Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has every right to challenge President William Ruto and build his political base ahead of the 2027 General Election. But the increasingly combative and ethnicised tone of some political exchanges risks weakening the very opposition movement he is trying to lead.
The concern is no longer merely political criticism. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission has opened investigations involving Gachagua over alleged hate speech and incitement, while warning about the broader danger of inflammatory political rhetoric ahead of the 2027 elections.
In my view, Gachagua should tone down the rhetoric and concentrate on the issues that matter to voters.
There is nothing wrong with telling Mount Kenya voters that they have political power. There is, however, a danger in constantly framing national politics through ethnic numbers, regional confrontation and the language of “our people” versus “their people.”
Kenya has been down this road before, and the consequences of political mobilisation around identity are too serious to ignore. The NCIC has recently warned that rising political intolerance and violence could plunge the country into lawlessness.
Gachagua is an experienced politician and a former Deputy President. His words therefore carry significant weight.
If he wants to present himself as a credible alternative to Ruto in 2027, he should offer Kenyans more than anger over his fallout with the President.
He should tell Kenyans what he would do differently.
How would he address the cost of living? How would he create jobs? What would his government do differently on healthcare, education, agriculture and the economy? How would he unite a country that is already politically polarised?
Those are the questions that can turn an opposition campaign into a serious national movement.
There is also a political danger in attacking almost every leader who disagrees with him.
Recent exchanges between Gachagua and leaders such as Mwangi Kiunjuri illustrate how easily political competition can become personal confrontation.
That may energise the political base in the short term, but it can make it harder to build the broad coalition required to win a presidential election.
Gachagua should therefore resist the temptation to answer every critic and every political provocation.
Not every battle needs to be fought.
His strongest argument against Ruto should not be that Mount Kenya has been betrayed or that particular communities deserve political power. It should be that he can offer Kenyans better leadership.
That is a much bigger and more persuasive argument.
Gachagua has an opportunity to transform his political message from regional mobilisation to national leadership.
If he succeeds, he can present himself as a serious presidential contender.
If he remains trapped in confrontational and divisive rhetoric, he risks giving his opponents exactly what they need: an argument that his politics is about ethnic mobilisation rather than national transformation.
The 2027 election should be a contest of ideas, records and solutions—not a competition over who can shout the loudest or mobilise the strongest ethnic bloc.