Ruto's Vision 2060 plan raises questions over who will run the show

President William Ruto during the national conversation on Beyond Vision 2030. [PCS]

President William Ruto’s Vision 2060 has begun with a paradox: the government is asking Kenyans to help shape the country’s development agenda for the next 34 years, yet the institution expected to organise and drive that process has not been clearly established.

Ruto launched the national conversation on Vision 2060 at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre, presenting it as a long-term roadmap that will succeed Vision 2030. But even as the administration prepares to take the conversation to Kenyans across the country, there is still no clearly designated Vision 2060 secretariat with a public mandate to coordinate the exercise.

That raises a basic question: who is actually responsible for turning what Kenyans say into a coherent national blueprint?

The question becomes more significant when Ruto’s approach is compared with that of former President Mwai Kibaki.

Ruto has praised Kibaki and the architects of Vision 2030, acknowledging that the blueprint gave Kenya a framework for planning its development. He noted that Vision 2030 had set the ambition of transforming Kenya into an industrialized, middle-income country with a high quality of life.

The President also referred to the Vision 2030 Secretariat’s scorecard, which assessed the country's progress across its economic, social and political pillars.

Yet the same institutional certainty surrounding Vision 2030 is not immediately visible in Vision 2060.

The Vision 2030 process eventually had a dedicated delivery structure responsible for coordinating implementation. Vision 2060, at least at the launch and consultation stage, appears to be starting from the opposite direction: public participation first, institutional machinery later.

President Ruto has repeatedly stressed the importance of public participation and has argued that the next national development framework should address shortcomings associated with previous planning processes. The administration may therefore be seeking to allow citizens to define the country's priorities before deciding how the new vision will be managed.

But this approach creates another problem. Public participation is only meaningful if there is a transparent system showing how citizens' contributions are collected, analysed and incorporated into policy.

Who is keeping the records? Who is processing submissions from the 47 counties? Who will reconcile competing demands? Who will decide which proposals make it into the final document? And perhaps most importantly, who will be accountable if the public discovers that its views were collected but ignored?

Political risk analyst Dismas Mokua believes the absence of a strong institutional foundation should be addressed before Vision 2060 becomes deeply entrenched.

He argues that the vision is necessary because Kenya needs a clearly defined destination for its socioeconomic development. But he warns that it must be protected from political interests.

 “Vision 2060 must be immunised from politicians, political actors and political parties often partisan interests,” Mokua says.

That warning is particularly relevant given the political environment in which Vision 2060 is being launched. Kenya is approaching the 2027 General Election, meaning virtually every major government initiative will inevitably be examined through a political lens.

The risk is that a 34-year development plan could be interpreted as part of Ruto’s political legacy or even his re-election strategy rather than as a national project.

Mokua believes the President should therefore initiate the process but avoid personally dominating its development.

“President Ruto in his capacity as Head of State needs to create an enabling environment and take a back seat in the development of Vision 2060,” he says.

That recommendation exposes the importance of having an independent and credible institutional structure.

If State House is seen as controlling the consultation, drafting the framework and determining its priorities, political suspicion will inevitably follow. But if an inclusive body of experts, professionals and representatives from different sectors takes responsibility, Vision 2060 could acquire a broader sense of ownership.

Mokua proposes an “all stakeholders participation” approach through a multisectoral committee representing Kenya’s cumulative interests and aspirations.

Such a body, he argues, should be supported by scholars and practitioners and should provide the technical leadership necessary to develop the framework.

The idea is not simply to create another government committee. It is to establish an institution capable of separating the long-term national interest from short-term political competition.

That is why another issue raised by the analyst is whether Vision 2060 should eventually be anchored in law.

“Vision 2060 must  crystallize into legislation so that it matters not who is in office,” Mokua argues.

This could provide the vision with the permanence that a 34-year plan requires. Without such protection, a future administration could simply abandon or rewrite it after taking power.

The experience of Vision 2030 provides an important lesson. Its implementation structure gave the blueprint an institutional identity beyond the presidency that launched it. Vision 2060 will require an even stronger architecture because its lifespan will span several administrations.

But there is another question that should precede the new vision: what exactly is Kenya replacing?

“Ruto should first direct an audit of Vision 2030 to determine what succeeded, what failed and why. That would allow Vision 2060 to be built on evidence rather than political rhetoric.” He added.

According to the analyst, Kenya should know which Vision 2030 targets were achieved, which flagship projects delivered meaningful economic returns, where implementation stalled and whether the assumptions made when the blueprint was developed still hold today. Without that assessment, Vision 2060 risks becoming a new collection of ambitions rather than a genuine evolution of Kenya’s development planning.

The absence of a secretariat, therefore, may appear to be a technical omission, but it goes to the heart of whether Vision 2060 is being constructed as a national institution or a presidential initiative.

Ruto may have good reason to begin with citizens. But before asking Kenyans to define the country they want in 2060, the administration must explain who will carry their voices from public forums into the final blueprint.

The real test of Vision 2060 will not be the number of consultations held or the size of the crowds attending them. It will be whether the process produces a credible framework that can survive Ruto, survive 2027 and remain relevant under presidents yet to be elected.

For a vision meant to guide Kenya for 34 years, the first institution it needs may not be a presidential platform, but an independent national mechanism capable of ensuring that the dream belongs to Kenyans, not whoever happens to occupy State House when it is launched.