George Edwards III argued in his book, "The Strategic President" that there are two ways to view a leader.
The common view of a leader is the "Director of change," someone who shapes national opinion and the political landscape with their charisma and powers of persuasion.
The second view is a "Facilitator of Change", a leader who seizes opportunities for change and fashions strategies and tactics to exploit them. While directors are more like revolutionaries, facilitators are more tactical.
During the 2022 campaigns, many feared that President William Ruto would be more of an uncompromising "Director of Change" than a flexible "Facilitator ".
The premise of his campaign was unusual. "Economic revolution through Bottom-up Approach" was not an ordinary campaign slogan; it was more radical. He promised to reshape Kenya's politics and overturn 60 years of top-down economic policies. From his inaugural speech to the changes he effected barely an hour into office President Ruto's attributes as a director of change are quite manifest. His political supporters expected that.
However, his first six months as President shows his realisation that the nation's problems are stubborn and won't be solved painlessly or overnight. His decision to abandon an inquiry into the August 15th fiasco at the Bomas of Kenya, the leniency towards key figures from the past regime and his recent decision to engage with Azimio leader Raila Odinga confirm that the President appreciates that no one can rapidly alter fundamentals of politics, or enact sweeping economic changes.
Last Sunday, he came out as focused on uniting Kenyans and building consensus. Now, most Kenyans who voted for him remain opposed to any form of the handshake because they believe the 2018 handshake sired state capture and shrunk Kenya's democratic space.
They, therefore, expected the President to subdue the opposition than hold talks with them. However, every Kenyan with a keen understanding of our Constitution appreciates that we have one of the most progressive constitutions, but which is presently far above our political maturity.
Further, the political interests here are too diverse, the political players are too many and too radical, and the presidency is more glorified in the eyes of the public than envisaged in the Constitution.
Consequently, there appears to be only one real model of effective political governance at our disposal - Bipartisan approach. An approach that will create collaborative working arrangements while allowing the two realms of government and the opposition to exist side by side.
It should not be difficult for President's supporters to accept that President Ruto, may have come into office intending to be a director of change, but ended up governing like a facilitator - which is what the most successful presidents have always done. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the US, won without the support of a single Southern state. After his election, some southern states wanted to secede, and a civil war broke out.
President Lincoln felt it was his sacred duty to preserve the Union.
His inaugural address was an appeal to the rebellious states, to rejoin the nation. The speech ended with the message: "Shall it be peace or the sword?" He led America through the civil war, preserved the Union, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared all slaves forever free.
Just like Lincoln, President Ruto has already chosen peace over the sword. His choice reminds me of Borana wisdom that while honey and venom can both cure your headache, choose honey even if it will cost you more. It is however imperative that the President's decision becomes a government-wide consensus where everyone reads from the same script.
-The writer is an engineer
