Do Presidential Debates in Kenya Really Matter?

Hello Millenial Readers, 

Yesterday marked the conclusion of the much-anticipated Kenyan political debates typically held in the last weeks preceding election day. We have watched conversations at the sub-county, county, and national levels. The Presidential and Deputy Presidential debates of 2022 were arranged by the Media Council of Kenya, which collaborated with the Media Owners Association (MOA) and Kenya Editors’ Guild (KEG) to ensure public interests are brought forward.

Various leaders turned up for the debates, we saw all the deputy presidential candidates participate, but only two potential candidates availed themselves. Now the question is whether these debates genuinely serve their intended purpose. Do they offer the best opportunity for Kenyans to evaluate their candidates, or have people already made up their minds, and these events are merely for show? Let’s attempt to assess these issues collectively.

First, the presidential and deputy presidential debates this year were structured differently. 

Candidates were grouped based on their performance in the most recent opinion surveys, which ranked the leaders, and their likelihood of being elected to represent the Kenyan people. Ruth Mucheru Mutua, the running mate for Agano Party presidential candidate David Mwaure Waihiga, and Justina Wamae, the running mate for the Roots Party led by Professor Wajackoyah, participated in the first deputy presidential debate. Rigathi Gachagua of Kenya Kwanza Coalition and running mate for His Excellency the Deputy President William Ruto and Martha Karua of Azimio Coalition led by His Excellency the Former Prime Minister of the Republic of Kenya Honorable Raila Amolo Odinga constituted the second pair. In the presidential debate, the identical pairing condition was used.

I cannot comprehend the rationale for matching the leaders based on this criterion. In earlier years, all prospective candidates were placed on a single podium, allowing them to engage in direct dialogue and pose serious questions about issues impacting our nation. I believe that the new strategy did not provide all leaders with an equal opportunity to interact with other leaders, which is a crucial step for Kenyans in evaluating their leaders and bringing various issues to light.

Only two presidential candidates attended the debate. In the first debate, only David Mwaure Waihiga was there, but his opponent, Professor Wajackoyah, reportedly showed up and then left, arguing that he would not participate unless given the same platform as the honourable Ruto and the former prime minister. Consequently, we were left with more of an interview with Waihiga than a debate between the contenders. Only the current Deputy President attended the second session, while the Honorable Raila decided at the last minute to skip the discussion.

A statement by Raila Odinga’s Campaign spokesperson, Professor Makau Mutua, highlighted that the Azimio flagbearer would not be attending the debate because UDA candidate William Ruto had demanded some issues regarding corruption, and ethics and governance be left out of the national debate. Nevertheless, contrary to this assertion, yesterday’s conversation centred on these crucial concerns. After the discussion, Ruto claimed that his opponent did not attend because he lacked a plan and feared being asked difficult questions.

Since not all candidates participated in the debate, it becomes more challenging to determine the discussion’s influence.

However, do you think that these debates really influence people? No. Based on previous experiences, including the 2017 debates in which President Uhuru did not show up to the discussion but ended up winning the election. Moreover, honourable Abduba Dida articulated himself brilliantly during the 2013 debate but could not gain more than 60000 votes. 

Kenya had a similar strategy to the United States during presidential debates, allowing candidates to speak for themselves and persuade voters to support them. Even though this is a sign of developing democracy, I believe that the media has not done enough to ensure that these debates have the desired effect. Many continue to view the presidential debates as a comedy show where politicians are allowed to bash one other and release their hatred. Most of us recall the 2017 extensively televised debates between eight Nairobi gubernatorial contenders who hurled barbs, accusing each other of corruption, murky business transactions, criminality, and poor leadership, and people laughed at these severe accusations.

I don’t feel, for instance, that yesterday’s discussion gave Kenyans a chance to comprehend what the Deputy President intends to do differently if elected to the most powerful post in Kenya. We were not given an opportunity to understand the Kenya Kwanza strategy. The interview with David Mwaure Waihiga was interesting because it covered various topics, including corruption, food security, education, and environmental challenges.

Even though millions of people were watching around the country, the debate would only affect a few people. Many Kenyans have already made up their minds and are fully aware of whomever they will vote for. Unfortunately, we are frequently influenced by tribal politics, and based on the concept of “Strongholds,” it is difficult to change people’s minds through political debate alone. In addition, by the time we reach the debating period, the majority of Kenyans have already been persuaded and swayed by the campaign meeting propaganda. Thus, it becomes hard to change their minds based on a two-hour debate that is done ineffectively, especially this year.

We must alter the framework of the political debate in Kenya if we need to influence people. We have copied the American debate format, which I believe is counterproductive. In terms of civilisation and political development, we are more than 100 years behind the country. The debates often focus on foreign relations, national debts, budget issues, and other complex policies that the common “mwananchi” may not understand. People want to know precisely how you will help them put food on the table, as this is one of their primary concerns. I am not suggesting that the problems being debated are insignificant; nevertheless, we need to construct a discussion structure that can persuade everyone, including the so-called “Wanjikus.” I would love to see a live interaction between leaders and the public in which the audience asks leaders random questions and the leaders offer creative answers to problems brought up by the audience.

As millennials and gen zs, we must alter our political engagement. I think political debates are a great idea, but we are not conducting them properly. We must find a structure that will be effective for us. As we approach the August election, let’s prioritise Kenya’s problems and pick leaders you believe have your best interest at heart. Let us not allow ourselves to be influenced by tribal politics and propaganda.

Please contribute to this conversation and help me answer these questions. Do you believe the Media Council did enough to guarantee that each contender was represented fairly throughout the debate? Moreover, do you believe that the fundamental problems facing Kenyans are effectively addressed?

Until Next Time.

Fabian ✌✌✌