Ruto policies may conflict with nation's strategic interests

One of the unexpected outcomes of President William Ruto's State visit to the United States is serious discussion on perceptions of Kenya's national interests. Two questions arise. First, how are those interests to be projected, defended, and advanced and who should do it? The citizens ordinarily delegate those functions to the legitimate government on condition it does it in trust and within the law. Since the delegation is not absolute, citizens reserve the right to demand accountability and even to reprimand those entrusted with the State. Ruto's trip to the United States appeared to be one of those instances when citizens demand accountability and raise the question of whose interests were being catered for.

The general expectation is that leaders look after the well-being, and should not appear to be part of threat, whether internal or external, to the State's "interests". Interests, divided into core or primary and secondary or peripheral, have three essential attributes of sovereignty - security or survival of the state, and the way of life or identity and values of the people. The way of life is political and socio-economic, including the form of government and cultural identities. The ability to secure interests, however, depends on the State's capacity to manage several attributes that drive human history which include the political economy, space or geography, resources, quality education system, independence of mind, and sense of pride or good reputation. The ability to defend the national image, as John Quincy Adams showed in 1823, is a critical aspect of a country's national interest. Yet there are some leaders, due to real or contrived ignorance, who lack a sense of honour and capacity to notice threats to national image as threat to the national interest.