Towards an assessment of the legacy of Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta: Pan-Africanist or subtle Western lackey?

Abstract

Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s fourth president, ascended to power in 2013 amid a barrage of threats from Western diplomats and an acrimonious relationship with the Western world because of the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges he faced. Yet, by the time his first term was coming to an end, his relationship with the West had undergone a dramatic facelift, and he had metamorphosed into one of the continent’s foremost leaders. Inspired by this spectacular change of fortune, this paper assesses his legacy. Framed around an “Pan-African—Western lackey” analytical lens informed by Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s dialectical representation of Africa’s political elite class, it poses the following two broad questions: Can Kenyatta be considered a pan-Africanist, or was he more of a subtle Western lackey? With regard to internal and external affairs, what were his notable achievements? Based on Michel Foucault’s “archaeology of power” concept, the paper draws on various relevant sources, including scholarly works, the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the now-defunct Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) Report of 2019, Kenya’s Budget Statements (2013–2022), and historical data obtained from Human Rights Watch annual reports (2011–2020); it finds partly that Kenyatta inspired a negative form of pan-Africanism that features impunity, packaged as a quest to safeguard national sovereignty. Also, some decisions his administration made on multilateral trade affairs make him susceptible to accusations of being a subtle Western lackey. Among the hallmark achievements of his tenure, of significance to ordinary citizens, include the use of technology to make public services significantly more accessible and the making of dialysis treatment more accessible and extremely affordable. Whereas his overall legacy continues to unfold given his involvement in peacekeeping efforts in his retirement, the ambivalence that considerably characterises his persona at present makes him difficult to firmly place on either side of the “Pan-African—Western lackey” analytical spectrum.