YVONNE'S TAKE: 2027 - It's political dinner time

As we approach another election, Kenyan politics is beginning to resemble a giant negotiation table.

The ruling party is talking to its former opponents. Opposition leaders are talking to one another. Parties are exploring alliances, movements are finding their place, and political principals are working through who should lead, who should follow and who should carry the flag.

There are meetings about meetings, consultations about consultations, and negotiations over the terms of the next political arrangement.

And all of this is perfectly legitimate. In a democracy, political parties are entitled to negotiate, form coalitions and seek the numbers they need to govern.

But somewhere in all this political arithmetic, I have a question.

Where are the people?

Not the people as a voting bloc. Not the people as a regional stronghold. Not the numbers a politician claims to command. The actual people. The young Kenyan looking for work. The parent struggling with school fees. The household trying to make its income stretch to the end of the month. The citizen who wants a functioning hospital, accountable government and a police service that protects rather than intimidates.

What, precisely, are they being offered in exchange for their votes?

Across the political divide, formations are negotiating their futures. The ruling coalition is discussing electoral cooperation and a shared programme. The United Opposition, DCP, Linda Mwananchi and other formations are grappling with alliances, competing ambitions and how to approach the next election.

There is nothing inherently wrong with political alliances. They can bring together different constituencies and ideas to build a broader governing programme. But a coalition is a means to an end. It is not the end itself.

And this is where the questions become important. Beyond negotiations over who gets the presidential ticket, who becomes running mate, which party gets which seats and how political interests will be accommodated, what exactly are these alliances agreeing to do for the country?

Because there is a difference between agreeing on who should govern and agreeing on how the country should be governed.

Political formations can unite around the desire to win an election without necessarily agreeing on what they would do with power. They can agree on a candidate and still disagree on taxation, public debt, jobs, policing, public services and the reforms needed to make government more accountable.

These are not minor details to be worked out after the election. They are the substance of the mandate being sought from the people.

To the ruling coalition, the questions are straightforward: Beyond sharing political power, what specific and measurable commitments will define your joint programme? What happens to existing promises and reform commitments, and how will citizens assess whether they have been honoured?

To the United Opposition, DCP, Linda Mwananchi and other formations seeking to build an alternative, the questions are equally direct. Beyond agreeing that you want a different government, what do you agree should replace the current one? Where do you differ on the policies that will shape the lives of Kenyans? And how will those differences be resolved?

It is not enough to tell Kenyans you can defeat the other side. You must explain what you intend to do with the opportunity to govern.

There is also the question of who gets a say in these negotiations. What role will ordinary party members and citizens play in selecting candidates and shaping policy? Or will decisions be made by a handful of political principals and presented to the public as a fait accompli?

After all, politicians routinely invoke the people. They speak of their regions, their bases and their voting blocs. They talk about delivering communities, securing constituencies and taking votes from their opponents.

But no politician owns a community's votes. No party has a permanent entitlement to a region. Citizens are not political property to be transferred from one alliance to another. Their allegiance is not an asset to be traded between political principals.

The opposition must be asked to explain what it would do with power just as rigorously as the government must account for what it has done with power. Wanting a different government is not, on its own, a governing programme. Equally, having a programme does not exempt a government from scrutiny over its delivery.

Citizens should not have to choose between competing personalities without understanding the choices before them. What are the priorities? How will they be financed? What will be done first? What safeguards will prevent the next administration from repeating the mistakes of the last?

These are the questions that should drive the national conversation, not merely speculation about who is meeting whom and who might be offered what position.

Ultimately, political alliances are not the destination. They are a means to an end: a programme of government that improves lives, protects rights and uses public resources responsibly.

So, as politicians negotiate the terms of the next election, citizens should insist on negotiating their own terms, too.

What are you committing to? How will you pay for it? How will we measure your performance? And what consequences will you face if you fail?

The presidency is not a prize to be won and divided among political allies. It is a public trust. The power being sought is borrowed from the people.

Before politicians finish deciding who gets what, Kenyans should be asking a more fundamental question:

What, exactly, are we getting?

That’s my take.