NO PRINCIPLE, NO PHILOSOPHY

Ruto a rebel not revolutionary

At no time has he spoken for the poor, whom he’s now using to ascend to power.

In Summary
  • By birth and family, Ruto qualifies but his political privilege alienates him from the suffering of the poor.
  • His access to power since he was young numbers him among the oppressors instead.

Deputy President William Ruto’s biography and political history have neither a  principle nor a philosophy on revolution. His politics transcends three regimes—Nyayo (Moi), Kibaki and Uhuru Kenyatta and at no time has he ever spoken for the poor, whom he is now using as a vehicle to ascend to the House on the Hill.

The three regimes have been characterised by poor governance and Ruto’s silence on this evil communicates nothing but the comfort of individualism, a mark of capitalism, that revolutionaries are devoid of.

Great revolutionaries like Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, Maximilien Robespierre, Rosa Luxemburg, Mahatma Gandhi and Fidel Castro were greatly influenced by the poverty, oppression and violence that their communities were subjected to. They sacrificed their lives for the sake of their people.

This is a rare and scarce character in Ruto who purports to revolutionise Kenyan politics for the benefit of the hustler nation. Revolutionaries share unique traits such as selflessness, honesty, they are loving, forgiving, courageous, kind, hardworking, patient and persevering. I leave it to Kenyans to judge whether Ruto possesses any of these qualities.

The place of birth and status of parents are critical in shaping the thinking of the revolutionary. Great revolutionaries were born either in middle level or poor families. The economic challenges and politics of their time forced them to be considerate of others.

By birth and family, Ruto qualifies but his political privilege alienates him from the suffering of the poor. His access to power since he was young numbers him among the oppressors instead.

Great revolutionaries like Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, Maximilien Robespierre, Rosa Luxemburg, Mahatma Gandhi and Fidel Castro were greatly influenced by the poverty, oppression and violence that their communities were subjected to. They sacrificed their lives for the sake of their people.

The big question then comes, can Ruto, who is and represents the rich, spur a political revolution with the interest of the poor at the centre. My answer would be echoed by many Kenyans—NO.

The greatest essayist of our time, Chakravorty Spivak, questions this kind of relationship in her essay Can the Subaltern Speak? She is astonished that the coloniser (white) can fight for the rights of brown women from brown men.

Ruto’s claim that the time is ripe for the hustlers to govern is a blatant political lie structured to bait the poor. His governance plan remains a mirage and his rich political dogs would probably share government positions in the disguise of being poor.

Ruto’s supporters, especially the political class, consists of dangerous, ravenous, tribalists who are spitting venom because they have been pushed to the periphery by the government they purport to have formed. They lack rational ethos to convince the voters other than the repeated seditious class sentiments that have nothing to do with good governance. By the Marxist stance, Ruto represents the bourgeoisie and he is deceiving the lumpenproletariat for his personal gain.

Ruto’s rebellious tendency emanates from the isolation he finds himself in after his boss extended a hand to Raila Odinga. Let the poor not mistake him for a revolutionary.