Mundalo Advice argues opposition lacks alternative plan, calls for accountable policies

MD. Two Cents Leadership Institute, Mundalo M. Advice says Kenya’s political discourse is increasingly driven by emotion rather than structured policy alternatives.

He argues that while government presents documented plans, opposition politics often focuses on criticism without clear solutions, warning that citizens remain the biggest losers in a cycle of unproductive narratives and weak accountability in governance.

Speaking on a Radio Generation interview on Monday, he contrasted the current administration with the opposition, noting that President Ruto has presented what he describes as a documented plan and “charters” that outline his agenda, saying critics can refer back to them when assessing performance.

In his view, this creates a clearer basis for accountability compared to opposition politics.

According to him, the opposition has not clearly articulated an alternative governing plan, instead focusing on removal of leadership.

He questions what follows such political change, insisting leaders must explain how services such as education, healthcare, policing, and judiciary funding would be improved in practical terms.

He further criticised what he described as a culture of performative public participation, arguing that when citizens are transported or incentivised to attend forums, the outcome of such discussions is often already predetermined, suggesting that consultation processes can be manipulated rather than being genuinely inclusive.

The analyst also reflects on Kenya’s broader governance challenges, describing a political culture that he says is “extractive, exploitative, and it’s about riches for no work,” noting that such behaviour cuts across national and county governments.

He argues that devolution has not fully achieved its promise, citing tendencies by some leaders to centralise resources and weaken sub-county structures, leaving ordinary citizens disengaged from decision-making processes.

On opposition politics, he says current strategies rely heavily on highlighting government failures without offering measurable alternatives, adding that this risks deepening public frustration without providing a roadmap for improvement.

He further warns that while criticism plays an important role in any democratic system, it must go beyond fault-finding and be accompanied by clear, workable proposals.

According to him, meaningful opposition or public debate should include detailed plans on how public services will be funded, how institutions can be strengthened, and how accountability can be ensured across the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

He argues that without such structured alternatives, political discourse risks becoming reactive rather than constructive, leaving citizens without a clear sense of direction on how governance challenges will be addressed.

In his view, the absence of practical policy proposals weakens public accountability because it reduces debate to criticism without solutions that can be measured or implemented.

Mundalo says Kenya’s biggest challenge remains the ordinary citizen, who he describes as being caught between competing political narratives that are often emotionally driven and not always grounded in practical governance realities.

He suggests that this environment makes it difficult for citizens to clearly distinguish between rhetoric and actionable policy, resulting in frustration and disillusionment with the political process.

He further implies that when political debate is dominated by conflicting messages without clear policy direction, it becomes harder for the electorate to evaluate leadership based on performance and delivery.

As a result, he argues, citizens are frequently left navigating a complex political space where promises, criticism, and counter-criticism do not necessarily translate into tangible improvements in everyday governance outcomes.

In his conclusion, he called for a more disciplined political conversation, where both government and opposition are held to account not only for what they criticise, but also for the concrete solutions they propose to improve public welfare and institutional performance.