A 'good' dictator is appealing but cost is too high

“Would you trade your freedom for speed and efficiency?” Last week, President Ruto said, “Countries that have succeeded have done so because they are a dictatorship. Once the leader decides, you cannot say no or question.”

On the surface, the argument seems simple: a single leader, unopposed, can act decisively. But history and regional experience suggest a more complicated reality that Kenya cannot ignore. Authoritarianism thrives not only through force but also by weakening institutions, silencing dissent, and controlling information. Autocracies now outnumber liberal democracies worldwide.

According to the Democracy Report 2025, there are 91 autocratic regimes compared with 88 democratic ones. Only 29 countries are classified as liberal democracies, making that the rarest regime type globally. Nearly three in four people now live under authoritarian rule, the highest proportion in decades. This apparent efficiency comes at the cost of freedom, accountability, and long-term stability.

East Africa provides vivid examples. In Tanzania, President Samia Suluhu was declared the winner of a disputed election with 98 per cent of the vote after opposition leaders were barred or detained. Internet restrictions during the vote limited communication, leaving citizens unable to monitor polling stations.

In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni won a seventh term with 71.65 per cent of the vote, defeating Bobi Wine, who received 24.72 per cent. Observers documented intimidation, arrests, and abductions of opposition supporters.

Across the region, authoritarian practices are increasingly normalised. Opposition parties are criminalised, leaders are detained, and funding is withheld to stall political activity. In Kenya, opposition parties have been cash-starved, demonstrating how control undermines accountability. Some argue that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies, citing China under Deng Xiaoping or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.

Yet research shows their success depended on strong institutions, planning, investment in human capital, and respect for the rule of law, not authoritarianism itself. Without these safeguards, concentrated power stifles innovation, misallocates resources, and produces boom-and-bust cycles. Economic distortions are common in autocracies. State monopolies and mismanaged resources may produce short-term growth, but inequality and public debt tend to rise over time.

Freedom House scores, which measure political rights and civil liberties on a scale from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating more freedom, illustrate this pattern in East Africa. Tanzania scores 39, Uganda 32, and Kenya 69. These numbers show that countries with greater political freedom and civil liberties tend to enjoy more stability. Modern authoritarianism uses technology for control. Internet shutdowns, social media manipulation, and surveillance are now common tools to stifle opposition, as seen in Uganda and Tanzania.

Democracies consistently perform better on education, health, life expectancy, and corruption control because citizens can hold leaders accountable. Efficiency without accountability may impress in the short term, but it rarely produces sustainable progress.

Kenya faces a real temptation. Democracy can be slow and messy, while obedience appears faster. But democratic institutions prevent abuse, correct mistakes, and ensure policies serve the public.

Civil society, journalists, and citizens have a responsibility to safeguard freedoms. History shows that authoritarianism may appear efficient, but the long-term cost is stunted development, inequality, and loss of liberty.

As Kenya charts its political future, we face a critical choice: do we want leaders who rule by decree or citizens who shape the nation? The appeal of a “good dictator” may be strong, but the cost of freedom, justice, and stability is far too high. Efficiency may impress in the short term, but only liberty guarantees lasting progress.

-Writer comments on topical issues