YVONNE'S TAKE: Ukrainian shoe, Iranian foot

There is something almost poetic about Kenyan politics. Not poetic in the romantic sense. No, but in the way it loops back on itself, like a chorus we’ve heard before, just sung by a different voice. Or, sometimes, the very same voice.

In 2022, at Chatham House, then-presidential candidate William Ruto offered what sounded like a principled critique of governance in Kenya. He warned against what he called a “mongrel” system, where the opposition sits in government, and government behaves like opposition. A blurring of lines so complete that accountability itself becomes a casualty.

It was a compelling argument. Clean. Almost surgical.

And then, back home, in the middle of a fuel crisis triggered in part by the Russia-Ukraine war, the same man, then Deputy President, stood before Kenyans and did something even more striking: he criticised the very government he served in. And when asked by a journalist about this irony, he blamed it on the form of government at the time.

Same crisis. Same plot. Government in opposition. Opposition in government.

Three short years ago, he told us this is exactly what erodes accountability, this blurring of lines, this “mongrel” arrangement where no one quite owns responsibility.

Three years later, we are back here again.

Same sector. Same questions. Same confusion.

Only this time, the mongrel government is not an inheritance. It is a creation. His creation.

And yet, the explanations keep shifting.

This week, the President told Kenyans that fuel prices here are higher than in our East African neighbours because Kenya is now a middle-income country. A new rationale. A different frame.

But it raises a familiar question:

If the problem is structural, if it is about who we are as an economy—then what exactly were we being told in 2022?

Because back then, the issue was governance. Cartels. Failure of leadership.

Now, it is status. Classification. Economic identity.

And then there is the theatre of accountability.

Just weeks ago, there were dramatic arrests of senior officials in the energy sector, presented as a sign that action was finally being taken. That the system was working.

But nearly 20 days later, there is little clarity. No visible movement towards prosecution. No sense of urgency. Just silence.

And in that silence, a pattern emerges. The spectacle of accountability is swift. The substance of accountability is slow.

So I wonder, would he still argue that the problem is this blurring of lines? This shifting of responsibility? Or has the explanation changed again?

Is it still governance? Or is it geopolitics? Or now, our status as a middle-income country? Who, exactly, is accountable today?

Perhaps the real issue is not the crisis itself, but the convenience with which explanations change. The ease with which yesterday’s diagnosis is abandoned for today’s justification.

And in that quiet shift, accountability doesn’t just weaken, it disappears.