William Ruto's State of the Nation address should be honest and reflective

It is, instead, an accountability statement to Article 1 Kenyans on the state of our Article 10 national values and principles, international obligations under Article 2 (5) and national security under Article 240. 

Or, to repeat what I said last year, it is a Head of State statement of progress on the state of the Kenyan nation, not a Head of Government implementation report on government projects.  The only time we had a stately SOTN address was when former President Uhuru Kenyatta spoke to the necessity of a national covenant.  The rest have been “tulifanya, tumefanya, tunafanya, tutafanya”.  We are likely to get the latter; an extended monologue on cheaper unga and fuel.

Before we get to the address itself, it is intriguing that the notice issued by the Speaker of the National Assembly only mentions reporting under Articles 10 and 2(5) not Article 240.  Are we now looking at a deliberately narrow interpretation of Article 240(7) which states that “The (National Security) Council shall report annually to Parliament on the state of the security of Kenya”)?  If so, this would be rather escapist, but let’s more positively assume that this is not the case.

Although expectations are low, one hopes the President will surprise us with an address that is honest and reflective; that acknowledges challenges and lessons learnt; that invites a two-way dialogue on the nation’s future.  The time for promises is gone.  And while there’s no problem speaking to “what we have done/ are doing”, SOTN should be “where we are now/are headed”.  

SOTN is more about self-reflection and introspection than it is about self-praise and congratulation.

Think about it as we work through constitutional obligations.  On national values and principles of governance, it is tempting to focus on the three arms of government that apply or interpret the Constitution, enact, apply or interpret any law or make or implement public policy decisions. 

This would be a useful start in getting the President to cast his lens beyond the National Executive.

But the broader approach goes back to the nation.   On democracy, where are we – progress, status, challenges, lessons - on patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, rule of law, democracy and participation of the people?  On this, we probably get a passing C grade. What does our forward trajectory look like?  The increasingly authoritarian feel looks like a D.

On our humanity, where are we on human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalised?  On this we get a D.  Forward trajectory?  We should be doing better here, and it’s possible to envision a C grade.

On governance, where are we on good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability? This is probably our low point, an E grade. Don’t be fooled by the words, promises and statements, there is nothing to indicate that the forward trajectory offers any improvement.   

Finally, where are we on sustainable development?  This probably looks like a passing C grade, and like our humanity, it is possible to imagine green shoots of progress towards a B grade.

These grades might seem harsh if we consider the range of policies, laws and regulations that are a product of the Constitution.  This is exactly the point.  Good on paper, not in practice.  Basically, on Article 10 values and principles, we are closer to D than C, but the overall trajectory is towards C.

It is difficult to recall in any previous SOTN address a specific mention of compliance with international obligations, so it might be a novelty moment to see what we get this year.

Assuming we will get a report on the state of security in, not of, Kenya one hopes, as mentioned last year, that this moves away from the current narrow crime-focused lens towards security as freedom from fear, danger and want (to combine the phrases).  This brings us to our favoured human security as a national security angle.  Let’s try some rough grading again.  On food security, we are probably at E, but the forward trajectory looks like it is taking us to D if not C. 

It’s likely a C for health security for now and the future, and a D for environmental security moving towards C.  Given that the state of the economy is on everyone’s mind it is fair to grade the current moment as E with a similar trajectory to our food security.  Political and community security both get a D grade for now and tomorrow, as does personal security at grade E. 

Basically, from a human security lens, we are just below D, but the trajectory is towards C.

Essentially, what we’ve done here is to offer a rough grading on the state of the nation from the perspectives of our national values and principles, and our human security.  Of course, this grading is totally subjective, but it shows a different way to excite engagement in an important discourse.

And there’s nothing that prevents anyone from applying this grading process to what I mentioned last year as “State of Our Economy” and “State of Our Society” mini-addresses as part of SOTN.   

However, the point to repeat is it is less about the address content – progress, status, trajectory – and more about its tenor.  Speaking to, not at, us.  With humility, not hubris. Honest and reflective.  Acknowledging challenges and lessons. Inviting a two-way dialogue on nation-building.