OPINION: Why the Gen Z movement failed to consolidate the gains of its struggle

Occupy Parliament was a remarkable success. It demonstrated the power of citizen action and compelled the government to withdraw the Finance Bill, 2024. For the first time in many years, young Kenyans had shown that they could influence national policy without the backing of established political parties. June 25, 2024, became a defining moment in Kenya's democratic history. Yet, while the Gen Z movement won an important battle, it failed to convert that victory into lasting political influence.

One of the greatest contradictions of the Gen Z movement was its rejection of negotiations. The movement failed to transition from the streets to the boardroom. What I learnt from Raila Odinga was that protests are only one phase of struggle. After mobilization comes organization, negotiation, and the institutionalization of gains. The Gen Z movement, however, remained suspicious of leadership and rejected the idea of representatives or negotiators riding on the ‘leaderless’ abstraction.  As a result, after the withdrawal of the Finance Bill, there was no coherent structure to articulate demands, engage government, or define a roadmap for reforms. The energy that had shaken the establishment dissipated because no mechanisms existed to channel it into policy outcomes.

The insistence on being leaderless and partyless, while initially useful in preventing political co-opting, eventually became a liability. Every successful movement in history has required some form of organization and leadership. By refusing to identify a leadership or build institutions, the movement deprived itself of the ability to make collective decisions and negotiate from a position of strength. Power abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of organized leadership, established political actors moved swiftly to occupy that space. The broad-based government came into force in the milieu of Gen Z’s inability to adapt.

This vacuum created an opportunity for the traditional opposition to reassert itself. While Gen Z activists remained committed to horizontal organizing and rejected engagement with the political class, Raila Odinga understood that politics ultimately revolves around negotiation and compromise. He entered discussions with President William Ruto and extracted concessions and political advantages, effectively becoming the recognized interlocutor between the State and dissenting voices. The movement that had generated the pressure was thus sidelined by actors who possessed organizational structures and experience in political bargaining.

History is replete with examples of movements that conquered the streets but failed to capture the institutions that ultimately shape the future. The Arab Spring offers perhaps the most sobering lesson. In 2011, millions of young people poured into public squares across Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen demanding freedom, dignity and accountability. In Egypt, the images from Tahrir Square captivated the world as protesters forced President Hosni Mubarak from office. For a brief moment, it appeared that a new democratic era had dawned.

Yet the revolutionaries had mistaken the fall of a ruler for the completion of a revolution. They possessed passion but lacked organization. They mistrusted hierarchy and failed to build structures capable of translating street power into political power. While the activists celebrated in Tahrir Square, the military and more organized political actors quietly prepared to inherit the state. Within two years, Egypt had come full circle. General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had seized power, and many of the young men and women who had ignited the revolution found themselves spectators to a future they had sacrificed so much to create.

Elsewhere, the story was even more tragic. Libya descended into factional conflict after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. Syria's peaceful demonstrations spiralled into a devastating civil war. Yemen plunged into chaos. Even Tunisia, once hailed as the lone success story of the Arab Spring, has witnessed democratic backsliding. The lesson from the Arab Spring was not that protests are futile. Rather, it was that revolutions rarely succeed through moral force alone.

Occupy Parliament proved that young people could mobilize and force change, but the inability to move from activism to organization meant that the movement lacked the capacity to consolidate its gains. By rejecting leadership, distrusting parties, and refusing to establish mechanisms for negotiation, the movement inadvertently ensured that others would speak and bargain on its behalf.

The tragedy of the Gen Z movement was therefore not that it failed to bring attention to legitimate grievances. It succeeded in that regard. Its tragedy was that it confused the rejection of traditional politics with the rejection of politics itself. Yet politics is unavoidable. Someone will always occupy the boardroom. If those who generate pressure refuse to negotiate, others will negotiate on their behalf. If those who create history refuse to organize, others will inherit the future.

The enduring lesson of June 25 may therefore be this: it is not enough to win the streets. One must also learn to win the boardroom. Otherwise, the authors of change risk becoming spectators to the very future they helped create.