Why next fiscal year will define Ruto's legacy

President William Ruto. [Denish Ochieng, Standard]

What kind of legacy is President William Ruto likely to leave behind? This is an important question to ask as he starts his first full fiscal year.

I hope President Ruto constantly thinks about his legacy and will not wait to scramble at the end like his immediate predecessor did.

That is the only way he will put in enough effort to ensure the state serves Kenyans and not special interests.

Why think about the president's legacy now? The simple answer is the narratives we tell ourselves about us matter.

Furthermore, the president and his administration can play an important role in focusing our talents and resources on noble collective goals supported by a national narrative.

Absent that, we risk being mired in the defeatist cynicism that is common in much of Kenyan public life.

Two things should be top of mind for Ruto as he thinks about his legacy. First, Kenyans will not grade him on a curve. We know how the rankings currently stand.

Mwai Kibaki is easily our best president yet for reminding us that rapid growth is possible (despite bearing partial responsibility for the post-election violence in 2007/2008).

Jomo Kenyatta comes second on account of having presided over uhuru and a moderately successful post-colonial administration (despite his autocracy). Uhuru Kenyatta is third, barely ahead of Daniel arap Moi who is fourth.

When Kenyans are evaluating Ruto, they will judge him not against what other presidents did but based on how well he addresses our contemporary problems.

He should also know the taboo of always ranking Moi last will fade away at some point. Presidents who treat their office as little more than means to make themselves and their friends rich will not always have the cushion of never being ranked last.

Second, the president needs to define his legacy in clear and concrete terms. One year into his administration, that narrative is not clear yet.

The countries he keeps citing as models of success benefitted, in part, from national campaigns - whether it was to improve farmers' productivity, improve school enrolment, plant trees, or increase wage workers' productivity - that helped forge developmentalist narratives.

What this means is there is no development without the people's total involvement. There are neither short cuts nor secret plans in the process of development.

To increase the chances of success, the people must be mobilised and involved in every step.

-The writer is an Associate Professor at Georgetown University