The reception that President Ruto has received in the Mount Kenya region this week has sparked widespread interest. Some Kenyans, driven by ill will, had hoped for hostility, fueled by narratives suggesting that the President had ‘punished’ the region by allegedly orchestrating Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s removal from office through Parliament.
These sentiments were also amplified by the political campaigns that Gachagua has been conducting in the region. However, the people of Mount Kenya chose a different path by rejecting the theatrics of political hostility and welcoming their president.
Consequently, some Kenyans are overjoyed, while others are deeply offended. Those offended are trying their best to disapprove of the President and those aligned with him are blowing it out of proportion, arguing that the reception is an indication of his exemplary leadership. I am here to say that none of these extreme rejoinders is indisputable.
The journey toward a maturing democracy begins with the growth of individual citizens and, collectively, the masses. It requires a shift from emotional reactions to rational, informed decision-making. By welcoming Dr Ruto, the people of Mount Kenya region have demonstrated exemplary behaviour for a maturing democracy, standing against the tide of those who advocate for violent or divisive approaches to political conflict.
Whether one admires or criticises him, Ruto is the President of Kenya. As such, he deserves the respect and courtesy befitting his office whenever he visits any part of the country. Gone should be the days when a leader would be curtailed from visiting parts of the country domiciled by his critics.
Ruto and his government may not have met the expectations of all Kenyans. Many may feel disappointed by his governance style or disillusioned by his policies. Yet, the reality remains: He is the symbol of national unity, and his ability to travel freely and be received with dignity across the nation are a cornerstone of our democratic principles.
Furthermore, Kenya must rise above the notion that a leader’s relationship with an individual politician equates to their relationship with an entire community as this is both outdated and barbarous.
When Ruto allegedly approved the impeachment of his former deputy, it was a decision based on personal and political incompatibility, rather than a punitive act against Mount Kenya.
There is another angle to the story that Kenyans must understand—the idea that the President’s warm reception in Mount Kenya is a definitive endorsement of his governance is equally flawed. The performance of leaders should not be measured by the hostility or friendliness of the crowds they encounter.
These reactions are easily manipulated. Leaders can fund and mobilise citizens to create chaos, portraying others as having been rejected. Conversely, they can orchestrate public relations campaigns to stage favourable receptions, complete with choreographed praise and media coverage. Neither scenario accurately reflects a leader’s effectiveness.
Authentic leadership should be evaluated based on tangible results—policies implemented, promises fulfilled, and the positive impact on citizens’ lives. A maturing democracy demands that we move beyond superficial indicators and focus on substantive achievements.
If Ruto is warmly received in Mount Kenya, it does not necessarily validate his governance. Similarly, if he were to face hostility, it would not automatically render him a poor leader. Both extremes are unreliable metrics.
There is a popular saying that “leadership is not about being liked; it’s about being respected and delivering results.” What that means is that genuine leadership is demonstrated through tangible achievements, not popularity. Kenya has lagged in development because we often confuse popularity with leadership. That is why we usually elect popular leaders instead of electing genuinely effective leaders.
What then do we say? We are obligated to embrace a more nuanced approach to assessing leadership. Democracy thrives when citizens prioritise evidence over emotion, substance over spectacle. We can genuinely claim to be a maturing democracy if and only if we hold our leaders accountable through informed and rational scrutiny.
Dr Ndonye is a senior lecturer at Kabarak University’s Department of Mass Communication
The reception that President
Ruto has received in the Mount Kenya region
this week has sparked widespread interest. Some Kenyans, driven by ill will, had hoped for hostility, fueled by narratives suggesting that the President had ‘punished’ the region by allegedly orchestrating Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s removal from office through Parliament.
These sentiments were also amplified by the political campaigns that Gachagua has been conducting in the region. However, the
people of Mount Kenya
chose a different path by rejecting the theatrics of political hostility and welcoming their president.
Consequently, some Kenyans are overjoyed, while others are deeply offended. Those offended are trying their best to disapprove of the President and those aligned with him are blowing it out of proportion, arguing that the reception is an indication of his exemplary leadership. I am here to say that none of these extreme rejoinders is indisputable.
The journey toward a maturing democracy begins with the growth of individual citizens and, collectively, the masses. It requires a shift from emotional reactions to rational, informed decision-making. By welcoming Dr Ruto, the people of Mount Kenya region have demonstrated
exemplary behaviour for a maturing democracy
, standing against the tide of those who advocate for violent or divisive approaches to political conflict.
Whether one admires or criticises him, Ruto is the President of Kenya. As such, he deserves the respect and courtesy befitting his office whenever he visits any part of the country. Gone should be the days when a leader would be curtailed from visiting parts of the country domiciled by his critics.
Ruto and his government may not have met the expectations of all Kenyans. Many may feel disappointed by his governance style or disillusioned by his policies. Yet, the reality remains: He is the symbol of national unity, and his ability to travel freely and be received with dignity across the nation are a cornerstone of our democratic principles.
Furthermore, Kenya must rise above the notion that a leader’s relationship with an individual politician equates to their relationship with an entire community as this is both outdated and barbarous.
When Ruto allegedly approved the impeachment of his former deputy, it was a decision based on personal and political incompatibility, rather than a punitive act against Mount Kenya.
There is another angle to the story that Kenyans must understand—the idea that the President’s warm reception in Mount Kenya is a definitive endorsement of his governance is equally flawed. The performance of leaders should not be measured by the hostility or friendliness of the crowds they encounter.
These reactions are easily manipulated. Leaders can fund and mobilise citizens to create chaos, portraying others as having been rejected. Conversely, they can orchestrate public relations campaigns to stage favourable receptions, complete with choreographed praise and media coverage. Neither scenario accurately reflects a leader’s effectiveness.
Authentic leadership should be evaluated based on tangible results—policies implemented, promises fulfilled, and the positive impact on citizens’ lives. A maturing democracy demands that we move beyond superficial indicators and focus on substantive achievements.
If Ruto is warmly received in Mount Kenya, it does not necessarily validate his governance. Similarly, if he were to face hostility, it would not automatically render him a poor leader. Both extremes are unreliable metrics.
There is a popular saying that “leadership is not about being liked; it’s about being respected and delivering results.” What that means is that genuine leadership is demonstrated through tangible achievements, not popularity. Kenya has lagged in development because we often confuse popularity with leadership. That is why we usually elect popular leaders instead of electing genuinely effective leaders.
What then do we say? We are obligated to embrace a more nuanced approach to assessing leadership. Democracy thrives when citizens prioritise evidence over emotion, substance over spectacle. We can genuinely claim to be a maturing democracy if and only if we hold our leaders accountable through informed and rational scrutiny.
Dr Ndonye is a senior lecturer at Kabarak University’s Department of Mass Communication
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
By Michael Ndonye