President William Ruto’s recent remarks at the 4th Pastoralist Leadership Summit in Wajir County have stirred significant controversy and debate across Kenya. In his address, Ruto unleashed a sharp rebuke against those opposed to the government’s nationwide livestock vaccination program, labeling them as “stupid” and accusing them of being possessed by evil spirits. This strong language marks a new strategy in the President’s communications, which has sparked widespread reactions from both supporters and critics.
Controversial Vaccination Program
The government’s plan to roll out a nationwide livestock vaccination program next year aims to inoculate 22 million heads of cattle against Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR). This initiative is crucial to safeguard the country’s livestock, which is a significant economic asset, particularly for pastoral communities. However, the plan has faced resistance from several quarters, including leaders from the opposition and farmers who fear genetic alterations to local breeds and other unintended consequences.
President Ruto’s dismissive remarks targeted these dissenters directly, referring to them as “mad,” “unreasonable,” and “stupid.” His frustration was palpable as he questioned the logic of opposition to a program aimed at protecting livestock health and promoting economic stability in pastoral regions. “Honestly, how else can you explain? You don’t know about livestock, shut up,” Ruto said, directing his ire at those questioning the vaccination’s necessity. He further condemned the critics as perpetuating “lies” and “spreading evil spirits” among the public.
Opposition’s Concerns
The opposition, led by Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka, has been vocal in its criticism of the vaccination program, calling it a foreign agenda that could alter the genetic structure of local livestock breeds permanently. Kalonzo and other leaders have urged Kenyans to resist the vaccination initiative, citing concerns over safety and genetic modification risks. “We reject these experiments in total,” Kalonzo stated, emphasizing that they would resist the program “to the very end.” This stance has resonated with many pastoral communities who fear losing traditional livestock traits and genetic purity.
The opposition’s response highlights the deep distrust among Kenyans towards government initiatives, especially those perceived to be influenced by foreign interests. Critics argue that the vaccination program could be part of broader efforts to transform Kenya’s livestock sector, aligning it with global standards at the expense of indigenous breeds. This sentiment is compounded by President Ruto’s earlier comments in which he accused critics of being possessed by “evil spirits” when they opposed other government projects like the Adani deal and affordable housing initiatives.
Presidential Communication and Criticism
The President’s use of strong language to silence dissent is not a new development. Over the past year, Ruto has increasingly adopted a confrontational tone, using inflammatory language to dismiss critics and frame opposition as irrational or sinister. His comments at the Pastoralist Leadership Summit were particularly stark, coming just a week after he referred to those questioning the National Equipment Service Programme (NESP) deal as “foolish.” This approach has drawn criticism from political analysts and commentators who argue that such rhetoric is not conducive to rational policy discussions or constructive national dialogue.
Critics have expressed concern that Ruto’s language undermines his leadership style and the presidential office’s dignity. The use of pejorative language to address dissent has been interpreted by some as a sign of political insecurity and an unwillingness to engage with legitimate concerns. Moreover, it risks deepening divisions in a country already grappling with socio-economic challenges and political unrest.
A Matter of National Importance
The debate over the livestock vaccination program reflects broader concerns about the role of science and public policy in Kenya. As the country moves forward with plans to modernize its agricultural and livestock sectors, there is a pressing need for transparency, public consultation, and dialogue. Ruto’s dismissive comments have, therefore, drawn attention to the government’s approach to policy implementation and public engagement.
The President’s approach to communicating policy is likely to be closely watched as Kenya prepares for the next general election in 2027. How he handles dissent and engages with critics will be crucial to maintaining public trust and ensuring that his administration’s policies are both inclusive and effective. While some see Ruto’s comments as an attempt to consolidate power and stifle opposition, others view them as a sign of leadership under stress, struggling to assert authority in the face of mounting economic and political pressures.
In conclusion, the livestock vaccination program and the President’s subsequent remarks underscore the challenges faced by Kenya as it seeks to balance modernization with traditional concerns in its pastoralist communities. As the debate continues, the government will need to consider a more nuanced approach to engaging with dissenting voices to build broader support for initiatives that affect the livelihoods of millions of Kenyans.
