By Paul Njenga, Researcher and Finance & Development Expert
As political activity gradually gathers momentum ahead of the next electoral cycle, Kenyans are once again being treated to ambitious promises, grand visions, and bold declarations from aspiring leaders. While vision is an essential ingredient of leadership, it must be anchored in reality. In this regard, the observation by Ndindi Nyoro that anyone seeking the office of Governor or President should first understand the prevailing conditions under which government operates deserves serious consideration.
The temptation during campaigns is often to promise everything to everyone. Candidates pledge to create jobs, lower taxes, build infrastructure, improve healthcare, transform agriculture, and expand social protection programmes, all at the same time. Yet governing is not an exercise in wishful thinking. It is the management of scarce resources amid competing priorities and often difficult circumstances.
Those aspiring to lead counties or the nation must therefore begin by demonstrating a clear understanding of the realities they will inherit. They must appreciate the state of public finances, the revenue outlook, debt obligations, pending bills, demographic pressures, infrastructure deficits, and the broader economic environment. Without such appreciation, campaign promises risk becoming little more than political slogans.
At the county level, gubernatorial aspirants must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the environment they seek to inherit. This includes appreciating the magnitude and composition of pending bills, the county’s fiscal position, the existing revenue collection systems, and the effectiveness of current human resource structures. Equally important is a thorough understanding of county legislation already enacted by County Assemblies, ongoing policy reforms, contractual obligations, and regulatory frameworks that are at various stages of development and implementation.
Effective leadership is not about starting from scratch or governing as though history began on the day one assumes office. Rather, it is about understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks embedded in the systems, policies, projects, and institutions one inherits. Leaders who fail to appreciate these realities risk disrupting ongoing programmes, creating policy uncertainty, and delaying development outcomes that citizens expect from their governments.
The importance of understanding existing conditions is particularly evident in public finance management. Governments do not operate in a vacuum. Every administration inherits commitments from its predecessors. Salaries must be paid, loans serviced, contracts honoured, and essential services maintained. These obligations significantly influence the fiscal space available for new programmes and projects.
At both national and county levels, leaders often discover after assuming office that the resources available are far less than what campaign rhetoric suggested. Revenue collections may underperform projections, expenditures may exceed expectations, and inherited liabilities may constrain development spending. The result is a growing gap between promises and delivery, leading to public frustration and declining trust in government.
A responsible gubernatorial candidate should therefore explain not only what projects they intend to undertake but also how they intend to finance them. Citizens should demand realistic proposals supported by credible revenue projections, expenditure rationalisation measures, and practical implementation strategies. Development cannot be achieved through declarations alone.
A case in point is Laikipia County, where a change in administration was accompanied by the abandonment of several flagship initiatives associated with the previous government under Ndiritu Muriithi. Among these was the county’s pioneering infrastructure bond initiative, conceived as an innovative mechanism for financing long-term development projects. Long-term leasing arrangements and other strategic reforms initiated by the previous administration were also discontinued or substantially altered.
Whether one agreed with these initiatives or not, their discontinuation raises important questions about how governments evaluate inherited programmes and investments. Before terminating any initiative, a responsible administration should assess the resources already committed, the anticipated benefits, the implementation status, and the long-term implications of abandoning it. Public investments should not be judged by who initiated them but by the value they are capable of delivering to citizens.
To be clear, this is not an argument for continuity for its own sake. Blind continuity can be as harmful as reckless change. If existing policies, systems, projects, or institutions are underperforming, they should be improved, restructured, or replaced altogether. Citizens do not elect new leaders to perpetuate mediocrity; they elect them to deliver better results and accelerate development.
The real issue is whether change is informed by a proper understanding of what already exists. An incoming administration should not discard a project because it was initiated by a predecessor, nor should it retain one simply because it is already in place. The test should always be whether the intervention creates public value and advances development objectives. Effective leadership therefore requires the ability to distinguish between what should be scaled up, what should be reformed, and what should be abandoned.
Another common mistake made by incoming county administrations is the tendency to abandon existing revenue collection systems and procure new ones merely to signal a departure from their predecessors. What is often overlooked is that revenue management systems are public assets acquired using taxpayers’ money. They embody significant investments in technology, data, institutional knowledge, business processes, and human capacity developed over many years.
While there may be legitimate reasons to upgrade, integrate, or enhance existing systems, replacing them wholesale without a thorough technical and financial evaluation can result in unnecessary expenditure, disruption of revenue streams, loss of historical data, and reduced operational efficiency. More importantly, it undermines the principles of prudent public financial management.
County governments should treat revenue collection systems in the same manner they treat any other public asset. The key consideration should not be who introduced the system, but whether it is effectively serving the county’s interests. Incoming administrations should focus on improving functionality, sealing revenue leakages, strengthening oversight, and maximising collections rather than pursuing costly replacements driven by political considerations.
The same principle applies to human resource systems, development plans, policy frameworks, regulations, databases, and institutional structures. Counties do not inherit liabilities alone; they also inherit valuable assets, systems, knowledge, contracts, and governance frameworks that have been financed by public resources. Good leadership requires understanding these assets before making decisions regarding their future.
The aspiration should therefore not be continuity but progress. Counties and nations move forward when leaders build on strengths, correct weaknesses, and introduce innovations that enhance efficiency, service delivery, and economic growth. The most successful administrations are not those that preserve everything they inherit, nor those that discard everything they find; they are those that have the wisdom and courage to make evidence-based decisions in the public interest.
Similarly, presidential aspirants must demonstrate a deep appreciation of the country’s economic realities. Kenya faces a complex mix of opportunities and challenges, including public debt management, youth unemployment, climate-related risks, infrastructure financing needs, and the imperative of sustaining economic growth. Addressing these issues requires more than political charisma; it requires technical understanding, strategic thinking, and policy coherence.
An honest conversation about these realities would significantly improve the quality of political discourse. Instead of competing over who can make the biggest promises, candidates would compete on the strength of their ideas, the credibility of their plans, and their understanding of the challenges facing the country. Such a shift would empower voters to make more informed choices and strengthen democratic accountability.
There is also a broader lesson for citizens. As voters, we must resist the allure of unrealistic promises and instead reward leaders who demonstrate honesty, competence, and a clear grasp of prevailing circumstances. It is easy to applaud ambitious pledges during campaigns; it is far more important to interrogate whether those pledges can realistically be achieved.
The future of Kenya depends not only on the quality of its leaders but also on the quality of its public discourse. Elections should be opportunities for serious conversations about policy, governance, and development rather than competitions in political theatre. Leaders must be prepared to tell citizens not only what they want to hear but also what they need to hear.
Ultimately, leadership begins with an honest appreciation of reality. A Governor or President who understands existing conditions is better positioned to make informed decisions, allocate resources effectively, manage expectations, and deliver meaningful results. Vision remains important, but vision without realism is merely aspiration.
As the next generation of leaders presents itself to the electorate, Kenyans should ask a simple but fundamental question: Do these individuals truly understand the conditions they seek to inherit and govern? The answer may well determine the success or failure of their leadership long before they take the oath of office.
