Why we need a blueprint that outlasts politics

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

There is a familiar rhythm to national planning in Kenya. A new administration arrives, commissions a glossy strategy, gives it a memorable name, and declares a new era. Conferences follow, optimism rises. Then an election approaches, priorities shift, projects are renamed or abandoned, and the cycle begins again.

Kenya is now approaching the end of Vision 2030, and President William Ruto has called for nationwide consultations beginning August 12 to develop Vision 2060. The President says this framework will be anchored in law, protected from electoral politics. This is a welcome ambition. But the conversation must not become another exercise in producing an impressive document that gathers dust on a government shelf.

Our problem is not a shortage of ideas. It is the failure to sustain them.

Development takes time. Politics does not. A politician works within an electoral cycle of five years. A road engineer designs infrastructure meant to last decades. A teacher invests in children whose economic contribution may only become visible twenty years later. These timelines rarely coincide, yet in Kenya the electoral cycle too often determines the development cycle.

When governments change, projects associated with the previous administration can lose political support. The cost exceeds the money already spent. We lose time, investor confidence, and the compounding economic benefits that would have accrued had those investments been completed.

Other countries have faced this challenge and found ways to protect long-term development from short-term politics. South Korea rose from poverty to an advanced economy by embedding development objectives in institutions that survived political transitions. Singapore built a public service capable of pursuing long-term investments beyond the politics of the day. Botswana has maintained strong growth since independence through disciplined institutions and prudent resource management.

The lesson is not that Kenya should copy these countries. The lesson is that successful transformation requires continuity. Governments may change their emphases, but certain national objectives must remain bigger than any one administration.

This is particularly important as Kenya confronts its debt challenge. The National Treasury acknowledges that debt remains sustainable but at high risk of distress, with borrowing requirements projected at Sh1.12 trillion for 2026/27. The issue is not borrowing itself. Countries that have developed successfully have all borrowed heavily to finance infrastructure. The issue is what the borrowing produces. Productive debt generates returns that expand the economy. Consumption debt without corresponding investment merely transfers today's problems to tomorrow's taxpayers. Every shilling borrowed should pass a simple test: what will this money produce, and who will benefit in 10, 20 or 30 years? The same discipline should guide development more broadly.

A mother in Kitui does not need another policy paper on water security. She needs a reliable water source and someone to maintain it. A young person in Kisumu does not need another youth programme. They need an economy where technical skills lead to productive jobs. A pastoralist in Northern Kenya does not need another drought-response strategy. They need livestock markets, veterinary services, and roads connecting producers to processing facilities.

This is why the Vision 2060 process should produce something more durable than another blueprint: a national development pact. Such a pact would identify a small number of priorities — infrastructure, water, energy, healthcare, education, food security, digital connectivity and regional trade — that successive governments agree to protect from political disruption. It would include realistic financing plans, clear responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms that transcend electoral cycles.

It would not prevent elected governments from pursuing their own programmes. Democracy requires competing ideas. But there must be a distinction between legitimate policy differences and abandoning investments simply because a predecessor initiated them. If a major road is economically justified, it should be completed. If a dam is viable, it should not be abandoned because the administration that conceived it has left office. If a training programme is producing skilled workers, it should be strengthened rather than replaced with another carrying a different political label.

Kenya has no shortage of talent. Our universities produce capable graduates, our private sector is innovative, and our entrepreneurs are resilient. What is missing is the institutional machinery that connects these strengths to consistent delivery.

The generation that delivered the 2010 Constitution gave Kenya a framework for democratic equity. This generation's responsibility is to turn that constitutional promise into economic opportunity. That means moving beyond the politics of announcements towards the discipline of delivery. It means measuring governments not by the programmes they launch, but by the problems they solve. It means accepting that nation-building investments — a school, a road, a water project — may quietly transform lives over decades without ever making the evening news.

As Kenya considers life beyond Vision 2030, let us resist the temptation to devise another grand strategy. Instead, let us ask a harder question: what are the things we must commit to finishing, regardless of who wins the next election?

That is the conversation worth having. Kenya does not need another plan. It needs a development pact strong enough to survive politics.

The Writer is a former Deputy Governor of Isiolo County and Former CEO of FCDC (Frontier Counties Development Council)

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.