The past week was all about the release of the main political coalitions’ manifestos. About which there has already been much comment. These comments made so far can be roughly summarised as follows:

First, that there’s no fundamental difference between the two manifestos — both largely being a continuation of the promises of the post-transition Economic Recovery Strategy that then morphed into Vision 2030. That is to say, there’s nothing new in them.

Second, that there’s no attention to fundamentals in either — on the surface of things, not being costed and, more deeply, paying no attention to the need to stop the country’s macroeconomic stagnation.

To respectfully disagree…

There are huge differences between the Jubilants’ ‘Continuing Kenya’s Transformation Together” and the National Super Alliance’s “A Strong Nation.” And some of those differences do have to do with fundamentals.

Without taking their respective pillars at face value — three for the Jubilants and seven for Nasa — if we were Americans, I’d say the Jubilants represent the (current) Republicans and the NASA represents the Democrats.

If we were British, the Jubilants would be the Conservatives and Nasa the (real) new Labour. If we were French, the Jubilants would be the National Front and Nasa somewhere between the (now discredited) Socialists and the Greens.

Yes, the surface commitments to ending fraud, graft and theft are common to both (Nasa’s comment on ensuring ‘sanity’ in the economy as concerns debt was amusing).

But the Jubilants’ economic strategy — other than improved social service provision to the most poor around, for example, water — is premised on (unsurprisingly) improving efficiencies in the public service through computerising (modernising) operations.

Nasa’s economic strategy is, to the contrary, premised on reducing the causes of structural inequalities that create the most poor. Their different takes on security and foreign policy as also instructive.

The Jubilants focus on Nyumba Kumi, capacitating the terrorism and anti-stock theft units, enabling the police’s air capacity, with expanding regional markets and counter-terrorism as key planks of their foreign policy.

Nasa, on the other hand, focuses on drawing the devolved units into security provision, and rights both at home and abroad — with a commitment to end extrajudicial executions in-country and democracy, rights, rule of law being the driver of its regional (and international) engagements.

So much for there being no differences between the two. There are… and they are, in some areas, fundamental.

Whom are the manifestos meant for? And what’s the source of the public demand that (finally!) pushed both political blocs to produce them?

On the one hand, people seem to be, in fact, evidence-based and practical in our decision-making — witness the outcomes of the party primaries and the public anger about the calls on both sides for “six-piece suit” voting.

People know our candidates, especially in the devolved units, and are making decisions accordingly. On the other hand, people also seem to be almost primordial at the national level — purely emotional (and often irrational) impulses seem to drive political preferences.

So how does dropping manifestos into the mix affect anything at all? Or does it? That is the question. About which more comment is clearly necessary.

READ: Inside NASA's 7 pillar manifesto

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes.