President Ruto’s Speech today sounded like arrogance of Legacy and a Naïve Canonization of Kenya’s infamous Past Despotic Strongmen.”

By David Odhiambo| U.K. | The Diaspora Times Evening News, August 4th, 2025

In what was perhaps one of the most revealing moments of his presidency, William Ruto stood before a nation battered by economic despair, social unrest, and political cynicism and declared, without a flicker of irony, that he was the finest leader Kenya has ever had. His reasoning? A curious cocktail of inherited traits from the very men whose regimes epitomize repression, betrayal, and squandered promise.

“I have Jomo Kenyatta’s courage, Moi’s understanding, Kibaki’s education, and the development plan I shared with Uhuru. With that combination, I have no excuse but to transform the nation,” Ruto announced, his voice steeped in a self-assurance that bordered on delusion.

But to the discerning citizen, Ruto’s remarks do not inspire hope—they reek of historical amnesia and political naivety.

To begin with, Jomo Kenyatta’s so-called “courage” was expressed through land grabs, silencing dissent, and the consolidation of wealth and power within a narrow ethnic elite. Under his leadership, the dream of Uhuru quickly curdled into a nightmare of inequality. His courage, if we dare call it that, was the kind that jailed freedom fighters like Achieng Oneko and Bildad Kaggia while rewarding Home Guards with vast tracts of stolen land.

Then there is Moi’s “understanding.” If Ruto truly means the art of statecraft built on fear, patronage, and tribal manipulation, then yes, Moi was a master. The Nyayo era was one of torture chambers, rigged elections, disappeared critics, and a culture of sycophancy that crippled Kenya’s moral compass for over two decades. If Ruto draws his empathy from Moi, it is no wonder that peaceful protestors today are met with bullets instead of dialogue.

As for Kibaki’s “education,” it is perhaps the most misapplied. Education without ethical vision is dangerous. Kibaki presided over a renaissance that quickly faded into the darkness of Anglo Leasing and the return of elite impunity. His hands-off leadership style allowed cartels to flourish, and his refusal to address the post-2007 election violence destroyed his legacy of reform.

And then there is Uhuru Kenyatta, the co-architect of a debt-ridden, corrupt state apparatus that left millions unemployed and institutions hollow. If Ruto shared Uhuru’s development plan, then it must include empty infrastructure projects, ballooning Chinese loans, and a mysterious handshake that collapsed any real opposition. That he touts this as a point of pride reveals a deep misunderstanding of public frustration.

What Ruto parades as a pedigree is, in fact, a lineage of political decadence. These were not statesmen in the classical sense, but strongmen who, each in his time, failed to liberate Kenya from poverty, tribalism, and kleptocracy. That Ruto cites them as mentors is not a sign of vision but a tragic confession that his compass points backward.

Rather than carve a new path, the President appears to be stitching together a Frankenstein of former failures—glorifying those who betrayed the promise of the republic. In doing so, he reveals the limits of his imagination and the emptiness of his supposed transformation agenda.

Kenya does not need a man who mirrors Kenyatta’s entitlement, Moi’s manipulation, Kibaki’s aloofness, or Uhuru’s elitism. Kenya needs a radical break from the past—not its romanticization. Ruto’s speech, far from being presidential, was a eulogy for the very hope he once claimed to represent.

The tragedy is not just that he uttered those words. It is that he believed them.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Diaspora Times. Any statements made are based on the author’s analysis and interpretation of public events and are intended for informational and critical commentary purposes only. Readers are encouraged to engage with a diversity of perspectives in forming their own judgments.