• There are those who go into politics for gainful employment.
• There are those who get into politics because they have a chequered past and want protection.
In Kenya, aspirants for elective office have very different motivations for running for office.
Some go into politics for gainful employment; some get into politics to retire after they have made something of themselves; some get into politics because they have a chequered past and want protection that comes with being a Mheshimiwa and then some get into politics to get rich.
The first category often gets disappointed when they realize the salary they thought was a lot is hard enough after they have taken a car loan and a mortgage all of which must be cleared within five years.
Then there is the expectation from voters, especially for those from rural constituencies, that they will contribute money for every funeral, Harambee, church-building scheme, hospital bills – and that not giving these contributions is a sure way to serve for only one term.
This lot either get disillusioned with their work or look for shortcuts to make money.
They are the kind that gets bribed by as little as 10,000 shillings to expunge a name from an adverse Parliamentary/Assembly report or just throw out the report altogether.
Those who go into politics because they have made their money and are after self-actualization tend to be the most focused lot.
They have no pressure on money and often do not care if they lose at the next election because they have a life to go back to.
Then there are the criminals or associates of criminals who go into elective politics and use their ill-gotten wealth to buy them the seats.
They then use their newfound powerful connections to protect either themselves or their associates from being held accountable by law enforcement, especially when they belong to the ruling party.
This lot includes people involved in all manner of criminal activities and range from drug dealers to multinational scammers and flashy entertainers who live lives not supported by their works of art.
And finally, there is the group of aspirants that often consists mainly of former senior government workers – Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, Parastatal Chiefs and Senior Directors – people who understand how Government works and know-how to enrich themselves from public funds.
They have no interest in offering public services.
Their appetite for public funds is so high that their only reason for running for office is to use the power to enrich themselves further.
This group should worry us the most because they are the ones likely to cart away billions of taxpayer money that would otherwise be used to provide essential services to the electorate.
This concern was aptly captured by a viral tweet recently:
“The entire government is resigning to join politics. The entire civil service that is envied for attractive employment terms, stable salaries and pension schemes are resigning to join politics…Their motivation is not to join politics and make favourable policies for everyone…it is scary when a nation makes politics the only lucrative trade and stifles others.”
True to his assertions, several public officers have since resigned from office to start their political campaigns.
Whereas there are Constitutional, statutory and institutional frameworks intended to sift through the crowd of candidates and ensure that the voter only chooses from those leaders with vision and integrity, this is often not the case.
In spirit, the framers of our constitution intended that those whose names appear on the ballot should be individuals who meet the requirements of Chapter Six on leadership and integrity.
In reality, however, we have seen even those removed from office for abuse of office still seeking elective office.
And this is because of our flexible relationship with corruption.
On one hand, we abhor the vice of corruption and on the other hand, we are swayed by the opulence of our corrupt politicians and demand that their opponents also doll out similar goodies as them if we are to listen to and elect them.
We are a citizenry that seems irked by corruption only when we do not benefit from it and look the other way when it does.
Among this current lot of aspirants who have just resigned from Government are several people who have been accused of corrupt practices and yet they are now pouring their ill-gotten wealth on the campaign trail as they aspire to be our Governors, MPs and MCAs.
Presidential aspirants have not been left behind.
Despite all this, the voters who know it is their stolen taxes will without question still accept the handouts and bribes from the public servants turned politicians.
Their supporters will not even allow discussions on their integrity as they shout, “Ni Mwizi Wetu” when the same crowd would very quickly burn a chicken thief.
The same situation will likely play itself in the media.
One would expect that the media as the eye and conscience of the public would be at the forefront in exposing these misdeeds and informing the public on the character and suitability of the candidates.
However, the electioneering period also happens to be the most lucrative for media houses as the thousands of aspirants and tens of political parties spend hundreds of millions on advertisements as they try to outdo each other.
And given that he who pays the piper calls the tune, these deep-pocketed former public servants will essentially decide how the media portrays them as they buy journalists, their editors and even their media houses through advertisements.
Nevertheless, all is not lost.
We have made great strides in the fight against corruption and the unfolding political situation should instead multiply our efforts.
We should take this opportunity to have a collective conversation about the nexus between corruption and politics.
In particular, does our political culture perpetuate corruption or is it corruption that perpetuates our political culture?
As voters, are we capable of interrogating the aspirants’ sources of wealth when their campaign resources do not match their known legitimate sources of income?
Which legal and institutional frameworks exist for this exercise and how have they enabled or addressed this situation in the past?
The Multi-Agency Taskforce on corruption has its work cut out during this political season.
The existing structures that have enabled quality and timely research and investigations on corruption will come in handy in highlighting their anti-corruption initiatives during this period.
Increased partnerships with institutions such as the Registrar of Political Parties and Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission will also facilitate more transparent and reliable engagements on its anti-corruption agenda in the next few months.
In addition to this, the MAT institutions can engage in more robust public education involving mainstream and social media to keep the conversation going on as many platforms as possible.
In the end, we must all work together to promote a free, fair and sustainable political space that promotes our collective welfare, while protecting the best of our resources for future generations.