Kenya’s Ruto as Africa’s showcase in spat of town and crown

KENYA BOILED OVER recently. It was a test of resolve and strength between the common men and those in the corridors of power in a democracy. It was also a platform for Africa to determine where power truly lies in a system of government popularly described as democracy. The first salvo was the enactment of a government policy that did not go down well with the people of Kenya. The people protested. But the government of President William Ruto chose the path of indiscretion and high-handedness in response to the protests as he deployed the military to end what was described as “treasonous” nationwide anti-government protests by purportedly “dangerous people” after an apparent failure of the police to quell the riots. Arrests were made. People were killed, the figure of which may vary depending on the source of information. However, no fewer than five protesters were reportedly killed.

The trigger for the street protests was what appeared like a spontaneous reaction to the tax hike through a legislative bill called the “Finance Bill.” President Ruto, sensing the senselessness in continued defiance, announced that he would no longer sign the controversial bill. “I concede and therefore I will not sign the 2024 finance bill,” said Ruto. According to him, “the people have spoken.” Exactly at what point in the faceoff did Ruto realise or recognise the importance and relevance of the voice of the people? If he did much earlier, or if he reckoned with it early enough, the protests in Kenya would have been avoided in its entirety. He could simply have chosen the path of initial defiance, thinking the Kenyan public would be cowed into submission.  And when the show of strength did not seem to work, he might have switched, belatedly choosing rather to capitulate after scores of people had been wounded and dozens reportedly killed. It became clear, in retrospect, that the abortive finance bill should not have been conceived at all in the first instance.

The grit, determination and resilience of the mostly youthful protesters were obviously beyond the expectations of President Ruto who must also have seen the futility of continuing to fight against his country’s men and women. Passage of the bill by the parliament despite the initial protests was a usual way of communicating to the people that “this is the government; don’t dare us.”  The protests which began online were taken to the street where the authorities took the protesters head on. In the end, the street won, the town prevailed and the crown bowed. Blame Ruto as much as you can; the fact is, he ended up recognising the people’s power and the need to let it be. He must also have realised that the power he wielded against the people during the protests was derived from the same people as many of the protesters were reportedly among those who gave him the mandate as voters during the election that made him president.

He needed to calm the frayed nerves and douse the doubts of the people in the concession speech he made on the finance bill. The determination of the protesters to go on with protests despite Ruto’s assurance must have surprised – if not angered – Ruto initially. Realising the futility of trying to preside over a country in turmoil, he chose to concede to the people’s desires and demands. If democracy, as often defined, is government of the people, by the people and for the people, then Ruto could be said to have met his people half-way through the journey and has responded fairly well after the initial bravado. A far-reaching decision had to be taken. He sacked almost all his cabinet members and went on air to announce some measures he will soon embark upon. “I will immediately engage in extensive consultations across different sectors and political formations and other Kenyans, both in public and private, with the aim of setting up a broad-based government,” he said on Thursday. He had a choice to make between listening to his people and pandering to the demands of foreign lenders such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He thus walks a tightrope in his effort to restrict the rising cost of living and cut the $2.7 billion (£2.1 billion) budget deficit caused by the withdrawal of the tax hikes bill.

After weeks of deadly protests over government corruption and tax hikes an errant President Ruto had to commit himself, not just to withdrawal of the bill that was to have become a law in the circumstance of rising costs of living, but also to starting a dialogue with the Kenyan young people as well as starting to cut the budgets of the presidency as part of measures to reduce deficits in government financing. If the protests in Kenya succeed in stemming the tide of corruption within the political class, the young Kenyans must have succeeded in shaping a better and brighter future for themselves while also setting an example for other African countries to emulate.

But, unlike Ruto’s Kenya, most contemporary African countries’ leaders remain stuck with their own decision to subjugate their countries’ citizens. Although peaceful protests are allowed in the constitution of countries in the modern era, too many political leaders try to brutally crush such protests. In African countries where street protests have failed to yield positive results for the people, the reactions of the leaders have been mostly crude, oppressive and brutal. Such leaders have acted more out of fear, disdain or sheer insensitivity to the people’s legitimate plights. In such circumstances, street protests have been treated more as an affront from the people towards the government. They have therefore often been met with brutal force as a deterrent. It is rather counterintuitive that some power seekers rally people to protest and riot against the governments they seek to unseat but refuse to allow protests against them after they have taken over government. Despite such tendencies, the power of the street will continue to receive people’s sympathy and approval in many more countries of Africa where unpopular governments or policies are in operation.

Sudanese soldiers that toppled Omar al-Bashir’s unpopular government in April 2019 rode on people’s popular sentiment and yearnings for a change of government to establish and entrench themselves in power, including when they brought in Abdallah Hamdok as a civilian Prime Minister to legitimise their regime while working to strengthen their grip on power. In 2021, the soldiers sacked Hamdok, but had to reinstate him after a month in response to popular protests. But because they were not keen on democratic rule, it did not take long for them to unravel as Hamdok resigned in January 2022, barely three months after his reinstatement. People’s power was denied; chaos set in, eventually resulting in the protracted civil war that still ravages the country now. At the time the Sudanese people tried again to affirm the power of protests, the guns began to roar in a contest between the head of the army and the head of the paramilitary forces. The street lost in Sudan.

The events that culminated in #ENDSARS protests in Nigeria in 2020 were a response to police brutality, which has been going on for years without let or hindrance. Rather than treating the protests as a wake-up call for government to address the lingering crisis associated with the high-handedness exhibited by the Special Anti-Crime Response Squad, a unit of the police force that was fast becoming a terror to the populace, the government of Muhammadu Buhari chose the oppressive approach of quelling the protests. In addition to the controversial killings of protesters at Lekki toll gate on October 20, 2020, by the military, Buhari’s government exploited ethnic and religious differences to create division among the protesters and thus weakened the protests. In the end, the idea behind the #ENDSARS protests fizzled out while many of the leading figures and champions of the protests had to seek cover, either by going on exile or simply dropping the idea of continuing with the protests. Rattled about their coordination and finances, Buhari’s government went after their sources of funding. #ENDSARS fell short of achieving its aim. In #ENDSARS, the street lost.

While street protests in Kenya succeeded in rattling the government and forcing its hand to change policy direction, the same may not be said about Nigeria’s. Although another set of protesters have been gathering online in the past couple of weeks, saying they would go on the street later this July in protests against the hardships under the current Tinubu’s regime, a lot more needs to be seen to prove their likely efficacy. With accusations flying around on social media that the Islamic clerics in northern Nigeria have been bribed by the government to dissuade and silence their followers, it remains to be seen how effective that gimmick will be and how the protest will take off, proceed or even spread. This is of interest, particularly as the hitherto reticent northern Nigerian populace is now agitating and calling for the protest. Curiously, the leaders of the two serial regimes against which the idea of protests has been mooted in recent times were at the forefront of protests against the government of President Goodluck Jonathan in January 2012, when they cited corruption and insecurity as their reasons why Jonathan should not be re-elected into office. The one-week shutdown across Nigeria was physically led by Buhari and Tinubu who were unrestrained and unmolested by Jonathan’s government then.

It appears like street protests will gain more popularity and relevance in governance in Africa as more and more countries boldly and fervently take to the streets to press home their demands, forcing dysfunctional governments to do the right thing. Whether or not Nigeria’s current government will succeed in staving off the impending protests is debatable as the conditions that led Kenyans to the streets for weeks were less severe in magnitude than those in Nigeria. With the hitherto docile population rising up and threatening to go to the streets, the message for the current government of Nigeria is very clear: it is time to mend its ways. One of the major issues the Kenyans protested against was the profligacy and excessive spending of government, which is more mind-boggling in Nigeria with outsize wages and emoluments for government functionaries while the payment of fair minimum wage remains difficult to implement. Added to these are the noxious decisions to keep a large cabinet of ministerial appointees, creation of more ministries, departments and agencies and failure to reduce the enormous payments to members of the Nigerian parliament.

Now that more and more people are becoming emboldened to go on the street in protests, African governments and leaders need to have a rethink and be aware that things are no longer going to remain the same. They thus need to govern well if they want to avoid disruptive activities from the people they govern. It is now clear that the people are recognising the enormity of power they have in any polity and are willing, ready and determined to use that power. One of the ways they have found is to embark on the street if need be. The next place they will choose to use this street power, Kenya’s case may be a child’s play in comparison.  

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com