Why Labour Unions Need a Secretary General and a National Chairperson

By Kalee Mercy

Leadership in the modern world is seen in decisive action, concentrated authority, and personality politics. We celebrate chief executives, political leaders, and public figures who appear to command institutions single-handedly. Some of the strongest organizations, however, deliberately reject this model. They decentralize authority across multiple offices, recognizing that institutions serving thousands of people are best protected when power is shared.

Akelo Misori’s account of teacher union leadership offers an important lesson that extends beyond labour relations in Kenya. While dual leadership can be seen as a source of inevitable conflict, Misori’s memoir reveals the constitutional wisdom behind dividing authority between the Secretary General and the National Chairperson. This arrangement is a safeguard against excessive concentration of power and a practical expression of democratic governance.

Two Offices, One Institution

Kenya’s teacher unions such as KUPPET represent the interests of hundreds of thousands of educators. Such an institution cannot rely solely on the judgment of one individual, however capable. Instead, its constitution distributes responsibilities between two complementary offices.

The Secretary General serves as the union’s chief executive. As the public face of the organization, the office oversees day-to-day administration, directs staff, manages finances, coordinates negotiations with government, and communicates the union’s positions to members and the wider public. The Secretary General provides operational leadership and ensures that decisions are implemented efficiently.

The National Chairperson occupies an equally important, though different, space within the organization. Rather than managing daily operations, the Chairperson presides over the union’s decision-making organs, guides deliberations, facilitates consensus, and helps shape the policy direction of the union. Through constitutional oversight, the Chairperson ensures that executive action remains anchored in the collective will of the union’s governing bodies.

These responsibilities are different, but neither is subordinate to the other. Each exists to strengthen the other while protecting the institution itself.

Checks and Balances

Observers sometimes interpret this duality as an invitation to rivalry. In reality, the separation of authority serves a far more constructive purpose.

Organizations that represent large memberships require mechanisms that prevent unilateral decision-making. By separating executive administration from constitutional oversight, the union creates an internal system of checks and balances. Major decisions benefit from scrutiny, discussion, and collective judgment before becoming institutional policy.

The Secretary General brings operational expertise and strategic execution. The National Chairperson ensures that these decisions reflect the broader direction established by the union’s governing structures. One office keeps the organization moving; the other ensures it moves in the right direction. Decisions carry greater legitimacy when they emerge through consultation rather than individual discretion.

Democracy Requires More Than Elections

Many people associate democracy with voting, but democratic governance continues long after elections have concluded.

Within unions and other representative organizations, democracy is sustained through institutional processes that encourage debate, consultation, accountability, and shared responsibility. The National Chairperson’s leadership of executive meetings and policy discussions ensures that diverse voices within the union are heard before important decisions are made. Meanwhile, the Secretary General translates those collective decisions into effective action.

This collegial relationship ensures that leadership remains accountable to members rather than becoming centred on personalities.

Lessons Beyond Teacher Unions

This governance model reflects the desired order in modern institutions. Successful organizations rarely depend on unchecked authority but build systems that encourage dialogue, distribute responsibility, and require leaders to justify their decisions.

Universities, corporations, professional associations, and governments all recognize that separating executive authority from oversight creates healthier institutions. While disagreements may occasionally arise, these are often signs that governance mechanisms are functioning.

The true measure of institutional maturity is not the absence of disagreement but the presence of constitutional processes that resolve differences while protecting the organization’s mission.

Leadership as Shared Stewardship

One of the key takeaways from Misori’s book is that leadership is not about accumulating power but stewarding institutions that outlive individual office holders.

The Secretary General gives the union visibility, operational direction, and administrative efficiency. The National Chairperson provides constitutional guidance, policy stewardship, and democratic oversight. Together, these offices create an equilibrium that prevents excessive concentration of authority while ensuring that the union remains accountable to the teachers it represents.

The writer is a research assistant at Free Press Publishers.