Why holding presidential elections does not make sense anymore – The Standard

In a provocative reflection on Kenya’s electoral cycle, the author argues that presidential elections are no longer an effective mechanism for choosing leadership. Despite the vast sums—about KSh 36 billion in the 2022 general election—spent on the process, the outcomes suggest the ritual is hollow.
Shortly after votes were cast, parties flipped allegiances, newly opposed politicians became governing allies, and alliances morphed so quickly they nullified the competition the election was meant to cultivate. The article contends that if the exercise ends with almost everyone back in government anyway, citizens should ask: why go through it at all?
The piece walks through the contradictions of the current presidential-vote system. While Kenyans line up to cast ballots drenched in hope, many feel their real choices disappear once elected officials shift gear and alliances post-election undermine the division of power
The author suggests that the direct election of a president in Kenya might be more symbolic than substantive, given that everybody ends up being in government regardless of campaign differences.
Instead, the article proposes a system modelled on parliamentary democracy: elect local representatives (MPs/Senators) who then select the executive, thus reducing the enormous cost of national campaigns and possibly shifting focus toward performance and ideas rather than personality.
The implications are heavy. If Kenyans accept the logic of this critique, then the country may need to entertain structural reforms rather than mere tweaks: a re-thinking of how executive power is selected, how competition functions, and how accountability is maintained. The article contends that continuing the status quo risks democratic stagnation—an expensive electoral cycle that delivers little real change. Reform might restore meaning to elections, reducing waste and refocusing politics on policy and delivery rather than spectacle.