Kenyans are political animals. Whether by nature or nurture is another thing although I would infer that it is both.

Despite the truism of this Aristotelian dictum, the fact is Kenyans are intensely political, and oftentimes capitulate to politics despite the fact that there are numerous issues that should occupy their lives. To regurgitate such a simple truism is not important though, it is what people do with the politics that is.

Moreover, the crux of this article is to offer some analysis of Kenya’s politics with the aim of advancing some logical argument about the problem with Kenya’s politics.

Ordinary people consume so much political texts and engage so much in politicking and discussions from the pubs, to church, to their homes, the amount of politics in public discourse can sometimes be suffocating.

What is more, the discussions are sometimes steeped in dogmatic arguments that often cloud what is supposed to be meaningful dialogues about politics and political processes and attendant governance models like democracy or indeed lack of it.

Regardless, the amount of discussions, and the freedom to express one’s opinion reflects the transformation of the Kenyan public.

Despite the fact that this article is undoubtedly one of the many today attempting to diagnose the problem with the country’s politics, it is indubitable that a plurality of arguments adds value to public knowledge about the political process.

Although some may contend that constant media and public criticism detracts from the ‘serious’ business of governing, politicians have often failed to live up to expectation.

Instead they seem obsessed with being at the centre-stage of the public arena of politics, and more often than not want to hog public discourse. They seem obsessed with their places in history even when clearly undeserving.

In most instances, there is an overarching notion that politicians are power-hungry hypocrites and hopeless idealist who think they have the capacity to change the world.

In his book, The Political Animal: An Anatomy, British journalist Jeremy Paxman calls politicians an extraordinary breed that thinks it can save the world, but rightly posits that politics can be an unforgiving business often replete with belittling, disgrace and numerous opprobrium thrown their way.

No matter the problems obtaining the political process, politics is always intriguing as it is exciting. As Andrew Heywood says in his text, Politics, politics is interesting because people disagree. His contention that in politics people disagree on ‘how [they] should live.

Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should society be based on co-operation or conflict? … They also disagree about how such matters should be resolved. How should collective decisions be made? Who should say what? How much influence should each person have…’ reflects the goings-on in Kenya.

Amid the disagreements and the excitement it generates, however, politics is replete with mudslinging, backstabbing, jostling for power, and other intrigues that mystify politics, and alienate the ‘ordinary’ people from this important activity through which, as Heywood would have it, ‘make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live’.

As such, the chief problem with our politics is that it is populated with people who are mainly interested in advancing their own political agendas. In an accountable and moral system, people go into politics because they are interested in serving the public and bringing about change.

Without throwing blanket opprobrium at our political class, I postulate that the majority of the lot we have in Parliament, for example, are opportunistic and parasitic, people intent on sucking as much from the public as possible without a clear political agenda.

This political goings-on remind one of what Niccolo Machiavelli, the great Italian political thinker, says in his seminal work The Prince. Machiavelli posits that "the princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who have laid their foundations upon honesty".

One of the most common, but simplistic, interpretations from the book is that ‘the end justifies the means’.

In this sense, the Kenyan politician will seek to use whatever means to achieve whatever political end, whether conflict or cooperation.

On the same score, the post-election violence resulting from the disputed 2007 presidential election seems to have convinced people that their participation in such decision-making processes is not always necessary.

The use of violence in African politics may be part of coercive mechanisms meant to manipulate and control the political process, but it defeats the very essence of ‘democracy’, however unattainable that ideal may be.

As Alex Thomson posits in his book, An Introduction to African Politics, without legitimacy coercive measures have to be deployed to maintain authority, and a self-interested ruling elite often seek compliance through violence.

He holds that the social contract between rulers and the ruled should be based on trust and respect, not fear and coercion.

In this sense, the political class fails to adhere to even simple conventions of democracy and participatory politics, and perhaps demonstrate their callous contempt for participatory, accountable and transparent politics, and for the people whom they claim to represent.

Without being the devils advocate, it may be that people need to rethink their participation in politics, and whether their participation in activities like elections is actually necessary without fundamental changes to political thinking and culture.

—Dr Nyabuga (gnyabuga@standardmedia.co.ke) is The Standard Group Managing Editor, Media Convergence.