Why Ruto is different from all previous DPs

I call on all ministers, assistant ministers and every other person to sing like parrots on the issues I have mentioned. During Mzee Kenyatta’s rule, I persistently sang the Kenyatta tune until people said: ‘This fellow has nothing except to sing for Kenyatta’. I say, I didn’t have any ideas of my own. Why was I to have my own ideas? I was in Kenyatta’s shoes and therefore, I had to sing whatever Kenyatta wanted. If I had sung another song, do you think Kenyatta would have left me alone? Therefore, you ought to sing the song I sing. If I put a full stop, you should also put a full stop. – An excerpt from Moi’s speech on his return from Addis Ababa on September 13, 1994.

This quote sounds like a modern doctrine of power and a guiding principle for deputising a president in Africa. 

In a conventional style of political procedures and administration of power in Africa, it is profoundly clear that protocols of relations and authority are strictly observed just as they are in the military barracks.

Any contradiction to this tradition can easily lead to one risking being accused of gross insubordination, knowing very well that presidentialism in Africa and in Kenya is still a hotly contested space and jealously guarded institution.

I want to be forthright here and say without fear of contradiction that it is public knowledge that unlike previous vice presidents, William Ruto has been more vocal and to some extent has insubordinated his boss not once, but several times. Ruto has been utterly combative and aggressive. He has a certain level of political endurance, intolerance and stubbornness and has been outrightly too bold and ambitious.

Inflated ego

I recently asked a friend to explain why the DP is so different from the previous vice presidents and he gave several reasons. One, Ruto is not a Tugen so don’t compare him to former President Daniel Moi.

Two, if Ruto insubordinates Uhuru, then there is something wrong with Uhuru, and three, he does so because he has more support base in both the Senate and Parliament, and as such he tends to have an inflated ego.

Four, he envies Raila’s relationship with the president and lastly, he sees himself as a ‘co-president’ since Jubilee Party is a ‘coalition’ between his ‘majority’ party URP and TNA. 

In my view, Ruto has extreme love for fame and glory. He has mastered the political utility of religion in general, which gives him political advantage.

Despite everything, Ruto has displayed remarkable and lively intelligence. His lived experiences and subjectivities when dealing with his own family life and bureaucratic encounters during the days of YK92 has shaped his future outlook in politics. He is indeed a product of murky political past. He knows very well that the terrain is rough and unequal. Consequently, he consciously learns to play rough.

But why is Ruto so different? Unlike past Kenyan vice presidents, it is public knowledge that Ruto is openly defiant and utterly different. Ruto is unlike Moi (a Tugen), who was reserved and very loyal to Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, or Mwai Kibaki (a Kikuyu), who was such a disciple and a dent propagator of Moi’s philosophy or George Saitoti (a cocktail), who knew so well how to balance carefully between personal and public life and his own political ambitions with those of his boss.

Ruto is a Nandi, and just like any other Kenyan, he is historically and culturally influenced by this ethnicity. As a historian, I have the advantage of understanding him from this point of view without bias.

Reading the two major historical episodes or events that shaped the Nandi cosmology may help understand reread inner circumstances that have come to shape the Nandi, and eventually William Ruto the man. Ruto’s character is truly a mould and true reflection of the historical Nandi culture and ethnology.

Studies in anthropology and ethnology as well as history and historiography of the Nandi may well shed some light to understanding the character of the deputy vice president.

I teach a sub-topic in pre-colonial military history of Africa called ‘The Nandi pride’. This is an attribute that created ‘panics’ in the lives of white settlers during the colonial rule, understood here as orchestrated fears that white lives and property were at risk. 

One exemplary incident was the ‘Kinangop Outrage’; the fatal wounding of a white farmer and the rape of his wife by Nandi thieves in 1934. This is what David Anderson called the ‘Nandi Mischief’, invariably referred to as ‘Black mischief’. This incident made the colonialists to call a meeting to discuss the action to be taken to protect settlers and their families from the ‘Nandi character’.

The infamous ‘Uganda proposal’ hatched by British Prime Minister Chamberlain to relocate Jews to Uasin Ngishu and the Jews expeditions of the Uasin Gishu plains may help us to unpack and reveal the nuances of who the Nandi really are.

The Jews regarded the Nandi as ‘unfriendly and stubborn’. The British had termed them as ‘vandals’. By 1908, ‘the Nandi character’ therefore became the reason why the Jews could not settle in Uasin Gishu. 

On the other hand, the Nandi rebellion itself exposes another Nandi character.  The Nandi endured the longest battles ever sustained in Africa south of Sahara – precisely 11 years (from 1890-1904). 

It was one of the most unpredictable (guerrilla) wars to be staged in Kenyan history. The protracted wars showed how difficult it was for the British to deal with the Nandi. Zeroing in on Koitalel arap Samoei (William Samoei Ruto is politically said to be his incarnate) – it took a decade for the British to hunt down and kill Koitalel. When they did it, they did so with great vengeance and anger - they beheaded him. His head is still kept in a museum somewhere in Lancaster, UK.

Sacred sticks

In 2006, a Kenyan from Warwick University with the help of an Egyptologist tracked sacred tribal sticks down to Captain Meinertzhagen’s son’s home. On discovering the significance of these sticks to the Nandi tribe, the son, Randle Meinertzhagen, decided to return them to Kenya.

One informant commented that it was so glorious for the Kalenjins to have ‘acquired the strength of their great grandfather’ as the sticks were handed to Ruto to preserve in Eldoret Town Hall.

A most decisive prophesy that divided religious groups and voters among the Kalenjin in 2007 was one that linked Ruto to the legendary seer and warrior Koitalel arap Samoei. It was rumoured that Ruto was a direct descendant of this great Nandi military strategist and leader.

This earned him a euphoric following and great ‘respect’. In fact, many Kalenjins viewed Ruto as the reincarnation of Koitalel, or at least a descendant. Consequently, like Koitalel, Ruto was seen as interim Kalenjin leader after Moi.

Please do not misunderstand me for exposing an anatomy of an ethnic group. This is not a stereotype, but pure lessons from history. Neither should you misunderstand Ruto, because he is a product of the Nandi culture and history. To understand him, please reread him within the lenses of Nandi historiography and anthropology. 

Such social and psychological roots have significantly contributed to his contradictory social and political stances. His upbringing and education (studying botany) seem to have formed his eclecticism, which underlie his apparent conflicted brand of a politician.

Comparisons between him and President Kenyatta expose common mechanics of accumulating power in Kenya. We learn how difficult it is converting personal relationships into institutional authority, and show that norms are given effect as tools used by politicians.

Dr Babere is a senior lecturer of African History at Laikipia University