. Days later, he calls on Kenyans to remove what he terms a dictatorial regime under President William Ruto. This contrast is not contradiction—it is democracy in action. Devolution has ensured that power lies with the people, not in performative loyalty or sycophancy. Development and resources no longer depend on political praise-singing but on constitutional guarantees.
Governor Orengo’s political stance does not affect the resources allocated to Siaya. If anything, his call for accountability invites citizens—both in Siaya and across Kenya—to interrogate leadership more critically. That, in itself, is a win for democracy.
Those criticising him must be reminded that he has an inalienable right to his convictions. The Constitution protects not only his views but also the rights of all Kenyans—regardless of political persuasion—to express themselves freely without fear of state clampdown.
Not all Kenyans agree with former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s often sharp criticism of President Ruto. Many, particularly within ODM, take issue with his disparaging remarks about the Luo community and party leader Raila Odinga. Yet he continues to exercise his constitutional right to free expression under Article 33. The same standard must apply across the political divide.
Kenya is a liberal, deliberative democracy governed by the rule of law. Leadership is a product of public deliberation—where competing ideas are tested, weighed, and ultimately endorsed by the majority. Those who support the People’s Loyal Opposition or align with movements such as “Wantam” or “Mimi/Sisi Ndio Sifuna” must be respected. Equally, those who back Dr Oburu Oginga and ODM’s decision to engage with UDA have a legitimate right to make choices in the interest of their constituents.
The freedoms Kenyans enjoy today were not accidental. They are the result of sacrifices by leaders and activists such as Orengo, Gitobu Imanyara, Kenneth Matiba, Charles Rubia, and Raila Odinga, among others. Their efforts ensured that no Kenyan would face repression or resource deprivation for holding dissenting views.
That legacy demands that we deepen our culture of debate—not diminish it. It is therefore unfortunate when leaders resort to insults and personal attacks against others simply because of differing political choices. Disagreement is not betrayal; it is the lifeblood of democracy.
The ongoing attacks on Dr Oburu Oginga, for instance, are both unnecessary and counterproductive. Leadership decisions within ODM have been ratified through party structures, including the National Delegates Conference. Dismissing such leadership as illegitimate or “mediocre” disregards the democratic processes that underpin the party.
Kenya’s political history offers important lessons. President William Ruto himself once served as Secretary-General of KANU before leaving to join ODM ahead of the 2007 elections. Despite his influence, he exited respectfully, acknowledging the party’s leadership direction. His move reshaped the political landscape—but it was done without resorting to insults or hostility.
Similarly, in 2002, Raila Odinga—then KANU Secretary-General—chose to support Mwai Kibaki after disagreeing with President Daniel arap Moi’s succession plan. The Rainbow Coalition did not rely on abuse or derogatory rhetoric; instead, it persuaded Kenyans that there was a better alternative.
That is the standard Kenya must uphold.
Disrespecting leaders such as Dr Oburu Oginga risks alienating those who trust his leadership and undermines the internal cohesion of ODM, particularly as the party transitions into a post-Raila era. Differences in leadership style should not be weaponised but understood within the broader context of party evolution.
While freedom of speech remains guaranteed, it is notable that much of the political noise is directed at personalities rather than substance. It is easier to chant slogans like “Wantam” than to engage with complex issues such as Kenya’s debt burden, fiscal policy, and economic recovery.
Yet it is these substantive debates that matter most.
Critical voices such as Jimmy Wanjigi and Safina’s Willis Ochieng have raised important questions on debt sustainability and economic management—issues that demand serious engagement. Similarly, institutions like the Katiba Institute and leaders such as Senator Okiya Omtatah continue to push for accountability on the cost of doing business, public debt, and access to credit.
These are the conversations that drive meaningful policy responses—not political theatrics.
Take infrastructure, for example. The Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) remains a national investment funded by all taxpayers. Debates around its expansion to Kisumu or its role within China’s Belt and Road Initiative should focus on how it can unlock regional trade—connecting East Africa to Central and even West Africa—rather than being framed through narrow regional interests.
Kenya’s development must be viewed through a national lens.
As ODM emerges from its National Delegates Conference, the party’s leadership must remember that any negotiation for power must ultimately serve the people. It must address critical issues such as debt sustainability, access to affordable credit, and equitable distribution of resources.
Kenya’s democracy will not be defined by who shouts the loudest, but by who engages the most thoughtfully.
Respect for differing views, commitment to substantive debate, and fidelity to constitutional values remain the true test of leadership in a democratic society.