The future of our peaceful coexistence will depend not only on the leaders we elect but also on the communication systems we build around them
Who advises our political leaders before they step behind a microphone? Do they fully understand that words can inflame tensions and, in the worst cases, cost lives? If they do, why do they continue to make statements laced with inflammatory rhetoric, ethnic contempt, and political incitement?
Judging by the stream of political utterances that have dominated headlines in recent months, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that far too many politicians either lack professional communication advice or choose to ignore it. Perhaps that explains why we find ourselves trapped in the same cycle, election after election.
The pattern is predictable. Whenever hate speech or political incitement is reported, our institutions respond with summonses, demands for apologies, and stern warnings. And too often, it ends there.
The familiar script replays with every electoral cycle. This begs an uncomfortable question: Are we really making progress in preventing hate speech? Or are we simply marking time while repeating the same responses to the same problem?
I believe one of the missing pieces in addressing this challenge is hiding in plain sight. Just as governments and organisations rely on communication departments to manage communication risks, protect institutional reputation, and strengthen public trust, our political leaders should be encouraged– and, for certain public offices, eventually required– to establish professional communication units within their offices to strengthen responsible leadership, manage communication risks, and safeguard public trust.
Walk into the office of many politicians, and you are likely to find personal assistants, political strategists, social media managers, bloggers, political aides and, in a worrying trend, even hired goons. What you may not find is a professional communication adviser.
And where one exists, they are too often expected to amplify political messaging rather than challenge it.They are expected to amplify political messaging instead of providing professional support. That absence– or unwillingness to heed professional advice– matters because leadership communication should never be left to instinct, political expediency, or partisan loyalty.
Communication professionals do far more than draft speeches or prepare press statements. They identify communication risks before they become crises, test messages before they are delivered, advise leaders during moments of uncertainty, and ensure public communication reflects the responsibilities of public offices.
Above all, communication is not merely a political tool– it is a management profession governed by ethics, standards, and professional judgment.
In corporate boardrooms and key government institutions, communication has long been recognised as a management function. Of course, not every office gets this function right; some remain ineffective for various reasons. Nonetheless, there is structure.
Ironically, those entrusted with the serious responsibility of leading thousands of citizens often treat communication as an afterthought or reduce it to publicity and content creation. Leadership deserves better. So does the public.
James Calhoun Humes, who served as a speechwriter to five US presidents, famously observed, “The art of communication is the language of leadership.”If we help our leaders communicate with restraint, clarity, and respect, they will undoubtedly elevate the quality of our national discourse and strengthen peaceful coexistence.
Whenever I hear our institutions promise tougher action against hate speech, I see not only an enforcement challenge, but also a missed opportunity. Enforcement is necessary, but it addresses the symptoms– not the cause. It is high time we moved beyond asking how to punish hate speech and asked how to prevent it in the first place.
Enforcement alone will not solve this problem. Alongside existing legal measures, Kenya should begin institutionalising professional communication functions within the offices of political leaders. These units would help strengthen responsible leadership through strategic communication planning, message discipline, and the early identification of communication risks.
For this approach to succeed, it will require more than legislation; it will require buy-in. Building that buy-in begins with demonstrating the practical value of strategic communication. Political leaders should be encouraged to trust professionals with the expertise to anticipate communication risks and ensure that public messaging is responsible, ethical, and commensurate with the offices they hold.
The National Cohesion and Integration Commission is well placed to champion this conversation alongside the Media Council of Kenya, the Communications Authority of Kenya, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, and communication practitioners. Together, they can promote voluntary adoption while laying the groundwork for reforms that make professional communication a core function of political leadership.
Ultimately, the future of our peaceful coexistence will depend not only on the leaders we elect but also on the communication systems we build around them. Before leaders need lawyers to defend what they said, they need professional communication advisers to help them decide what should never be said.
However, none of this diminishes personal accountability. No communication adviser can replace integrity, sound judgment, or moral responsibility. Every elected leader must remain fully accountable for every word they utter.
Professional communication advice cannot eliminate poor judgment. But it can stop careless words from becoming public controversies– and prevent public controversies from becoming national crises.
Public affairs and communication consultant
