Who Gets to Speak for Kenya?

Politics no longer needs a newsroom to reach an audience

For decades, political communication in Kenya moved through a relatively recognisable architecture.

Politicians spoke. Newspapers reported. Radio and television amplified. Citizens listened, argued and voted.

That architecture has not disappeared.

But another has grown around it.

Bloggers, YouTubers, TikTok creators, podcasters, online activists and other digital personalities can now build audiences large enough to compete with established media for attention.

A smartphone can become a studio. A social-media account can become a distribution network. And an individual creator can become a political intermediary without owning a newspaper, holding public office or belonging to a political party.

That shift matters as Kenya moves toward the 2027 general election.

The increasingly visible “Wantam” versus “Tutam” argument — shorthand for competing positions on whether President William Ruto should serve one or two terms — offers an early view of what the next political information environment may look like.

But the larger story is not the slogans themselves.

It is the changing answer to a more fundamental question: who gets to speak for Kenya?

The creator is becoming part of the news architecture

Kenya is not unique in this shift, but its highly connected and politically engaged digital public sphere makes the transformation especially visible.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2026 examined the growing role of news creators across countries including Kenya.

In the Kenyan sample, roughly one third of respondents said creators met all or most of their news needs.

That figure needs context.

It does not mean that one third of all Kenyans receive their news exclusively from influencers.

Only a much smaller group — around seven percent in the survey — indicated that creators met all of their news needs.

The more important finding is structural: creators are no longer peripheral to the news system.

They increasingly sit alongside journalists, broadcasters and political organisations as intermediaries between events and audiences.

A political argument becomes a content ecosystem

The debate over President Ruto’s political future illustrates how this system works.

“Wantam” — derived from “one term” — is used by critics who want Ruto to leave office after a single presidential term.

“Tutam” — two terms — has become shorthand for the case for his re-election in 2027.

Both expressions compress complicated political arguments into highly shareable digital language.

They can become hashtags, video hooks, memes, commentary, livestream topics and identity markers.

That makes them useful not only to politicians.

They are also useful to the platforms and creators competing for attention around politics.

A creator does not need to be formally employed by a political campaign to benefit from a polarised political conversation.

If a topic produces clicks, comments, followers and repeat viewing, political conflict itself can become economically valuable content.

When attention becomes an economic asset

This is where the distinction between influence and payment becomes essential.

There are several different economic relationships that can exist around a political creator.

A creator may earn ordinary advertising revenue from a platform. A commercial company may sponsor content. A political organisation may pay for communication. A creator may receive access to political events or public officials. Or a creator may simply discover that strongly political content attracts a larger audience.

These relationships are not equivalent.

Nor should the existence of a communications budget be treated as evidence that particular creators have been secretly paid.

Recent discussion around a proposed KSh100 million communications allocation, for example, is relevant because it demonstrates how political actors are thinking about digital communication.

It is not evidence that KSh100 million has been distributed to influencers.

That distinction is crucial.

The interesting question is broader than whether someone has received an envelope of money.

It is what happens when political influence itself becomes an economically valuable asset.

Many microphones, less obvious accountability

Research published by the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) adds another dimension to the debate.

Its work on Kenya’s emerging 2027 information environment points to influencers, algorithms and artificial intelligence as increasingly important forces in political communication.

This does not make creators inherently less trustworthy than traditional journalists.

Traditional media can be partisan, commercially pressured or wrong. Independent creators can expose stories, reach neglected communities and challenge powerful institutions.

But the accountability structures are different.

A newspaper has editors, identifiable ownership and usually some institutional process for corrections.

A creator may be editor, publisher, salesperson and political commentator at the same time.

That can create independence.

It can also make financial relationships harder for an audience to see.

More voices can also mean more democratic space

It would be a mistake to tell this story simply as the decline of journalism or the rise of political manipulation.

Digital platforms have lowered barriers to political participation.

People who once needed access to a newspaper editor, radio producer or political organisation can now address an audience directly.

Young Kenyans in particular have demonstrated that digital networks can create political visibility outside conventional party structures.

Independent creators can challenge official narratives, document events quickly and bring local issues into national conversation.

The result is not necessarily a weaker public sphere.

It is a different public sphere — more open, more fragmented and often harder to interpret.

The audience becomes the final gatekeeper

The old gatekeepers have not vanished.

They have multiplied.

That moves more responsibility toward the audience.

A political video may be journalism, commentary, activism, entertainment, advertising or some mixture of all five.

The boundaries are not always visible.

Transparency therefore matters more as the creator economy moves deeper into political communication.

Audiences need to know when content is sponsored.

Political actors should disclose paid communications.

Platforms need clearer systems for identifying political advertising and coordinated influence.

And creators themselves face a long-term economic question: whether short-term political reach strengthens or weakens the trust on which their influence ultimately depends.

The important question is not whether influencers are political

Of course they are.

So are newspapers, radio hosts, columnists, activists, business groups, churches, trade associations and citizens.

Political speech is not suspicious merely because it comes from a creator.

The more useful question is whether audiences can understand the relationships behind the speech they are hearing.

Who created it?

Who amplified it?

Was anyone paid?

Who benefits from the attention?

And does the audience know the difference between opinion, sponsorship and political advertising?

Kenya’s new political information system is not simply replacing old gatekeepers with new ones.

It is creating a network in which political influence can move between politicians, journalists, creators, platforms and audiences almost instantly.

The question is no longer only who gets to speak. It is who gets amplified, who pays, who profits — and who the audience still trusts.

Kenya is an early view of a much larger transformation

The tension between traditional media, political actors and the creator economy is not uniquely Kenyan.

Similar shifts are visible across Europe, the United States and other African democracies.

Kenya matters because its young, digitally connected population and highly competitive political environment can make these changes visible early.

The central challenge is familiar far beyond Nairobi: democratic societies want more people to participate in political conversation, but they also need citizens to understand who is trying to influence them and why.

The creator economy has made publishing radically easier.

It has not made credibility easier.