Lawyer Willis Otieno has criticised the current administration’s approach to governance, arguing that public leadership has shifted from policy delivery to constant reinterpretation of the past.
His remarks were shared in a statement published on X, where he questioned how political authority is exercised and assessed in Kenya today.
Otieno said the government appears more focused on revising historical narratives than advancing clear policy positions.
According to him, leadership has been reduced to continuous comparison with previous eras rather than accountability based on present performance.
In his statement, Otieno wrote that the administration “governs less with policy than with a red pen,” suggesting that history is repeatedly adjusted to fit contemporary political messaging.
He added that leadership now resembles “a race with no finish line, only scorekeeping,” where progress is measured through comparisons rather than outcomes.
The lawyer further argued that the government resists evaluation based on its own record.
He said leaders repeatedly revisit the past, positioning themselves against former administrations and public figures who are no longer able to respond.
“They are not content being judged by their own record; they must constantly re-litigate the past,” Otieno stated.
Otieno also took issue with what he described as the selective use of historical legacies. In his view, even deceased leaders are drawn into political contests, with their contributions reframed to support present-day leadership.
He said these actions reflect discomfort with scrutiny of current governance.
Kenya’s political landscape has long been shaped by references to past administrations, particularly during debates on economic management, governance reforms, and national unity.
Historical performance has often featured prominently in political communication, especially during election cycles and periods of public criticism.
Otieno’s statement, however, focused specifically on leadership conduct rather than individual policies or officials.
He characterised the pattern as a sign of insecurity, arguing that sustained engagement with history signals anxiety about present realities.
“It is a curious insecurity: a government so anxious about its present that it keeps arguing with history,” he wrote.