In public service, inclusivity is not just a constitutional obligation but a critical aspect of governance that ensures equal access to opportunities for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or background. When public appointments favour particular communities, they breed discrimination, weaken institutional integrity, and undermine national unity. Conversely, inclusive practices in hiring foster a sense of belonging, strengthen social cohesion, and enhance the quality of governance.
Inclusivity in public service means ensuring that appointments are reflective of a nation’s diversity. Article 27(4) of the Constitution of Kenya prohibits discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity, gender, and social origin.
Impeached Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s now infamous philosophy of “shareholding” in governance, a concept that became the cornerstone of his political undoing, and which led to his impeachment, was not merely a stray remark.
Mr Gachagua’s governance philosophy can be likened to a vault where power and resources were meticulously parcelled out to those with the right “key”. His belief in the “shareholding” model meant that government opportunities, influence, and privileges were the preserve of his people.
The hiring practices in his office painted a vivid portrait of this vision. In Mr Gachagua’s eyes, governance was not a stage for the entire nation but a boardroom where shareholders from his community held the majority stake, with the rest of the country relegated to mere spectators.
And yet, this approach defied the very principles that are etched into the constitution — a constitution that promises equality, fairness, and inclusivity to all citizens, regardless of where they come from. His staffing practices didn’t just violate laws; they shattered the fragile dream of a united nation, where every Kenyan, from every region, could see themselves reflected in their leadership. Instead, Mr Gachagua’s actions turned public service into an exclusive club, a space where opportunity was rationed by the narrow bounds of ethnicity. By constructing his office as a fortress of ethnic favouritism, Mr Gachagua laid bare the dangers of such exclusionary governance.
The repercussions of such practices have been felt far beyond his office walls. They ripple out into the larger fabric of society, reinforcing divisions that threaten the nation’s collective identity. Like other leaders across Africa who have fallen into the trap of ethnic patronage, Mr Gachagua’s approach serves as a cautionary tale — one where the pursuit of power through narrow tribal affiliations leaves a fractured nation in its wake.
The lessons from countries like Rwanda and Nigeria remind us of the destructive potential of exclusionary politics.
In contrast, countries that have embraced inclusivity, such as South Africa after apartheid, show how diverse representation in governance can be a healing balm for a fractured society. By opening doors to all, regardless of ethnicity, and fostering a meritocratic system, they have laid the groundwork for lasting stability and prosperity.
In the end, Gachagua’s governance was not about building bridges, but about building walls. His tenure stands as a stark reminder that leadership founded on exclusion will inevitably falter. As the winds of change sweep through, the nation must turn its back on the divisive doctrine of “shareholding” and instead embrace a governance where every citizen, regardless of their ethnic background, has an equal stake in the future of their country. Only then can true national unity and progress be achieved.
