They assumed that since they had won the elections, that gave them a carte blanche to do as they wished and the Moi era arrogance of‘ Wapende wasipende’ began to creep back and the use of state machinery to impose the leader’ s whims.
The current regime faced another credence challenge that they brought upon their own heads. Initially the anointed one styled himself as a pro-democracy world leader. He began visiting all major democracies proclaiming the virtues of liberty.
As his international stature grew, he must have calculated that in no time Kenyans would live in the reflected glory of their champion of democracy. He was welcome everywhere as an eloquent paragon of new leadership in Africa.
He was such a frequent guest in so many international fora that Kenyans began to refer to him as the flying president or the aviator. Kenyans now wonder if this was not a diversion to mask his many schemes that he told Kenyans were meant to create jobs and investment.
As he was busy accumulating frequent flyer points things were starting to unravel at home as his strong man tactics of not bothering to sell his ideas and vision to Kenyans meant that he relied on a partisan parliament and a pliant judiciary to ram legislation on Kenyans.
The one that broke the camel’ s back was finance bill 2024. The current regime inadvertently took Kenyans on a crash civic education course since Kenyans were progressively getting fed up with being bullied and directed to toe the line.
That is when the docile but apparently potentially aggressive Gen-Zs were introduced to the Kenyan political arena and they soon became not only a force to reckon with but an intelligent lot, supremely aware of their rights.
That is also when the anointed one’ s hypocrisy and his inconsistent stand on the tenets of democracy started to be exposed as just a well-choreographed veneer of democracy hiding an autocratic bend that would soon embarrass him on the global scene.
At the beginning of this administration, the anointed one had made a number of diplomatic gaffes when he rushed to comment and support issues without consultation and the benefit of historical precedence that should have informed his comments or silence.
This had created an image of a loose cannon about to wreak havoc on delicate international sensibilities and it must have taken a great deal of house-cleaning to regain a measure of international trust that he desperately craved.
The Gen-Z rampage was to eventually erase all international good-will capital that he had so painstakingly crafted for his persona and as expected he was more than irritated by the pesky youngsters who had brought down his curated image.
His international image is so damaged that recently when he called a meeting for the crisis in Congo as the chairman of the East African Community, it was largely ignored since he is no longer perceived as an honest broker.
As a leader of a pivotal country in the region, credibility issues can damage the international perception of the country since most investment decisions which are long term in nature depend on a track record of consistent policies and actions.
It does not add up when a country that is considered unstable offers to mediate the peace process of another. This is why Kenyans are particularly irritated by the fact that a Kenyan police force is in Haiti to subdue gangs while gangs are reemerging in Kenya.
Among the most annoying things that any government can do is to continually belittle its electorate and treat them as errant children that need constant supervision. Kenya has failed spectacularly on this parameter.
After a period when anyone in government assumed that being in government gave him or her the permission to speak for the government and expound on its policies, finally the government saw the wisdom of appointing a government spokesman.
Unfortunately, this was purely a public relations stunt since the government had no intention of changing its way of communicating with the public. There are several unrestrained party hawks who seem to have been okayed to talk for the government.
These individuals talk down to the electorate and most of their utterances are devoid of any empathy and the statements come across like impatient landlords dealing with a complaining tenant who usually does not pay rent on time.
What informs a leader to tell fellow Kenyans that if they are unhappy with the country they can pack up and leave. Since one does not hear a reprimand from above, then it is to be assumed that the comments have the tacit approval of the leader.
But at least this comment is consistent with the official policy which seems to be that Kenyans should be leaving the country anyway, to take up jobs of cleaners, watchmen and domestic servants since the country in unable to create jobs locally.
The same government is also busy creating a very hostile business environment and there has been an exodus of long-standing manufacturing companies that have exacerbated the unemployment situation in the country.
Somehow the leadership does not seem to appreciate that the neighboring countries are creating favorable investment environments at our expense and we seem so clueless as to even congratulate them for surpassing our level.
How do you encourage investment in your country when the leadership does not believe in their own country and it seems that they are quite happy to mortgage the country to unscrupulous international conmen.
How does a leader maintain credibility if he is seen to work with entities that seem to have a very poor international reputation. We already have had our share of scandals in the past and we should have learnt but we seem to still operate on a blueprint from the eighties.
It is difficult to comprehend how Kenya would even dare to deal with a group like Adani who are in trouble in their own country on serious corruption charges. Prudence would dictate that such dealings be put on hold to protect our image.
But such is the official arrogance that a government official went on record to state that their due diligence had not unearthed dubious behavior but one has to ask, isn’ t indictments in several countries sufficient ground to exercise caution?
A leader does not have the luxury to associate himself with anything that has a whiff of scandal and certainly is not expected to hobnob with those accused of unethical behavior. One just has to refer to the Harvey Weinstein saga for a wakeup call.
But to double-down on an issue that is suspect is to invite unnecessary
52 MAL64 / 25 ISSUE