Leaderless Gen Z uprising could be hijacked by selfish politicians

It is worth restating that Kenyan youth are redefining their country. The future looks bright.

Yet, those who embark on revolutionary journeys need to appreciate that some uprisings have not matured into revolutions.

They must never lose sight of one critical question. Why do revolutions fail?  

In the spring of the year 1848, Europe experienced an unprecedented revolutionary explosion. From one city to the other, and from country to country, common people in fifty countries turned regal monarchies on their heads.

Fed up and frustrated by the hardship that sprang from the European Industrial Revolution, the classes sought to have greater say in government, and in the economy.

It was not dissimilar to what is happening in Kenya today. Riding largely on youthful energy, Europe confronted both the government and its armed elements.

Soldiers were petrified. Monarchs abdicated. King Louis Philippe of France escaped to England. The riotous masses declared France a republic. The mercurial and dashing Austrian chancellor, Clemens Metternich, also fled to England. Italians overthrew their Austrian rulers.

Another historian, LCB Seaman described 1848 as “the year of failure” and the period 1815–1848 as “the age of frustration.” The social, economic and political vexations of 33 years were violently ventilated in 1848. But history did not turn. What went wrong? Can Kenya’s youthful revolutionaries take lessons from Europe?

Lack of cooperation and organisation among the revolutionaries was the Achilles’ heel of the revolutions across fifty countries. It was free-for-all romantic liberalism. It screamed and shouted in the streets.

It bawled for freedom and good governance. Its temporary coalitions of reformers and revolutionaries were just that, temporary. The big lesson here is revolutions cannot afford to be leaderless. 

Leaderless movements will be hijacked by other interest groups, to prosecute agendas that were never on the menu. There is no unanimity on the end game, no clear focus.

In the European Germanic nations in 1848, for example, ethnicity reared its head. While some principalities wanted to be unified under one sovereign German nation, others did not want.

They did not consider it part of their original agenda. Hence, they ended up fighting among themselves. They forgot their initial common enemy. Are other interests taking advantage of Gen-Z uprising?

To the extent that there are no recognised leaders and spokespersons, it has been easy for President Ruto’s UDA and opposition parties to reframe the crisis.

They have shifted from the original Gen-Z script, to recast the challenge as a question of who is in government. This has been easily achieved through picking up the Gen-Z grievance against the defunct Ruto Cabinet and introducing the issue of “a broad-based government.” 

The spinoff is that instead of the country redefining itself, as was intended, it is the political class regrouping. They will team up to protect the self-same old interests the Gen-Zs are aggrieved about. A grand old cabinet is certainly in the offing.

There is set to be nothing new about it, as the same old faces take up new positions. To gain traction, they are likely to reframe the crisis as “a challenge of nationhood” and a struggle among tribes.

The solution is set to be cast as their faces, as will be reflected in the new old Cabinet. Kenya is, therefore, certainly perched on the cusp of a revolutionary transformation, as earlier argued.

Yet the revolution could be stillborn. The Gen-Zs will need to recognise the role of thinkers and overall leaders in a movement.

They must reject being drafted into ethnic political competitions by blackguards in the new government. If they continue to be leaderless, their revolution will be stolen. May be it’s already stolen.