By Samuel Owino
The presidential debate on April 14th at Daystar University’s main campus was a sight to behold. Candidates for various positions arrived dressed to impress, accompanied by entourages that turned heads and sparked conversations. Their sharp rhetoric and commanding presence brought a unique energy to the event. Daystar’s political scene may not rival the intensity of the University of Nairobi, but it has its charm, like a high-stakes game owned by the privileged. Uhuru could only wish.
In a spirited showdown of ideas and leadership, candidates from various top student positions—international students’ representative, speaker, school governor, secretary general, deputy president, and school president—engaged in a dynamic debate. These coveted roles represent the pinnacle of student leadership, the highest aspirations for any ambitious student, eager to make a difference or not.
The debate had some interesting moments, but what stood out most was what wasn’t said. Contestants often give polished reasons for wanting to be elected, but their real motivation? Power, money, and what they can do with it. This remains unspoken. It’s a reality that shapes student politics, even if no one admits it.
It’s true! Money is the elephant in the room during these elections. Contestants stick to polished answers about leadership and service, steering clear of the financial perks tied to their positions. It’s an unspoken truth that everyone knows but no one dares to address. After all, admitting it outright would risk sounding self-serving and could undermine their credibility. It’s a delicate dance, but the silence on this topic feels like a missed opportunity for transparency.
This unspoken reality is also evident in the promises made during the debate. For instance, Fredrick Imbukwa’s pledge to abolish mandatory payments for the SOEA event sounds appealing, but it’s unlikely to happen. SOEA has always been a paid event, and the cost will only go up. His promise, though well-meaning, feels more like wishful thinking than a realistic plan.
Presidential candidate Lewis Sekento made his mark during the debate. Though he comes across as soft-spoken and gentlemanly, there’s a determined edge to him. His discipline is striking—almost psychotic—and he’s relentless in pursuing his goals. This drive might be all he needs to build a lasting legacy in politics.
Sekento also delivered some memorable lines during the debate. One that stood out was his response to an audience member:
“Having a backward mentality is not a problem. It is unfortunate.”
The remark was sharp and timely, showcasing his wit and composure. With these qualities, he seems well-prepared for the challenges of national politics, should he choose to pursue them.
Edgar Nyambane stood out in the debate despite not being the most popular candidate. His responses were thoughtful and showed a knack for policy-making, making a strong case for why he deserves a shot at the presidency. When asked about addressing drug addiction and mental health, he proposed forming a committee to tackle these issues. While DC3 already works in this area, a dedicated committee could bring fresh perspectives and solutions.
He also addressed the challenges of the university funding model, promising to ensure that government-sponsored students receive scholarships if funding becomes an issue. His ideas reflect a practical approach to leadership, grounded in addressing real concerns. Nyambane might not have the loudest following, but his focus on meaningful policies speaks volumes.
The presidential debate always has its share of forgettable moments, and Jerry Amimo, running under the DUPA ticket, was one of them. He appeared to lean heavily on the party’s popularity rather than presenting any substantial ideas. His contributions lacked depth, leaving little to remember.
That said, leadership is more than just words. Perhaps Amimo’s strengths lie elsewhere—maybe he’s the right person for the job in ways that weren’t evident during the debate. But based on his performance, he struggled to make a convincing case, even to the most forgiving audience.
Though I may not be an expert (in all I have said), I would encourage the newly elected Congress to prioritize wisdom and integrity over popularity. Our choices today set the foundation for a better future—the next year. With the national stage already in disarray, we must begin the change here, within our community. This is where progress takes root, and this is where it must flourish.
An interesting observation. It seems like women often step into deputy roles, which might reflect a broader societal pattern of women being seen as strong supporters rather than primary leaders. But honestly, it’s high time that changed, and seeing more of them vying for the presidential seat would be a game-changer. Maybe it’s about breaking those invisible barriers and encouraging more of our girlies to aim for the highest office. What’s up with that?