If they deliver, even military leaders gain public acceptance

Those familiar with my political philosophy know that I am not a political puritan. Political puritans demand strict adherence to ideological principles, often rejecting compromise or pragmatism in governance. However, in the real world, politics is far from pure. It is a battlefield of negotiation, competing interests, shifting power dynamics, and inevitable compromise. The ideals of transparency, integrity, and ethical governance are admirable, but they often remain elusive.

While we must strive to uphold them, we must also acknowledge that politics operates within a realm where harsh realities shape decisions. This brings us to a phrase that is often debated but rarely understood in its full complexity: "The end justifies the means."

The idea is historically attributed to two figures-some trace it to Renaissance political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli, while others credit Publius Ovidius Naso, commonly known as Ovid. In his work Heroides, Ovid famously wrote, "The result justifies the deed." This phrase, which predates Machiavelli by over 1,500 years, expresses the notion that an action's morality should be judged by its outcome rather than its process.

Although Machiavelli never explicitly stated it, his seminal work The Prince champions a similar view. The book argues that rulers must sometimes employ ruthless and deceptive tactics to attain and maintain power.

In its purest form, the phrase suggests that if the outcome is beneficial, then the actions taken, however controversial, becomes acceptable. This principle raises difficult ethical questions: Should we excuse morally questionable decisions if they lead to success? Is legitimacy less critical than effectiveness? I will give two case studies.

One of the most compelling modern examples is the dramatic rise of Ibrahim Traore, the young leader of Burkina Faso. On September 30, 2022, the world woke up to the news that the country had fallen into the hands of the military, with Traore leading a coup that ousted interim president Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba.

Military coups are generally condemned as unconstitutional, but Traore justified his actions by pointing to worsening security conditions and growing public dissatisfaction under Damiba's regime. Three years later, Traore is an admired figure across Africa. His emphasis on pan-Africanism, sovereignty, and economic independence has earned him praise. He has nationalised gold reserves, strengthened domestic industries, and reduced foreign influence, particularly from former colonial powers who are seen as leeches in Africa.

What am I saying? Although Traore rose to power through unconventional and unconstitutional means, many argue that his governance has been effective. If a leader restores stability, promotes economic growth, and rekindles national pride, does it matter how they assumed power? This is where the question of whether the end justifies the means becomes deeply relevant.

Closer home, Kenya provides another striking example. Mwai Kibaki, the country's third president, is hailed for his economic reforms, infrastructure development, and commitment to education. His leadership transformed Kenya's economy, bringing growth and progress that still shape the nation today.

Yet, his second term remains controversial, marred by accusations of electoral malpractice. The disputed 2007 presidential election triggered post-election violence that led to the deaths of thousands and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Kenya teetered on the edge of collapse, but in hindsight, Kibaki's governance is now widely admired.

Many Kenyans wish future leaders could emulate his development policies, despite the political turmoil surrounding his re-election.

This paradox raises uncomfortable yet undeniable truths. At the time, Kibaki's alleged election malpractice led to immense suffering. Yet today, his leadership is remembered more for its economic achievements than its contested legitimacy. The question remains: Should a leader's effectiveness overshadow the means through which they gained power?

To the chagrin of political puritans, citizens demand leaders who deliver results, not simply those who adhere to procedural correctness.

So, while democratic legitimacy is essential, history repeatedly shows that the masses forgive, overlook, and even justify questionable political manoeuvres if they lead to economic growth, security, and national progress.

Dr Ndonye is the Dean, School of Music and Media, Kabarak University