By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 19 January 2026 - Ugenya MP David Ochieng’s call for a future Kenya without bursaries and scholarships may sound paradoxical in a country where education funding gaps define inequality.
Yet beneath the apparent contradiction lies a pointed political argument: that bursaries, while necessary today, are evidence of a deeper systemic failure to guarantee equal access to quality education.
Speaking during the disbursement of KSh 8.6 million to 286 students joining national schools, Ochieng framed his remarks as both a moral appeal and a policy critique.
His vision is of a state strong enough to ensure that from primary school to university, no child’s education depends on political goodwill, charity, or patronage.
In this framing, bursaries are not symbols of generosity but stopgap measures compensating for uneven public investment.
Ochieng’s argument taps into a long-running national debate. Since the advent of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and related bursary schemes, education support has become one of the most politicised public goods. In many constituencies, bursaries are quietly used to reward loyalty, punish dissent, or consolidate political networks.
Ochieng’s insistence that Ugenya has awarded bursaries without discrimination since 2013 is therefore as much a political statement as it is an administrative claim. It positions him as a reformist outlier in a system widely viewed as clientelist.
Stressing that even his “staunch opponents” benefit from constituency scholarships, Ochieng is making a case for a non-partisan model of leadership—one that separates public service from electoral competition.
This stance resonates with a growing voter fatigue around transactional politics, especially among younger and urban voters who increasingly frame governance in terms of rights rather than favours.
However, his remarks also expose a tension.
The very event at which he spoke—bursary disbursement—highlights the gap between aspiration and reality.
Until public schools are uniformly resourced and higher education is genuinely affordable, bursaries remain a lifeline for thousands of families.
More from Kenya
Ochieng appears aware of this contradiction, using it deliberately to provoke reflection rather than to propose immediate abolition. His message is less about policy withdrawal and more about policy ambition.
Equally significant was his attack on tribalised narratives around education.
By dismissing claims that elite schools such as Alliance High School “belong” to particular communities, Ochieng challenged one of Kenya’s most enduring myths—that opportunity is ethnically pre-assigned.
In doing so, he aligned education reform with national cohesion, arguing that exclusionary rhetoric undermines both meritocracy and unity.
This anti-tribal posture dovetails with his broader political positioning.
As leader of the Movement for Democracy and Growth (MDG), Ochieng reaffirmed support for President William Ruto’s second-term bid, citing shared values of inclusivity and national development.
The endorsement is strategic. It allows Ochieng to situate his education agenda within the ruling coalition’s development narrative, while also carving out an identity as a principled ally rather than a silent backbencher.
Yet the political risk is evident. Aligning with the presidency means his ideals will ultimately be judged against government performance. If inequalities in education persist—or worsen—Ochieng’s rhetoric could be turned against him as aspirational but hollow.
Ochieng’s statement is less about ending bursaries than about redefining justice in public policy. It challenges Kenyans to imagine a state where access to education is automatic, not negotiated; equal, not rationed.
Whether that vision gains traction will depend not just on speeches, but on sustained investment, institutional reform, and the political will to dismantle patronage systems that many leaders quietly benefit from.
