Bungoma Governor Ken Makelo Lusaka……Photo/IP
By Peter Mwibanda
Date: 19/9/2025
BUNGOMA, Kenya
Bungoma County, long seen as a hotbed of political activity in Western Kenya, has for decades struggled with a persistent gap between political leadership and development.
From Member of Parliament (MP) to County Assembly (MCA), and governor, many residents argue that those elected into power have failed to faithfully represent or build for their communities.
A critical review of Bungoma’s political history since independence suggests that political chieftaincy — understood as dominance of leadership by political elites, sometimes ethno‑aligned and more concerned with power than public service — has undercut the aspirations of its people.
Early Years: Post‑Independence (1963‑1980s)
Dominance of central parties & ethnic hierarchies. After Kenya’s independence in 1963, Bungoma was part of larger administrative districts under a highly centralized system.
Political loyalty was often tied to national parties such as KANU, and opportunities for development were strongly shaped by how well local leaders aligned with the national leadership.
Marginalization of constituencies or wards often followed from who was in favour with central government.
Emergence of opposition voices. The 1970s and 1980s saw figures such as Lawrence Sifuna, a chartered accountant and MP, who stood out for advocating for farmer welfare (particularly sugarcane growers) and resisting central government excesses.
Sifuna’s resistance was emblematic of the early cracks in the chieftaincy pattern—voices wanting accountability.
However, even in these early years, elected leaders often lacked genuine grassroots structural capacity: roads, water, schools and health centres were poorly distributed, sometimes left to local cooperatives rather than state investment.
Transition: Multi‑party Politics and Increasing Fragmentation (1990s‑2000s)
Multi‑party era opens up competition, but not always service delivery. When Kenya legalized multi‑party politics in 1991, Bungoma saw new parties and more contested elections.
FORD (Forum for Restoration of Democracy) and its splinters (FORD‑Kenya, FORD‑Asili) became important.
Leaders like Wamalwa Kijana, Masinde Muliro and others from within the region became national figures, but many local residents felt that despite greater political freedom, development did not keep pace.
Ethnic sub‑tribes (e.g., Bukusu, Tachoni, Batura, Sabaot) sometimes competed for benefits, and this competition often led to an emphasis on patronage rather than equitable development.
Persistent neglect of marginalized areas. Some constituencies in Bungoma, especially remote or less politically connected ones, consistently lagged behind in infrastructure and services.
Constituency boundaries, for example, have at times disenfranchised voters: Mt. Elgon Constituency still retains its 1963 boundaries and has never been subdivided, despite population growth.
Devolution and the County Government Era (2013‑Present)
Strengths of the devolved system. With the 2010 Constitution and the creation of county governments effective from 2013.
Bungoma got its first governor, Kenneth Lusaka. Devolution promised more local control, greater accountability and more direct investment in public goods.
The County Government of Bungoma has made some gains: promotion of county officers, some improvements in agriculture (e.g. National Value Chain Development Project, where Bungoma earned top recognition) and road infrastructure have been reported.
Weaknesses of governance and political chieftaincy.
Despite gains, many residents remain dissatisfied. Key complaints include:
1. Fragmented leadership and internal party feuds. For example, Ford Kenya (a dominant party in Bungoma) has seen internal divisions.
The rivalry between erstwhile Governor Wycliffe Wangamati and Senator Moses Wetang’ula cost political capital.
Some MCAs have been caught in cross‑fires of allegiance, weakening the ability to demand accountability.
2. Ethnic and sub‑tribal balancing overshadowing performance. Offices and resources are often allocated with an eye to ethnic balance rather than need or performance.
There are repeated calls (e.g. from the Tachoni sub‑tribe) for certain seats to be “reserved” to them to address perceived marginalization.
Critics say this undermines merit‑based leadership and encourages zero‑sum politics.
3. Political promises vs actual delivery.
Many leaders are criticized for failing to deliver basic municipal and rural infrastructure, health, education, water, and roads.
Some county budgets are heavily skewed to recurrent expenditure over development. There are reports that governors spend far more on salaries, allowances, and “petty politics” rather than large scale, lasting public goods.
(Though Bungoma has places where projects have been implemented, many are seen as isolated or benefiting elites.)
4. Lack of accountability and transparency.
Some political officeholders have been accused of corruption, nepotism, and favoring political supporters in allocation of contracts or jobs.
This erodes trust, leads to duplication of low‑quality works, and slows down development.
Recent shifts and potential for change. As of December 2022, the Ford Kenya party retained the senatorial seat in a by‑election, showing its strong organizational grip.
In the most recent elections, Ford Kenya also swept many elective seats in the county, including MPs, showing dominance of the party in face of emerging rivals.
There are also new voices: Tim Wanyonyi, for example, has been endorsed by numerous MPs as a candidate for governor, promising more inclusive, participatory politics across Bungoma.
Why Representation Has Failed to Translate into Development
Several structural and political reasons explain why even elected, ostensibly “local” leaders have not been able to fulfil development expectations:
1. Political chieftaincy over service.
Leadership in Bungoma at many levels has often been more about asserting or maintaining power—through patronage, political alliances, ethnic loyalty—than about delivering services or managing resources efficiently.
2. Lack of continuity and institutional memory. With frequent party switches, political rivalries, and reshuffles, many programmes are started but not completed, or lose momentum across administrations.
3. Resource constraints & misallocation. Devolution brought resources closer, but counties depend significantly on national government allocation, which is often unpredictable.
Some of what is allocated is misused — contracts awarded poorly, inflated costs, low oversight.
4. Ethnic / sub‑tribal politics & marginalization.
Sections of the population feel left out. Sub‑tribes like the Tachoni argue they don’t get their fair share of major political posts, which they claim limits resource influx to their areas.
Leaders sometimes allocate development based on ethnic loyalty, leaving “political or geographical or tribal backwaters” under‑served.
5. Voter expectations, yet limited power. Voters often vote for local leaders based on personalities or promises rather than track record. Once in office, leaders are constrained by bureaucracy, legal limitations and sometimes lack of capacity for planning and execution.
Looking Forward: What Bungoma Needs
To overcome the legacy of political chieftaincy and truly enable development, Bungoma needs:
Strong checks and accountability mechanisms. Empowering local media, civic society, and oversight institutions to monitor performance, expose corruption, demand implementation of promises.
Merit‑based leadership & meritocratic politics. Political parties should vet and promote candidates with technical capacity, proven track records, not just ethnic or political loyalty.
Inclusive governance. Ensuring that all sub‑tribes, constituencies, wards benefit equitably. Opening up leadership spaces (MCA, MP, governor) to diverse voices including women, youth, marginalized groups.
Better planning & project continuity. Long term development plans that transcend political cycles; enforceability of commitments across administrations.
Transparent resource allocation. Ensuring budget transparency, reducing wastage, improving contracting, auditing, public participation in budget formulation.
Conclusion
Bungoma County has immense potential.
With fertile land, a relatively large population, and a history of political activism, it has material and human resources that should lead to development.
Yet political chieftaincy — where leadership is more about power, identity, and personal gain — has too often undermined progress.
For residents to truly benefit, politics in Bungoma must shift from symbolic representation and ethnic balancing to accountable, inclusive, and service‑oriented leadership.
