Favours and Privileges Associated with Presidency and Political Loyalty

1. Introduction

The quality of the socio-economic and political environment is fundamentally determined by the nature of governance. Politics, as the process through which societies manage conflict and allocate resources, is an inevitable and central feature of human social organization. David Easton (1965) defines politics authoritatively as the "definitive assignment of values for a society." This points to the core function of political systems: to resolve societal conflicts by producing settlements—policies—that are acceptable and binding.

This paper examines the role of the presidency, as the apex of executive authority, in this allocative process. It argues that the presidency is the focal point through which state resources—from security and infrastructure to jobs and development projects—are channeled. This central role creates a dynamic where political loyalty to the executive can be rewarded with access to these "values," while opposition can result in marginalization. The paper will analyze this dynamic, exploring how the inevitable conflicts over resource distribution are managed by the state and the implications for development and social order.

2. The Inevitability of Politics and the Role of the State

Politics is the primary mechanism for maintaining social order by resolving disagreements through settlement and arbitration rather than violence. The state exists to facilitate this process and, to that end, holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive power, including the law, police, and defense forces (Danziger, 1994). This authority enables the state to make binding decisions, even when they are unpopular, ensuring a baseline of social order necessary for any developmental activity.

The "values" allocated through the political process are the necessities and amenities of modern life: security, jobs, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and wealth. The competition for these resources is the very stuff of politics. The presidency, through its various ministries and agencies, is responsible for their distribution across regions and to different segments of the population. The modalities of this distribution—the policies generated—are inherently political and reflect the priorities and compromises of the governing authority. Without the state's coercive power to enforce decisions, political settlements would remain mere suggestions, and social order would collapse into constant renegotiation or violence.

3. The Presidency as the Fulcrum of Allocative Power

In systems like Kenya's, the presidency is a political office occupied by leaders legitimately elected to form the government of the day. As the head of the executive branch, the president appoints cabinet secretaries and principal secretaries who implement the governing coalition's manifesto. This executive power directly influences the country's political stability, civil service appointments, infrastructural development, and the overall investment climate. Crucially, it determines the evenness of resource distribution.

The capacity of the executive to reward loyalty is a powerful tool for maintaining power. Those perceived as loyal to the presidency and the government often feel more secure and may receive preferential access to state resources and development projects. Conversely, areas or groups perceived as opposition strongholds can be marginalized in the allocation of these coveted values, a practice that can undermine national cohesion and entrench regional inequalities. This dynamic is not unique to Kenya; it is a feature of many presidential systems worldwide, where the concentration of allocative power creates strong incentives for political alignment with the executive.

4. The Imperative of Distributive Justice for Development

While politics has the capacity to play a positive role in development by managing conflicts and mobilizing resources, this outcome is not automatic. The key determinant is how conflicts are settled and resources are allocated. Politics can promote development by sensitizing citizens to their rights and obligations and by creating a peaceful environment for economic activity. However, this potential is only realized in the presence of social justice.

The fairness inherent in social justice—the tenet of "distributive justice"—is essential for sustainable development. When the allocative power of the presidency is perceived as fair and equitable, it fosters national integration and trust in state institutions. When it is perceived as patronage-based and exclusionary, it fuels grievances, undermines social cohesion, and can become a source of instability itself. The quality of life associated with development is unattainable without governance defined by morality and a commitment to equitable distribution. Historical evidence from around the world demonstrates that states that manage resource distribution equitably tend to be more stable and prosperous than those where allocation is perceived as captured by a narrow elite.

The relationship between political loyalty and resource allocation presents a fundamental governance dilemma. On one hand, voters expect that their support for a candidate will translate into development for their communities—a form of democratic accountability. On the other hand, when allocation becomes exclusively tied to political loyalty, it creates a zero-sum game where one community's gain is another's loss, undermining the national solidarity necessary for long-term development. Resolving this tension requires institutional mechanisms that insulate routine resource allocation from short-term political calculations while still allowing for democratic responsiveness.

5. Conclusion

The presidency, as the central institution in the executive branch, holds definitive power over the allocation of state resources. This paper has argued that the exercise of this power is inherently political and creates a dynamic where loyalty to the executive is often incentivized. For politics to fulfill its positive role in conflict resolution and national development, the allocative process must be constrained by a firm commitment to distributive justice.

Constitutional frameworks, like Kenya's 2010 Constitution which mandates equitable sharing of national revenue to county governments, are critical in institutionalizing this fairness. By compelling the executive to develop and distribute resources more evenly, such legal structures help balance political power and channel it towards inclusive development. The future stability and prosperity of any state depend on its ability to ensure that the presidency's allocative power serves the broader goals of social justice and national unity, rather than narrow political interests. Strengthening independent oversight institutions, protecting civil society organizations that monitor allocation, and maintaining a free press that can expose inequities are all essential complements to constitutional provisions.