Ruto and Gen Z agree that enough is enough but differ on what is enough

In the aftermath of deadly and violent protests on Saba Saba Day, with almost 40 dead and up to 130 injured according to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights,  President William Ruto has proclaimed more than once that “Enough is Enough”, while former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, his “partner in arms” in the broad based government, suggests a “National Intergenerational Conclave” as the latest dialogue brainwave to address ongoing national crisis. 

Of course, there is more that we have heard from the President, like the shocking, but widely-ridiculed, “shoot to maim” order as a modifier to his Security Minister’s earlier “shoot to kill” one. It is more than a footnote that Odinga has publicly expressed reservations with both orders. 

Then we have the wider “conspiracy cum sabotage” theory offered by Ruto against himself (for the “unfair” treatment accorded to him compared to previous Presidents) and against his administration (which several of his government nabobs and party apparatchiks loudly support). 

The fact of the matter is “Enough is Enough” is exactly what is driving public anger and protests. 

So, in a weirdly roundabout way, President Ruto and Gen Zs agree that enough is enough, just that there is a difference of opinion on what “enough” actually means. The wider truth is the Ruto presidency is defining itself as a vicious cycle of protests-dialogue and uneasy calm-no reset-more protests.  Think about 2023/4 and NADCO, then 2024/25, Broad-Based Government (BBG) and UDA-ODM MoU.  And now we hear about 2025/26 Inter-Generational Dialogue. 

Whatever the cause or catalyst – political or governance-related – completing its term of office – actually getting to 2027 – is an existential struggle for this administration.  No economy grows in these “stop-start” settings; no investment happens; no business thrives; no society can develop.  

Which is why “Enough is Enough” is probably the right theme for any dialogue if it is to happen. 

But it’s not just this particular administration.  In 2004, the Bomas constitutional conference was our moment to reset. The failed referendum the following year – based on a mutilated version of the Bomas draft – left the NARC administration scrambling to form a Government of National Unity.  We all know what happened later in 2007/8, the result of which was the Grand Coalition Government and Agenda Four on Long-Term Issues. Then, after Jubilee survived its first term, we had the 2018-2022 “Handshake”, highlighted by the failed Building Bridges Initiative (BBI). 

The only difference with this administration is these political crisis moments are high-frequency. 

Yet these are the moments when Kenyans ask why we vote at elections if our elite end up in post-election political settlements to share the spoils of power while selling us “peace, love and unity”.  The fact that the latest idea is couched as a “conclave” inadvertently hints at this deal-making; the term conclave – even with the Papacy - denotes a selective, private or secret meeting! 

As a process, Odinga has reportedly proposed meetings (conclaves) across the country with significant youth presence (50 per cent) to begin in August 2025.  As is usual with these types of arrangements, the Kenyan taxpayer is likely to remain blissfully unaware of how much the process will cost, particularly since it cannot possibly have already been factored into the 2025/26 budget. 

Why the process is needed in the first place is probably the earlier question.  After all, public protest under Article 37 of the constitution is arguably one form of dialogue; of civic participation in national affairs between elections (in addition to actual voting as our participation at elections). 

In this context, a “listening” government would not just hear, but listen to public outcry, and offer responses in policy, plans, budgets and action.  It would not treat protests as an existential threat. 

But let’s say this “Enough is Enough” intergenerational dialogue were to proceed.  What ground would it cover?  Odinga has suggested that constitutional change will be a key part of the debate.  It is unclear how far this will cover the failed BBI proposals of 2020, or the pending NADCO ones that are the first action point in the current BBG MoU.  But it is clear Kenyans are not interested in “new offices and positions for politicians”, as was campaign-mode Ruto in 2022. 

Because this is an intergenerational dialogue, our youth unemployment time bomb – first surfaced in study reports (ILO Report of 1972) and policy documents (Sessional Paper Number 10 of 1973) over 50 years ago – is still on the table.  We had it in Agenda Four, BBI, NADCO and BBG.  The “Enough is Enough” part of this dialogue might create a better understanding and buy-in to this administration’s jobs agenda, particularly the nuts and bolts of their “deliberate strategy”. 

Corruption is another dialogue subject we’ve had since Agenda Four, while public debt is a new one. Protests over the past year have also brought to the fore the subjects of human rights and justice, particularly given heavy-handed security actions that have taken innocent young lives. Other subjects may also come up, like Article 43 basic rights in what many perceive to be a worsening education, health care and social protection context than this administration admits. 

Yet, for all of this content, we may end up with yet another report that we will not implement. In other words, we will still not have gotten to our “Enough is Enough” turning point in history. 

Is there a better way? Before NADCO in 2023, the thought that came to mind was to organize the dialogue into four inter-related packages: socio-economic, governance, security and political. 

The socio-economic package would comprise constructive contributions and inputs to the administration’s economy, jobs and wealth creation reform, with social reform around values and virtues. Under governance, demand and supply-side packages around badly neglected horizontal reform across government.  On security, a human security lens on ongoing external and internal security efforts.  Finally on political, a “during elections” package of electoral reform, and a “between elections” package of democratic reform, with a focus on the independent institutions. 

Today these would be four “Enough is Enough” packages bringing together all of the outstanding policy and programming work from Agenda Four and BBI without mutilating the constitution. 

But there’s probably a better way to frame “Enough is Enough” as continuous, actionable dialogue. First, it is always a useful exercise to review Constitutional implementation; not the same thing as reviewing the actual Constitution.  Can we use this dialogue to institutionalize these reviews and move away from the adhocracy of post-election (or between election) political settlements?  

Second, we are five years to the end of Kenya Vision 2030, with the current BETA/ 2023-2027 Medium-Term Plan ending in June 2028 with a transition phase to the successor vision?  Do we have an opportunity to begin crafting the next vision;  embedding BETA into this long-term vision? Third, is this the time to finally craft and track our Social/Societal Vision? When the Constitution  was promulgated in 2010, President Kibaki called this vision the third of our three-legged stool (after Katiba and Vision 2030).  Beyond politics and the economy, what is our long-term vision for a society fixing inequality of opportunity for better outcome, injustice that today favours rich over poor and indignity which today criminalizes our informality?  Isn’t enough truly enough?