Let's restore role of chiefs in grassroots governance and intelligence

In every village, town and remote settlement, there is a place where the citizen first encounters the State. For generations, that place was the chief’s office.

It was often a modest building, sometimes little more than a desk, a stamp, a register and an officer who knew the community by name. Yet behind that simplicity stood an important institution of grassroots governance. The chief connected government to citizens, translating administrative decisions into local action and bringing community concerns to the attention of the State.

Today, that institution has receded from public debate. Kenya has expanded its political institutions and modern service-delivery platforms, but the structures closest to ordinary citizens deserve renewed attention. Can effective governance be achieved while weakening institutions that connect government directly to communities?

Long before the language of one-stop service centres became fashionable, the chief’s office embodied the principle of bringing government closer to the people. The establishment of administrative locations and deployment of chiefs created a local presence through which citizens could seek assistance, report disputes, raise concerns and participate in public meetings without travelling to distant government offices.

The office’s greatest asset was proximity. A chief’s familiarity with local geography, leadership, family networks and emerging tensions made the position valuable not only for administration, but also for community engagement and early warning.

In this respect, the philosophy behind Huduma Kenya is not entirely new. The modern service-centre model seeks to make public services more accessible through integration. The chief’s office had long served as a local point of contact, although its services and capacity varied across communities.

That proximity also gave chiefs a role in flow of community information. Their contribution to security should, however, be clearly defined. Chiefs are not intelligence officers and must not replace the National Intelligence Service or the National Police Service. Their proper function is to facilitate lawful reporting, identify emerging concerns, support mediation and coordinate with institutions mandated to investigate and respond.

Security often begins with information. Local administrators can help communities communicate concerns, while professional agencies remain responsible for verification, analysis and enforcement.

The challenge today is not simply whether chiefs remain relevant, but whether citizens continue to trust the institutions they represent. Kenya’s democratic development has elevated elected leaders in community life. MPs and MCAs have legitimate responsibilities to represent citizens and articulate public concerns. Yet political representation and public administration are different functions. Elected leaders provide representation and oversight; chiefs form part of the administrative machinery of government.

When these roles become blurred, public administration risks being drawn into partisan competition. The answer is not to diminish politicians, but to ensure administrative institutions serve citizens consistently, regardless of political affiliation.

This requires renewed attention to National Government Administration and Police Service structures. Their contribution to service delivery, peacebuilding and security coordination depends on more than formal authority. Offices need adequate facilities, communication systems, transport, staffing and training.

Authority without capacity is merely a title.

A chief who lacks basic operational support cannot reasonably be expected to deliver effective administration or community coordination. Government must equip the office, establish clear performance standards and ensure accountability, professionalism and respect for constitutional rights.

Community elders should also have a recognised place in this framework. Their knowledge of local history, family relationships, customary practices and longstanding grievances can complement formal administration. Properly constituted and accountable elders’ structures can contribute to mediation, social cohesion and the early resolution of disputes.

The roles should be complementary: chiefs provide administrative coordination; elders contribute community knowledge and mediation; elected leaders represent citizens; police enforce the law; intelligence institutions perform professional intelligence functions; and residents participate through lawful civic engagement.

The future chief must therefore be more than a traditional administrator. Kenya needs an officer professionally trained, technologically enabled, politically neutral, accessible and accountable. The chief’s office should connect with digital government systems and provide clear referrals to health, education, social protection, security and other public services.

Imagine an office where a citizen can obtain administrative guidance, report a concern, learn about government programmes and participate in community dialogue without navigating an unnecessarily complex bureaucracy. Such an office would be a practical grassroots governance hub. There is also a psychological dimension to institutional reform.

Citizens are more likely to trust public institutions when they experience them as fair, accessible, predictable and responsive. Restoring the dignity of the chief’s office therefore requires more than uniforms, vehicles or titles. It requires consistent service and public confidence.

-Professor of psychology and leadership expert