francis gaitho's blackmail is undemocratic 

by Patrick Kariuki

Francis Gaitho, the self-styled spokesman of the Gen Z movement, has called for a nationwide strike on February 23 that will shut down the country and pressure Ruto to step down before 2027.

Gaitho has added to his call a brazen and reckless ultimatum: senior politicians, such as Kalonzo Musyoka, Eugene Wamalwa, and the rest, must help bring down President William Ruto before 2027, or face imprisonment under a new regime. Should they refuse, he promises retribution in the form of future mass arrests and trials. 

His offer of amnesty to Kenya’s senior opposition leaders only if they align themselves with his demands is hilarious and entertaining. But it's not a laughing matter.

This is not the language of democracy. It is the rhetoric of a political hostage-taker who believes that a nation’s future can be built on threats rather than persuasion.

James Orengo famously warned the nation that revolutions eat their own. Behind Gaitho’s admirable rhetoric of resistance and reform lies a darker, more troubling agenda—one that demands scrutiny.

Gaitho’s message is not one of unity or progress, but of coercion and blackmail. 

If we take a walk down conspiracy avenue, could Gaitho be a pawn to destabilize opposition forces and fracture the unity of those calling for change? His very wild and impractical demands appear to serve no interest other than to divide the opposition, separating Gen Zs from others.

His statements are so erratic and politically charged that they make anything Gen Z appear radical and dangerous—exactly the kind of image that benefits the very establishment he purports to be fighting against. By associating the Gen Z movement with extremism instead of change, Gaitho inadvertently pushes moderates and undecided Kenyans into the arms of Ruto’s government, which, by comparison, appears to be the ‘safer’ option.

For all his claims of generational change, Gaitho appears to be adopting the very tactics he claims to oppose—intimidation, political purges, and threats against perceived enemies.

How is Gaitho’s proposal any different from the political thuggery of the past? The world has seen this playbook before. It has been used by autocrats, strongmen, and corrupt regimes who justified their abuses in the name of ‘the people.’

Gaitho's amnesty offer is, in fact, a thinly veiled extortion scheme. If the old guard refuses to kneel, they will be crushed. If they comply, they will be spared. 

Is this the governance model of Gaitho's imagined future—where justice is no longer blind, but selectively applied based on political loyalty?

As Gaitho accuses Kenya’s elite of using money and connections to shield themselves while ordinary citizens live in fear of abductions, simultaneously, he threatens to use state power to jail his political opponents.

What exactly does he propose? A Kenya where power is handed over through intimidation, where the rule of law is secondary to generational revenge? If this is the future he envisions, then his movement is no revolution—it is merely a reshuffling of the oppressors.

Fear is not a sustainable political strategy. 

Gaitho also calls for a “total institutional overhaul” to protect the economy from politics, suggesting a radical one-year rotational presidency. This proposal is as impractical as it is naive. 

Kenya is no Switzerland. A one-year presidency is not sustainable within our ethnic-driven, populist political culture. It would ensure that no meaningful governance takes place, throwing Kenya into a permanent state of politicking and instability.

Who would make long-term economic plans? Who would be accountable? The answer is nobody. The presidency would become a hit-and-run political project, rather than a force for national stability.

Real reform requires careful restructuring, not whimsical experiments. Stability and accountability are not achieved by throwing the entire system into chaos, but by refining institutions, reinforcing checks and balances, and ensuring that power remains within the bounds of constitutional law—not within the dictates of whoever shouts the loudest. 

Above all, it calls for national cohesion and unity of purpose.

As Kenya pursues political change, the question is not whether the Gen Z movement will make a statement—they already have. The real question is whether they will mature into something that genuinely advocates for positive change or degenerate into a reckless exercise in political vengeance.

The Gen Z movement must reject political theatrics such as Gaitho's and go for genuine change. Genuine change is the hard work of bringing people together, and it takes time, but it is worth the effort. The future cannot be forged by replacing one set of threats with another.

For Kenya’s sake, let us hope that the path forward is one of reason, not retribution.

Meanwhile, if Gaitho wants to be taken seriously, he must abandon the politics of threats and extortion. He must recognize that democracy is not built on ultimatums but on dialogue, reform, and constitutionalism. 

Otherwise, he risks becoming exactly what he claims to oppose: an oppressive force drunk on power, unable to distinguish between justice and vendetta. And incompetent to govern.

Mr Kariuki writes on technology, governance, and sustainable practices. observerkenyan@gmail.com