Discussion: My Kenya, My Responsibility: The Identity Upgrade

This is a good question.
Honestly everyone has a price depending on there need and level of integrity. Need being first. I personally would not take as it will be a buy out for later not to be able to hold him/her accountable.

Hello everyone,
I wouldn't accept the money and would vote for the candidate who had a better vision for Kenya's future. While it can save a community a few Ksh 50,000 in the short term, poor leadership and corruption can lead to a community losing millions of shillings in development project delays, quality of services and opportunities. When a leader has a track record of mishandling public money, admitting it from them would only reinforce a system that continues to keep many young people struggling. I would prefer to suffer a few short years of financial loss to see a long-term solution, like a digital hub, jobs and better public services, provided by a leader. That's not being a dreamer to me, it's a long-term investment in the community and the country.

Well, it is more patriotic to reject the money and vote for the vision.
At the moment, taking the Ksh 50,000 could help the youth group but is is just for a short time and is only beneficial for personal gains not the county nor the ward and in addition, accepting it is a way of bribery to power and not a basis for good leadership.Furthermore, it is a vice and encourages corruption which are some of the bad influences that we are fighting this very day and has become the source of most of the problems that our country Kenya is facing today.

I choose to be a dreamer and refuse the money for a better today and tomorrow, by voting for the right leaders and exposing the evils in the society.

In legal arena : a thief and one who received and used the proceeds of crime are one and the same: criminal actors before the eyes of the law.If I take the money i would be encouraging;
corruption,misuse of public funds.Betraying the national values of integrity and Accountability .
I'd rather be a dreamer than asellout

Taking the money doesn't automatically make you a sell-out, and refusing it doesn't automatically make you a dreamer. What matters is whether your vote remains independent.
A sell-out trades their principles for cash.
A dreamer sacrifices immediate gain for a hoped-for future.
A citizen can take the money if it's offered and still vote according to conscience.

For me,I would take the Ksh 50,000 because it would help my youth group and business immediately since it will help a lot. However, I would not let the money influence my vote. Voting is a secret right, and I would still vote for the candidate with the best vision, integrity, and plans for the community. In my view, patriotism means making decisions that benefit both my current needs and the long-term development of my area.

Hello everyone 🤠, I would reject the money and vote for the vision, because i see it as a more patriotic choice cause it prioritizes integrity, accountability and long-term development of the community over a short-term personal gain.

I may feel tempted to take the money because it could help my business now, but I recognize that doing so supports poor leadership and weakens accountability. I believe rejecting the cash, even if it leaves me struggling in the short term, is a more patriotic choice because it promotes integrity and long-term development. I understand that taking it might be seen as selling out, while refusing it may seem like dreaming, but I choose to stand for a better future for my community.

I am not a dreamer for refusing the money. True patriotism is choosing leaders based on their ability to serve the public interest rather than on short-term incentives. While KSh 50,000 may help me today, a leader with integrity and a clear vision can create opportunities that benefit thousands of young people for years since lasting development comes from good governance and not temporary handouts.
On the other side ,I also understand maybe why some people would accept the money. Economic hardships are real, and starting a business can improve livelihoods you never know . However, when citizens prioritize short-term rewards over competent leadership, society may pay a much higher price in the future through poor governance and lost opportunities

A good decision is one that benefits not only an individual but also the community and the nation. While taking money may provide temporary relief, it does not solve long-term problems such as unemployment, poor healthcare, corruption, and inadequate infrastructure. Voting for a leader with a clear vision and good policies offers the possibility of lasting development and improved living standards.

Furthermore, accepting money in exchange for a vote can weaken democracy by encouraging leaders to buy support instead of earning it through service and accountability. When citizens vote based on ideas, integrity, and competence, they help elect leaders who are committed to the public good.

Rejecting the cash demonstrates responsibility, integrity, and patriotism. It shows that a person's vote is valuable and cannot be bought. Although the choice may involve short-term sacrifice, it contributes to a stronger economy, better governance, and a brighter future for everyone.

For these reasons, rejecting the cash and voting for the vision is the better decision. Thank you.

Personally would reject the offer. Even if it means remaining broke for two years, I believe it would be more patriotic to vote for the visionary candidate and reject the offer from the candidate with history of mismanaging public funds.

A dreamer. I will focus on vote for the vission.

I think the real issue should be whether my vote will be imfluenced by my taking of the cash.

Taking the money and still voting for the candidate with the vision would not make me a sell out really. I would only be a sell out if my vote was swayed by the cash.

I would take the money but my vote would go to the candidate with vision.

Strictly on patriotism lens, taking 'appreciation' money is a classic way of voter bribery, which may directly influence the integrity of the voting process. Now, I suppose one could argue that they could take the money and vote for a better candidate later on. But the question is, if such a candidate goes around issuing 'appreciation' to voters, how many of them would not get their judgement clouded by this, and actually end up voting the candidate in? I would say, not taking it (appreciation) does the ultimate good. It pressures the system towards accountability and better campaigns.
I also think a youth group has a position of influence, so even if you take it as pure offer and not transactional, there is still a good chance some of your youth group members will lean towards the candidate in the hope that they would get more from should the candidate win the elections. And that will ultimately reinstate someone with a history of mismanagement of public funds and your dream digital hub will just be nowhere near actualization.

There is a saying: "When you sell your voice for today's gain, you may lose tomorrow's opportunities." As young people, we must think beyond immediate rewards and consider the long-term future of our ward. What we truly need is accountable leadership, sustainable development, and support for initiatives such as the digital hub that can create opportunities for many youths for years to come.Accepting the money might solve a temporary need, but electing a leader with integrity and a clear vision can transform an entire community. Therefore, I would choose principles over personal gain and support leadership that serves the public interest rather than individual interests.

I would not take the money because it would only benefit my business and not address many other challenges in the community. It would also affect my ability to hold the leader accountable in the future which would mean we would be stuck with an incompetent official in office. This negatively affects everyone hence a greater loss.

I would not accept it because that would be strengthening poor leadership for short term gain

I will take the money as long as my vote remains secret. I know that after being given that amount before the election, there is unlikely to be any development afterward because the candidate will probably try to recover the money spent during the campaign. At the same time, if I do not accept it, someone else will.

I would not take it because it might seem that I have solved the issue of having the start-up, but after some years, this will hurt my business due to economical constrains of the country being caused by that kind of candidate

I would take the 50,000 and still vote for the right candidate.
Turning down Ksh 50,000 won't magically eliminate corruption, but using it to build the youth group, and society, even if only in the short run...
Then when the time comes, I will vote based on competence, not generosity.

If patriotism is defined as promoting the long-term well-being of the community and protecting democratic accountability, then rejecting the cash and voting for a credible vision is the stronger patriotic choice.

I will take the money and still vote the visionary.
If I don't take it someone else will

I believe the most patriotic choice is to refuse the money. If a leader is widely believed or has been found to misuse public resources, accepting money from them even for a good cause can help normalize corruption and weaken accountability.

Taking the cash would be an easier option than being broke for the next two years but that just leads to the progression of corruption and dysfunctional systems that disadvantage the community and hinder opportunities for the youth.

My honest opinion is that true patriotism is demonstrated by choosing the long-term good of the nation over short-term personal gain. Although Ksh 50,000 could help my youth group purchase equipment and improve our business, accepting money from a candidate who is known for mismanaging public funds only reinforces the culture of corruption that has held Kenya back for decades. Therefore, I would not be in support of this. I believe it's high time we as citizens began thinking everything long-term and not short-term.

While integrity is important, we cannot ignore the reality that many young people struggle financially. When someone is unemployed and an opportunity to improve their livelihood appears, the temptation is real. This dilemma highlights why ethical leadership is so important, citizens should never be forced to choose between survival and good governance.

My message to unethical politicians is clear: money cannot buy my conscience. Offering Ksh 50,000 or even more will not determine how I vote. While the ballot is secret and every citizen is free to choose, I will exercise that right with integrity by voting for a leader of honesty, competence, and vision. Lasting development, accountability, and investment in projects such as our local digital hub are worth far more than short-term financial incentives. By refusing to let inducements influence my decision, I help promote ethical leadership and strengthen our democracy.
At stake is the demand for development as compared to accepting incentives.

Dreamer for refusing the money for the future vision

This is a tough and very real dilemma. Ksh 50,000 can genuinely help—start a business, ease pressure, and create immediate change in your life. In that sense, taking it feels practical, even necessary.

But accepting money from a leader you don’t trust also keeps a broken system going. It rewards poor leadership and delays the kind of long-term development you actually want, like the digital hub.

Refusing the money doesn’t make you naive—it means you’re choosing the bigger picture. Taking it doesn’t automatically make you a sell-out either—it often reflects the reality of needing to survive.

In the end, it comes down to a hard choice between short-term relief and long-term change. But real progress only happens when more people are willing to choose the vision, even when it costs them.

I would reject the cash and vote for the vision

I would Rather chose to be a dreamer because for a collective growth,a leader with a vision and without bribing mentality is likely to be accountable and responsible which can lead to enhanced growth

as much as i want to discourage corruption and future bribery, i would take the cash and fail to vote for short term benefits simpli because i khow bribery tries to seek favour while its not a must unike trade where you must give out the goods once money is given.another reason is that voting for a vision attracts long term benefits.

I am a dreamer and I wouldn’t take the money because it’s my responsibility to choose a leader who will work for the people by managing public funds well.

I would reject the money and vote for the candidate with a better vision for the community. Although the money could help in the short term, accepting it encourages corruption and poor leadership. True patriotism means making decisions that benefit the community in the long term. Choosing honest leaders helps ensure responsible use of public funds and creates lasting development for everyone

As a responsible citizen, I would reject the cash and vote for the vision. While the money might help me solve immediate personal challenges or start a business, my vote should be guided by the long-term interests of my community and country. Accepting money in exchange for political support undermines democracy and encourages leaders to buy loyalty instead of delivering good governance. True patriotism requires looking beyond short-term gains and supporting leaders based on their policies, integrity, and ability to improve the lives of all citizens. Although I may remain financially challenged for a period, I believe that electing competent leaders creates sustainable opportunities and benefits that outweigh temporary personal rewards. Therefore, choosing the vision over the cash is a demonstration of civic responsibility, integrity, and commitment to the common good.

 Reject the money and vote for the vision:
Accepting money from politicians can encourage vote buying and weaken democracy.
Electing leaders based on integrity, competence and policies is more likely to bring lasting development than short-term financial gain.
Rejecting inducements sends a message that leadership must be earned through service not purchased.
Sacrificing immediate benefits for good governance can lead to better opportunities for everyone in the long run.

taking money or any other gifts from politicians or any person with questionable characters is wrong. By taking it, you are encouraging their "bad behavior".
The money you are being given is from our taxes, and by taking it, you are encouraging misuse of public resources. No politician will give you money from his/her own pocket, he/she must loot and give it to you.
The best is to reject the "gift" and encourage the politician to enable an enabling environment for business to thrive, through favorable policies and laws.

I actually think the dichotomy of "sell- out vs dreamer" is a trap. A more compelling solution would be to completely ignore that dichotomy.

Getting Ksh 50,000 really is attractive one has capital immediately at his/her disposal, in an environment where credit is difficult to get, and youth joblessness is the highest. On top of that, practically speaking, if the elected official is going to misuse public funds anyway, regardless of how I vote, I don't change that by personally refusing the money. So there is cynically a kind of reason behind the advice of 'grab the money, but vote for your conscience.'

But the logic falls apart when you ask yourself: Why does this tactic work at all? It's because giving out these kinds of benefits handouts is successful just that lots of people tell themselves, "My decision alone won't move the needle." The shared assumption among people, in this case, "That's right, it's just me." That's exactly what vote-buying exploits. Besides, if it is possible to point it clearly out: this isn't a kind of appreciation, it is merely a transaction, which is, under Kenya's Election Offences Act, that kind of pre-election cash-for-guarantees deals is illegal beyond being a matter of morality.

One more hidden cost is there. Ksh 50,000 is basically a once-in-a-lifetime benefit to one's business while a working digital hub is a kind of common infrastructure that could become sources of revenue, skills and employment for everyone in the locality continuously as the ward, not just me. So, the transaction, i.e. selling oneself for money, is already a very bad deal from the ethical side of things.

In short, I think the actual option is, to my mind, is not to "sell-out" or to play dream with very little or nothing at all. What is being tested here is giving in to a gift as a form of silence or loyalty, because that is the way accountability gets destroyed. And besides not being passive resistance, the stronger thing to do would be to change individual weakness into a strength of the group. So, instead of youth group members individually accepting or refusing in silence the handouts, organize the entire movement as one and publicly hold the digital hub as the necessary condition with the accompanying deadline and accountability plan - before the elections are held, not afterwards.

Patriotism and integrity, for me, is not defined by whether you accept the money or not, but it's measured by the extent of your vote and your voice and doing the right thing with anybody watching. Reject the act of buying, not the dialogue and bargaining based on the majority, not the principle.

I would reject the cash and vote for vision since I don't know the source of the money. I would like a country where there is transparency and every coin is accounted for. Empowerment programmes should be structured and budgeted for and not come in form of handouts. In this case, one would wonder how I'am merited to receive the cash and what of my peers who are not privileged to have access to the said leader. I believe in a just, competitive society where opportunities is available to all in a level play field.

i would take the money to start the business.

Short-term rewards may fade, but honest decisions can create lasting positive change.

In pollitical grassroot level there is a proverb that says"Eat their food, but vote for your future." which means take their money and vote your conscience.This helps in resolving the vote buying and neutralize political bribery.

Personally I will not take the money and vote what or who is actually coming to suppress what I would have started with the 50,000 so I think voting in the change is the best way to go

First and foremost, it is not patriotic to take the money to jumpstart your business, it is the very essence of corruption of all kinds, and indeed the foundation, or beginning of selling one's birthright and ability to be able to hold that person accountable at a latter date; meaning it takes away your moral authority to hold them accountable and gives the aspirant the strength and confidence to continue with mismanagement of future resources - which also translates to selling not only your own future but also other constituents' future as well and that makes you (one) an accomplice in the mismanagement.

Secondly, not taking the money by all means makes you a dreamer, and an optimist for/in/of a better future and possibly good and visionary leadership.

I would rather be a dreamer for refusing it and encouraging self to be more ethical as for my perspective taking the cash is encouraging corruption which is a vice we need to stop and promote patriotism and good governance of our country.

i will reject the money and vote for a candidate who has a vision ,despite the personal sacrifice .this is an act of being patriotic

Rejecting the funds would be the best thing to do because its short term. The long term effects of voting in the wrong governance has negative implications that would be detrimental to even this initiative

I will reject the cash and vote for the vision.

Personally, I would also reject the money and vote for the vision which will be a long-term equity

I will reject the cash and vote for the vision. Taking money amounts to enabling corruption which is against Chapter six of the constitution which requires every citizen maintain integrity.

Personally, I would reject the Ksh 50,000 and vote for the vision. While the money could help my business in the short term, I believe good leadership creates opportunities that benefit the entire community in the long run.
I don't think someone who takes the money is necessarily a sell-out because many people are simply trying to survive, but for me, patriotism means choosing integrity and accountability over temporary personal gain.

Personally, I would reject the Ksh 50,000 and vote for the vision. While the money could help my business in the short term, I believe good leadership creates opportunities that benefit the entire community in the long run.

True patriotism requires both economic stability and ethical civic participation.Voting for a better collective vision prevents short-term bribes from slowing down national progress.

The short term win is also necessary, maybe the group really needs the Ksh.50,000 to continue offering services. However, the lack of oversight by the MCA in matters finance should not be ignored, and an audit should be done by the group to determine level of efficiency in financial management. If found culpable, then the money to the group should not be like a bribe for their votes.

I would also reject the cash and vote for the vision.
Rejecting the cash isn't being a naive dreamer. It is holding leadership accountable and refusing to buy equipment with money stolen from our future.

Personally, I would choose to vote based on a candidate's vision rather than accept the Ksh 50,000. Although the money could provide short-term support for my business, I believe that electing capable and accountable leaders leads to lasting benefits and greater opportunities for the entire community.

I would not automatically consider someone who accepts the money to be a sell-out, as many people face genuine economic hardships. However, to me, true patriotism means upholding integrity, making responsible choices, and prioritising long-term community development over immediate personal gain.

Will certainly not take the money , so i can make informed decisions during the voting period.

My take on on this is that Taking the Ksh 50,000 might feel like a lifeline for my small business, and I won't pretend the temptation isn't real—but I've come to realize that accepting it would make me a "sell-out" in the truest sense, not because I'm helping myself, but because I'd be trading my community's future for quick cash. The Constitution's Chapter 6 on Leadership and Integrity demands that we hold leaders accountable, and Article 10 reminds us that integrity and transparency aren't just buzzwords—they're the foundation of our democracy. If I take money from a candidate with a history of mismanaging public funds and no plan for the digital hub we've been dreaming of, I'm essentially telling him that his corruption is acceptable as long as I get my share. That Ksh 50,000 might jumpstart my business today, but what about the jobs that digital hub could have created? What about the young people who would have learned digital skills? By refusing the cash and voting for the vision, I'm not being a naive "dreamer"—I'm being a strategic shareholder who understands that short-term pain is sometimes necessary for long-term gain. I'd rather remain broke for two years with my integrity intact and a clear conscience than sell my vote and my community for a quick payout that ultimately keeps us trapped in the same cycle of poor leadership. True patriotism isn't about taking what you can get; it's about building something that lasts beyond yourself.

Most people will take the money because they are going through a tough time , they just want to make their situation a little bit better, this doesn't mean they are right because they are entertaining the idea and not thinking long term , that's why civic education Iis very important to make people see the bigger picture

Taking the money gives the MCA more room to steal and fail to engage in any development activities in the area. I would refuse the bribe and vote for the visionary leader. They say charity begins at home and so I would be the change I want. I cannot demand accountability from someone if I am corrupt.

I would reject the Ksh 50,000 donation because the MCA has a history of cash mismanagement. It would take a toll on the dream of having a digital hub, but at least we would have maintained integrity as a small business. Accepting the cash donation would prevent us from criticizing the leadership of the ward representative. We must hold our leaders accountable. Hence, we'll still be dreaming for refusing the cash donation.

If I were in this position, I would politely decline the Ksh 50,000. Taking campaign cash from a candidate with a history of mismanagement compromises our independence and locks us into a cycle of bad governance. Instead, I’d push to re-frame the conversation inviting candidates to present real, accountable plans for the digital hub and looking for independent, sustainable ways to fund our equipment.

If we want better leadership, we have to demand accountability from day one, not sell our future for a one-off handout.

If I were in this position, I would politely decline the Ksh 50,000. Taking campaign cash from a candidate with a history of mismanagement compromises our independence and locks us into a cycle of bad governance. Instead, I’d push to reframe the conversation, inviting candidates to present real, accountable plans for the digital hub and looking for independent, sustainable ways to fund our equipment.

If we want better leadership, we have to demand accountability from day one, not sell our future for a one-off handout.

I would not take the Ksh 50,000 because my vote and my voice are worth far more than money. I would look at the bigger picture and the long-term future of my community, not a short-term reward. Real citizenship is about standing up for accountability, fairness, and the right of every person to good leadership and quality public services. Accepting money from a leader with a history of mismanaging public resources only fuels poor governance and denies communities the development they deserve. I would rather support a leader with integrity who will protect our rights and invest in lasting opportunities, like the digital hub that can empower young people for years to come.

Accepting cash for a vote trades collective national progress for personal gain

In my opinion, politics is not always a matter of black and white, it also gets gray. I would take the money as it will help my business, however I would not vote in the candidate, since the candidate has a history of mismanaging public funds and has no plan for the local digital hub I have been dreaming of.

Accepting the money doesn't obligate our vote. It's simply appreciation, not a binding contract, and refusing it wouldn't stop the candidate from spending it elsewhere. Our group needs equipment now; that need is real and immediate. But leadership is a separate decision. We'd use the funds for our business while still voting based on merit: this candidate's history of mismanaging public funds and lack of a digital hub plan disqualifies them from our support. Integrity means judging leaders by their record and vision, not their gifts. Taking a handout doesn't buy our conscience — our vote stays independent and values-driven.

True patriotism means prioritizing long-term public good over short-term personal gain. Rejecting the cash and voting for accountable leadership supports sustainable development, integrity, and opportunities that benefit the wider community.

I would reject the money because i know my vote is worth more than a short-term financial gain. Accepting money from a candidate with a history of mismanaging public funds only eternalizes poor leadership and denies my community long-term development. I would rather support a leader with integrity and a clear vision, even if it means facing temporary financial challenges, because sustainable progress benefits us all.

I see this less like a gift and more like a bad contract. Taking the Ksh 50,000 might feel like a quick win for my business today, but it’s essentially selling five years of your ward’s budget for cheap. When a candidate buys votes, they aren’t investing in your future they’re buying immunity to mismanage public funds later. That digital hub isn't just a "dream"; it’s public infrastructure that generates real, long-term wealth for everyone. Real patriotism, just like good lawyering, means protecting the long-term asset which is good governance over handouts.

Knowing that this is a reality that plays out every election cycle, the question is now not really about "sell-outs" or "dreaming". Best way is to hold a meeting as a group to discuss how to proceed. Some members may want to be "dreamers" and some wont think about "selling-out" at first opportunity. Whichever decision is made has to protect the groups interests, for the group to survive intact from such an experience. I will go with the view of the majority of the members.

I will reject the bribery and vote for the vision. Financial inconvenience notwithstanding, we need to adopt longterm trajectory as opposed to shorterm personal gains. As voters we have a cardinal duty to elect leaders of integrity who will prioritise the needs of voters.It is said the leadership is a reflection of the society. As the citizenry we have to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask whether we espouse the same values we expect our leaders to embrace.

Knowing that this is a reality that plays out every election cycle, the question is now not really about "sell-outs" or "dreaming". Best way is to hold a meeting as a group to discuss how to proceed. Some members may want to be "dreamers" and some wont think about "selling-out" at first opportunity. Whichever decision is made has to protect the groups interests, for the group to survive intact from such an experience. I will go with the view of the majority of the members.

This is a difficult question because it reflects the reality that many people face. When you're struggling to make ends meet, money offered during elections can feel like an opportunity to solve immediate problems or invest in something that could improve your future, such as starting a small business. No one should be quick to judge someone who is trying to survive.

At the same time, our vote has a value that goes beyond today. It determines the kind of leadership, policies, and opportunities we will have for years to come. If we choose leaders based only on who gives us money, we risk electing people who may not have the vision or integrity to improve our communities. The short-term benefit can end up costing us much more in the long run.

For me, patriotism is not measured by whether someone accepts or rejects the money. It is measured by whether they vote according to their conscience and what they genuinely believe is best for the country. If someone takes the money because they need it but still votes for the leader they believe will serve the public well, that is exercising their democratic right. If someone refuses the money because they want to send a message that leadership should not be bought, that is also a principled stand.

I don't think accepting the money automatically makes someone a sell-out, just as refusing it doesn't automatically make someone a dreamer. The real question is whether we allow money to buy our conscience. Our country will change when we value our vote more than the price that is placed on it.

It is more patriotic to reject the cash and vote for the visionary leader. Taking cash from the MCA is an enabler to public funds mismanagement and the candidate won't be keen in developing our area since he bought his way to the office. We can only negotiate for a clean deal with a clean hand.

No , its not right

Being a dreamer by refusing to take the money. My decision will count as it will be counted that i did not sell out people by being selfish.

I would reject the Ksh 50,000 if it is meant to influence my vote. Taking the money may solve today’s problem, but good leadership can solve tomorrow’s problems. I would rather vote for a leader with a clear vision and integrity than sell my political voice for temporary gain. That does not make me a dreamer—it makes me a responsible citizen investing in long-term development.