Ruto shines at global stage, yet many questions linger over sincerity of arguments

If Africa agreed on a common ruler today and then put its current sitting presidents on the ballot, President William Ruto would likely win hands down. Even his critics back home would agree with his bold arguments against the architecture of the existing multilateral system.

While the core architecture of the Bretton Woods system may have faded away, its primary institutions have continued to perpetuate unfair policies to poor and developing nations to preserve the interests of their funders.

In his arguments in various forums this week, President Ruto advocated for evidence-based assessments of African risks and decisions that reflect the continent's heritage. He argued for the review of the United Nations (UN) security apparatus to reflect modern global realities.

It is true that many issues that get to be addressed by the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) relate to Africa. To that extent, it is also true that Africa must have a fair representation at the decision-making table if their own issues are going to be decided by those who sit at that table. On the contra side however, is it a mere coincidence that many internal conflicts of the African continent find their way into that table for determination?

Double Edged Sword

Unfortunately, the evidence that our president ably advocated for both in his address to the United Nations General Assembly and in various forums on the sidelines is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways. For example, while Africa rightfully argues for unfair treatment by the existing multilateral system and the Bretton Woods institutions, is it also not true that African leaders are the greatest enemies of their own people?

Is it not true that the majority of Africa is ruled and governed by the whims of men instead of the rule of law? Take Kenya, our motherland, for instance: haven’t successive regimes plundered our public coffers without any conclusive action against their perpetrators? In the four years of his own administration, how many billions have walked away from our public coffers without a trace? How many of the suspects have been subjected to the full force of the law?

While President Ruto’s arguments in New York are plausible to a great extent, I am afraid that he may have grossly underestimated the depths of the pre-existing multilateral system.

The Western multilateral framework controls the very system that Africa and her leaders use to move their plunder or illicit wealth around the globe. The tax havens where thieves of Africa store their stolen wealth are owned by the very countries they accuse of unfair treatment.

It would be very naïve of any African leader to imagine that they can move stolen wealth or assets across continents without the preying eyes of the Western economic hegemony. The fact that they would give outsiders an audience or welcome them to their dinner tables does not automatically mean that they would cede control of a system that serves their strategic national interest and preserves their sovereignty.

Unlike African kleptocrats, majority of the leaders of the developed world are deeply loyal to the public good of their people and nations. They make choices about their nations with several future generations in mind. Their public services are built around powerful institutions that check private greed of any leader as opposed to powerful men who rule in Africa. They do not use bribes or handouts to win elections, but compete on ideas and ideologies.

While our sovereign responsibilities obligates us to stand with the leaders we have put into power, we cannot throw away the legal maxim that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”. The question to ask therefore, is: can leaders who cannibalize the future of the children of their countries demand fair treatment from a system that already knows of their wickedness?

For arguments sake, is it wrong for the World Bank, International Monetary Fund or any of our bilateral partners to demand that the Kenyan government addresses the problem of grand corruption before seeking bailouts from them? Is it unfair treatment when foreign governments demand restitution of their taxpayers' money given for worthy courses if it is stolen by powerful thieves in government or politics?

A good case in point here is the embezzlement of funds disbursed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development stolen by Treasury officers. Is this an isolated case or is it a systemic problem across government? Doesn’t such blatant robbery of developmental flows and daily media exposés of mega corruption without conclusive action on the perpetrators add to the national risk profile of the country? Doesn’t the famous ‘mambo matatu’ mantra followed by the handling of the Tata Chemicals Magadi controversy contribute to the national risk profile for international capital flows into the country?

Simply put, can the president’s speeches in New York stand in isolation of the economic and political realities back at home? The sad reality is that real global capital flows do not bend to glossy speeches but instead are governed by time-tested systems that have outlived even the greatest despots in history.

If we were to rewind the clock of time back to December 1991, the late former President Mwai Kibaki would have told the then very young and firebrand William Somoei Ruto that Kijana, fighting the multilateral system is like cutting our sacred Agikuyu mugumo (fig) tree using a razor blade.

True to his prophecy, the then ruling party KANU went ahead to serve its ten years under the multiparty system of democracy. When he assumed the presidency himself in December 2002, Kibaki never went after the KANU thieves and abusers of human rights. The Uhuru-Ruto presidencies are nothing but the offspring of the KANU era. The only difference is that they have had to operate under a different constitutional dispensation and confront more tech-savvy generations. Otherwise, the blood of KANU flows through their veins!

Things to think about

Looking ahead, it is good that someone has the guts to confront the multilateral system head-on. However, it would not be entirely true that the lagged development of Africa is purely on account of an unfair global system.

First, the Asian tigers of the 21st century developed under the same multilateral system that African leaders blame for unfair treatment. Singapore, South Korea, China, and Vietnam among others, did not develop under a different world order. They faced the same system to claim their rightful seat among the community of nations and for the advancement of their people. Why is it that no Sub-Saharan African country has been able to produce such demonstrable socio-economic and political success?

Secondly, Africa has proved incapable of supporting their own institutions. In a separate address to the African Union in November last year, President Ruto lamented of how the union cannot fund its own affairs or conclusively solve political or armed conflicts among its members. This is because none of the men and women who congregate there is without a blemish. They all understand that they have stolen elections, oppressed opponents and critics, plundered public coffers or silently fund armed conflicts across borders.

Finally, our good president need to be reminded that in civilized societies, honor for a leader cannot be demanded or granted on a silver platter; it is earned through their sacrificial deeds and contributions to their people and world at large. He can consult his friend, President Trump on this when he demanded the Nobel Peace Prize!