Is Kenya’s Broad-Based Government Unity or Political Convenience?

By Esther wasonga. 

The idea of a “broad-based government” has once again entered Kenya’s political vocabulary, stirring debate across the country. Supporters describe it as a symbol of unity and stability. Critics see it as a political arrangement that blurs the line between opposition and government accountability.

In Kenya, coalition politics is not new. Since the days of the Grand Coalition Government following the 2007–2008 post-election crisis, power-sharing agreements have often been presented as solutions to political tension. Today’s broad-based approach follows a similar script: bring rivals into government, calm political temperatures, and move the country forward.

On paper, it sounds reasonable. When political leaders who once clashed publicly now sit at the same table, it can reduce hostility and foster national cohesion. In a country where elections are highly competitive and often divisive, stability is not something to dismiss lightly.

However, unity at the top does not automatically translate into relief for citizens at the bottom.

Many Kenyans are grappling with high taxes, the rising cost of living, unemployment, and public debt concerns. For them, the debate is not about who shakes hands with whom—it is about whether policies improve their daily lives. If a broad-based government becomes merely a sharing of positions rather than a sharing of responsibility, then its purpose is lost.

There is also the question of accountability. In a healthy democracy, the opposition plays a critical role in checking the government. When major opposition figures join the executive or align closely with it, who remains to question decisions robustly? Who speaks for dissatisfied citizens without fear or compromise?

Supporters argue that inclusion strengthens democracy by ensuring diverse voices are part of decision-making. Critics counter that too much political inclusion at the top can weaken democratic oversight. Both arguments carry weight.

Ultimately, a broad-based government should not be judged by political optics but by performance. Does it lower the cost of living? Does it create jobs? Does it strengthen institutions? Does it protect freedoms? These are the measures that matter.

Kenya does not need unity for its own sake. It needs unity with purpose—unity that delivers tangible change, not just political comfort.

If the broad-based government is truly about national interest, then citizens should see clear, measurable benefits. If not, history will remember it as another political arrangement that served leaders more than the people.

In the end, the true opposition in any democracy is not a political party—it is the unmet needs of the people.