The historical injustice of the 'one-term' push against Ruto

President William Ruto.[FILE,Standard]

The “one-term” campaign against President William Ruto represents an unprecedented phenomenon in Kenya’s political evolution. Understanding this development requires examining not only its implications for our history but also the systematic manner in which this rhetoric has been constructed and embedded within the national consciousness.

Kenya’s presidential history reflects distinct leadership epochs. Jomo Kenyatta served for 15 years until his death in 1978. Subsequently, Daniel arap Moi governed for 24 years. The two-term limit was introduced in 1992 with the return of multiparty democracy. Mwai Kibaki completed two terms (2002-2013), as did Uhuru Kenyatta (2013-2022). Despite varying strengths and limitations, all served a decade to fulfil their mandate. Against this backdrop, the premature dismissal of President Ruto appears anomalous and inconsistent with established practice.

What makes the rhetoric particularly significant is its timing and velocity. Emerging just 18 months into his presidency, it coincided with converging pressures—inherited debt obligations, post-Covid-19 economic disruptions, and climate impacts — that were straining socio-economic performance. Yet before Kenyans could process these complex realities, the mantra had permeated every social stratum, resonating in public spaces, intensifying on digital platforms, and echoing from religious institutions.

Far from reflecting organic sentiment, the campaign shows deliberate coordination. The pattern suggests careful construction: strategically curated for maximum resonance, systematically promoted across multiple channels, and embedded within our socio-linguistic fabric.

Such a strategy mobilises emotional responses that circumvent rational evaluation, erode confidence, and create operational constraints that limit executive effectiveness. Notwithstanding these pressures, emerging evidence reveals a starkly different reality. Tangible indicators are increasingly evident. The administration has stabilised key macroeconomic fundamentals: inflation fell from 9.6 per cent in October 2022 to approximately 3.8 per cent by mid-2025, while the shilling appreciated from historical lows. The Hustler Fund has disbursed over Sh70 billion to more than 25 million Kenyans, expanding financial inclusion. Perennially loss-making entities such as Kenya Airways and Kenya Power have registered profitability.

In agriculture, the fertiliser subsidy programme reduced input costs from Sh6,000 per bag to Sh2,500, catalysing increased maize production and food security. Reforms in the tea, coffee, and dairy sectors have improved farmer earnings. Meanwhile, an ambitious irrigation plan targeting 50 mega dams aims to bring 2.5 million additional acres under cultivation.

Social sectors have seen equally significant interventions. The Social Health Authority has registered over 24 million Kenyans under the Universal Health Coverage programme, providing free primary, emergency, chronic illness, and inpatient care. Simultaneously, over 107,000 Community Health Promoters now deliver grassroots services. Furthermore, the recruitment of more than 76,000 teachers directly addresses staffing shortages while supporting the implementation of the Competency-Based Education.

Infrastructure development continues apace. Thousands of affordable housing units are under construction, creating jobs while addressing the housing deficit. Digitalisation through e-Citizen has expanded from 350 to over 20,000 services, enhancing efficiency and revenue collection. The expansion of the national fibre-optic network has strengthened connectivity and positioned Kenya as a regional hub for the digital economy.

If Kenyatta, Moi, Kibaki, and Uhuru were each granted sufficient time to execute their agendas — including periods of skepticism and opposition — what substantive justification exists for curtailment? The answer suggests the policy orientation threatens interests. The selective application of abbreviated tenure standards represents a departure from established democratic norms.

Constraining any presidency to a single term, based on contrived rhetoric rather than demonstrated performance, undermines democratic consistency. Democratic accountability requires giving elected leaders adequate time to implement agendas, subjecting those agendas to rigorous scrutiny, and rendering judgment based on demonstrable outcomes rather than manufactured rhetoric. Any departure from this standard diminishes the integrity of our democratic institutions and sets a problematic precedent for future administrations.