MWITI: Why Shareholder government politics threaten Kenya’s democracy and unity

When a senior opposition figure recently proposed the creation of a “shareholder government,” it struck at the very principles of inclusive governance enshrined in Kenya’s Constitution.

The idea, which has sparked widespread controversy, suggests that those who voted for the Kenya Kwanza administration should be first in line for government positions and influence.

According to legal experts, this proposal is both constitutionally invalid and threatening to the nation’s democratic cohesion.

In a corporate context, shareholders invest capital and expect returns proportional to their stake.

Transposing this logic onto government, the proposal suggests that citizens who voted for a leader become “shareholders”, enjoying primary access to public resources and appointments.

 Those who supported other candidates would receive fewer or no benefits. Critics have described shareholding politics as a system of exclusion inconsistent with devolution and the constitutional order enacted in 2010.

 Preferential access to government services based on politics also entirely contradicts the most basic principles of democracy.

Kenya’s constitutional framework assigns sovereignty to all citizens, not to select groups defined by electoral support.

Leaders who assume office, whether by narrow or overwhelming margins, are duty-bound to govern for the entire population.

Every taxpayer, every voter, and every citizen is entitled to equal protection, services, and representation under the law.

Transforming voting into a transactional entitlement corrodes the foundational idea of citizenship.

It risks turning elections into investments, where reward is contingent on political loyalty rather than national need.

This undermines civic solidarity, accountability, and the inclusivity that democratic governance requires.

Exclusion of the Majority

Imagine if a leader governed only in the interest of the 30 percent who voted for him, leaving the remaining 70 percent effectively sidelined.

Under a shareholder model, these Kenyans could be deprived of state services, marginalised in public appointments, or ignored in planning initiatives.

Such exclusion defies constitutional guarantees and deepens regional or ethnic divides. It’s a recipe for distrust, alienation, and instability.

Studies have demonstrated that exclusionary resource allocation erodes economic development and democratic resilience.

A study by MIT political scientist Mai Hassan and colleagues analysed property rights distribution from the early 1960s through 2013.

 The researchers found that during periods of democratic rule, Kenyans were far more likely to be formally registered for property rights than during autocratic regimes — rising from about 6 percent per year under autocracy to about 9 percent under democracy.

Land rights tended to be disproportionately granted to groups aligned with the ruling coalition during autocratic phases, whereas more balanced allocation occurred during electoral democracy.

Democracy works best when institutions are strong, political parties are active, and leaders focus on inclusion instead of personal gain or outdated, elitist policies.

As analysts at the Brookings Institution argue, democracies in Africa flourish where accountability is enforced and elites commit to inclusive coalitions. A shareholder-style regime would reverse this trend.

Kenyan commentators and experts have strongly condemned shareholding rhetoric as a betrayal of national unity. They argue that it represents ideological violence and erodes political choice by imposing exclusion based on voting patterns.

The concept also sets a precedent for retaliatory governance. If one administration restricts benefits to its backers, future governments may reciprocate.

 It risks creating a dangerous cycle that undermines impartiality and long-term stability.

The Way Forward

Kenya’s post-2010 constitutional framework, which prioritized fair resource distribution, was designed precisely to strengthen national unity and eliminate societal exclusion.

Since the launch of Vision 2030, successive governments have worked to move away from the idea of shareholding politics, emphasizing that development should be based on need and not political loyalty.

The “shareholder government” concept is fundamentally incompatible with Kenya.

It transforms civic participation from a voice into a commodity and risks institutionalising deep divisions.

Kenya’s democracy remains fragile but valuable. Its strength lies in its promise of representation and dignity for all citizens, regardless of how they voted.

It’s imperative to build on those strengths rather than trade them for power or loyalty.

Shareholding belongs in boardrooms and not in governance.

In a republic, every Kenyan is a stakeholder from birth and citizenship.

 Any attempt to redefine that principle is a rejection of our shared democratic journey.