President's options and best way to save his legacy

Last week, Kenyans were treated to a rare glimpse of the tough choice that President William Ruto has to make on how best to approach the growing discontent around his administration and the enlightenment of Generation Z. This is a casual analysis of his two speeches: one on Tuesday and one on Wednesday.

When he first came out on Tuesday, the president, who was seemingly seething with anger, showed that he could choose to be ruthless and unmoved, while in the second speech the following day, he came out as cordial and empathetic.

In the first speech, he went for hard and harsh adjectives, calling protestors criminals, while in the second, he came off as the father of the nation, with the protestors becoming his sons and daughters. In the first speech, President Ruto did not mention the elephants in the room, the Finance Bill 2024, or cases of police brutality. In the second speech, he came off as a listening president, making the biggest concession by accepting to drop the Bill and empathising with the protest victims.

It is also worth noting that in the first speech, the President walked to the press conference unaccompanied, giving credence to allegations that he may have acted against some advice. However, in his second address, it was clear that he had engagements and consultations and had a good number of Kenya Kwanza-affiliated leaders seated right behind him.

The biggest dilemma that the president faces now is which of the two sides of him would help him restore the hope that propelled him to that position, quell the anger, and stabilise his administration towards 2027. The answer lies both in history and in the immediate reaction following the two speeches.

The second president of Kenya, the late President Moi, used the crisis following the failed 1982 coup to make far-reaching changes in his administration. It became his perfect excuse to reorganise the power structure and get rid of perceived dissidents within his administration.

The third president of the Republic of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki, did not waste the opportunity when he lost in the 2005 referendum. He accepted the results but went to sack his entire cabinet. Seven members of his cabinet had campaigned against the proposed constitution.

The lesson in this is that the president must first look inward in his government, and in that way, he can choose to be ruthless. This is the time to hit hard and rid himself of all the baggage that his government carries.

However, the people must be approached differently. He must not be misled into thinking that he can be ruthless toward both the people and the political class. First, he leads a completely different generation with a constitution that gives the people a right to assert their sovereignty.

To save his legacy, the president must ride on the subtle message pronounced by his decision to cede ground and be the ‘leader who listens to his people’. It may have come at a great cost, but he can only take care of the future.