Kenya's Elitist Blunders of the Administration on the Finance Bill 2024

The public protests of the finance bill 2024 have been widespread, cutting across a range of divides including ethnic, gender and age. The younger generation is however the mainstay. Perhaps the dominance of the protests by what is loosely termed as generation Z (those bore at the turn of the current century) explains why public protests of a national scale, could be considered as truly peaceful. It is refreshing that the president has refused to assent to the bill, although if the June 26th statement had come earlier, so much damage to political, economic and physical capital would have been prevented.

The Kenyan police force is not accustomed to a large public on the streets, opposing government with fists and chants instead of stones, axes and machetes. At least until Tuesday, June 25 th when the parliament was attacked and City Hall set on fire. But even before the protests made a violent turn, segments of MPs dismissed protestors as elitist, or protest images as photoshopped. The president added an interesting argument of a ‘third force’ in his June 25 th speech, following the aftermath of property destruction. For most of the MPs, their passage of the finance bill in the middle of national outcry was even louder than their public utterances.

The ongoing conversations and counter-conversations reflect both the emerging maturity of the Kenyan democracy but also, perhaps more worryingly, the underbelly of political power and increasingly elitist state. I would like to talk more about the latter. It is not rocket science, that the current administration was mainly elected by the poor and the working class, the grassroot who were persuaded that unlike the former, a new government would deliver on bread, oil, and easy access to diapers and sanitary pads for ordinary citizens. Nobody imagined that for most parliamentarians ‘access’ and ‘taxes’ of these basic items might mean the same thing. This confusion has been shaped by and has in turn shaped several elitist blunders which government should never have entertained, let alone consider. Matter of fact, the real elitism is not with those who protest increasing cost of bread, it is with those who consider it their duty to increase the cost of bread. Let me elaborate this point.

First, the idea of taxing basic food items should never have taken place under current economic conditions. The economy is recovering from layers of shocks including food inflation Russian-Ukraine conflict, Covid-19, locust invasion and extended national drought. Thus the cost of groceries in Kenya is 2.8% higher than in South Africa, an economy three times larger. A government which came to power by grassroot support should never have entertained the idea of taxing basic food items. This issue should not be dismissed as trivial. The histories of the French and the American Revolutions are colored with public discontent against government taxes on salt and tea, respectively.

Second, the passing of the bill by the people’s representatives, at the same time when ‘the people’ called for rejection of the bill was a second blunder. Granted, the government made concessions on some of the most contagious tax clauses. Even then, adding a heavier tax burden to the current is untimely. But also, the finance bill easily became a proxy for harsh economic conditions facing Kenyans. This proxy should not be discounted.

Third was the president’s speech on June 25 th night. At the time of his speech, City Hall had survived fire and the parliament had faced the wrath of citizens. There is a reason why public anger was directed to these two government institutions. The president’s immediate rationale was that these were criminal elements who were funded by anti-government forces. But such analysis was troubling, to say the least. In effect, the president did not even once mention the finance bill during the June 25 th speech. Instead, he spoke in generalities, offering to facilitate public conversations around ‘issues’. But taxes are issues of critical importance, and the public wants their voices heard.

Fourth, during the president’s June 25 th speech, he committed the military to protect the state, property and the people. In this sense he came out as Machiavelli’s lion, to frighten the wolves. He missed the opportunity to adapt to Machiavelli’s fox, to recognize the glaring political traps that came with such militant action. The police had already killed more than ten protestors by the time the president deployed the military. Who then was to be protected? The people or the people’s representatives? The people’s danger was the loss of their socio-economic capital. The lawmakers danger was the loss of their physical capital. That’s the textbook formular of elitism, -to employ all means of state power to protect elite capital interests. Enough of the elite theory and its application in the recent events.

Even though the voice has reason seems to have prevailed, -thus the president’s statement on June 26 th specifically rejecting the finance bill, 2024, the administration has clearly lost political capital under the recent storm. This is due to, either poor economic and political advisory, or a president who did not listen to sound advice. I do not know which one of the two. What is certain is that it’s too quickly for the administration to transform from a grassroot (bottom up) enterprise to a club of elites.

While Machiavelli’s doctrine of the prince as a lion and fox is a useful lesson, it is not advisable for the prince to justify the end through the means. For the finance bill, -and other issues of public interest, the process matters as much as the end. The prince, his advisors and the people’s representatives can only gain the lost political capital through revisiting ‘process’ in public issues, taking the people’s voices seriously, and implementing them not for the people, but with the people.

Dr Jason Musyoka is a Development Economist based at the University of Pretoria, and The Frontline Group
.