Ruto _ Kagame

 Is President Ruto Changing His Political Ideology?

In Kenya's complex political landscape, William Ruto has long presented himself as a man of the people, an advocate for hustlers and ordinary Kenyans. His journey to power was grounded in the promises of economic transformation and equality, and his "bottom-up" economic model was the heart of his appeal, aiming to boost the grassroots economy and reduce economic inequality. But less than two years into his presidency, the Ruto administration appears to be veering in an unexpected direction, raising questions about whether the president is shifting his political ideology.

Ruto’s recent focus on "national interest over public interest," coupled with his attempt to co-opt opposition leaders, signals a strategic shift that goes beyond campaign promises. While this may seem like a pragmatic approach to fostering stability, many observers are concerned that this could pave the way toward centralising power, weakening opposition voices, and potentially undermining the 2010 Constitution’s foundational principle of devolution.

National Interest or Centralisation?

The concept of “national interest” has become increasingly prominent in Ruto’s recent rhetoric. In many ways, this term can be a unifying call, an appeal for Kenyans to think beyond their differences and align with a collective purpose. However, critics argue that this language may be masking an agenda to curb dissent and consolidate control. The 2010 Constitution, established with a focus on reducing centralised power, promotes devolved governance to ensure regional autonomy and local accountability. If "national interest" is interpreted to mean undermining these devolved systems, the implications could be profound for Kenya’s democratic fabric.

On the surface Ruto is adopting the Rwandan model of governance, which is characterised by a strong central authority and a narrative of national unity which raises questions. President Kagame’s model has brought undeniable order and development to Rwanda, but it has done so at the expense of robust political pluralism and opposition tolerance. For Kenya, with its long tradition of vibrant multiparty democracy, adopting this model would represent a sharp departure from democratic norms. While Kenya could certainly benefit from aspects of Rwanda’s emphasis on unity and efficiency, replicating a centralised governance approach would face fierce resistance from both the public and institutional stakeholders committed to the values of devolution and transparency.

A New Approach to Opposition

Ruto’s strategy of “buying” opposition support—through placating key figures in Raila Odinga’s camp, for instance—also marks a shift from his earlier populist rhetoric. Although it might seem a calculated move to stabilise his administration, this approach could have the opposite effect, weakening his political leverage in the long run. The more concessions Ruto makes to the opposition, the more he risks diluting his own agenda. Additionally, the perception of co-opted opposition could alienate the youth, who have grown increasingly disillusioned with traditional politics and may see these gestures as part of a superficial, business-as-usual approach to governance.

This strategy might temporarily quell public dissent, but it could have lasting consequences. Kenya’s younger generation, particularly Gen Z, is increasingly critical of political maneuvering that lacks transparency and fails to address the pressing issues facing ordinary Kenyans. For Ruto, a leader who was elected with substantial grassroots support, these alliances could cost him credibility among young Kenyans who are passionate about political reform and transparency.

Testing the Limits of the Constitution

Ruto’s actions may indicate a desire to test the limits of Kenya’s Constitution, which was specifically designed to prevent the concentration of power. The Constitution’s emphasis on devolution, anti-tribalism, and political accountability constrains any effort to centralize authority. Nevertheless, Ruto appears to be probing how far he can push these boundaries under the banner of "national unity." By promoting a non-tribal, united Kenyan identity—a core part of his administration’s narrative—he may be laying the groundwork to justify centralizing initiatives as moves against regional or ethnic power bases.

This tactic aligns with a broader trend across Africa, where some leaders invoke unity to justify measures that suppress local autonomy. But Kenya’s political history, including the struggles that led to the 2010 Constitution, makes it unlikely that such efforts will be readily accepted. Ruto’s moves, therefore, raise the possibility of a more centralised administration but will face resistance from both civil society and political institutions committed to upholding the devolved system.

Is This Ideology, Pragmatism, or Opportunism?

The question of whether Ruto’s approach represents a true ideological shift or a pragmatic response to Kenya’s political realities is complex. On one hand, Ruto’s initial "hustler" narrative and “bottom-up” promises contrasted sharply with the more top-down, centralising rhetoric we’re now seeing. If this is an ideological shift, it suggests that Ruto is aligning himself with a more authoritarian model, prioritising stability and control over the grassroots empowerment he once championed.

On the other hand, Ruto may be simply adapting to the constraints of governance in Kenya, where managing a fractious political landscape requires compromise and strategic alliances. He may genuinely view his approach as pragmatic, necessary to foster unity in a country often divided along ethnic and regional lines. However, this pragmatism could risk devolving into opportunism if it prioritises political expediency over meaningful reform.

A Crossroads for Ruto’s Presidency

In a sense, Ruto’s administration is at a crossroads: does he continue to pursue the decentralised, grassroots-focused ideology he championed in his campaign, or does he pivot toward a more centralised model of governance in the style of Rwanda? If he opts for the latter, he risks alienating the very base that brought him to power and undermining the constitutional principles that have shaped Kenya’s democratic journey.

Ruto’s emphasis on "national interest" has the potential to unify and bring greater coherence to Kenya’s development agenda. However, if this rhetoric becomes a tool to diminish the voices of opposition, reduce county autonomy, or centralise authority, it would signal a significant ideological shift, one that could have far-reaching implications for Kenya’s democratic integrity.

In the end, Ruto’s success or failure will hinge on his ability to balance national unity with Kenya’s democratic values. The choices he makes now will shape Kenya’s political trajectory for years to come, and his administration will be closely watched by a public that is as hopeful as it is skeptical.