Despite the foundation’s nuanced presence in Kenya, Ruto’s accusation appears to deflect responsibility for his own actions, say analysts.
The explosion of tear gas canisters, masked protesters wielding the Kenyan flag, throngs of people chanting in unison – these have been the scenes in Kenya for well over a month as thousands have taken to the streets – first to protest against proposed tax hikes and now to air their general grievances with the government.
In recent days, however, Kenyan President William Ruto, a key United States-ally, made a fiery charge: that antigovernment protesters are being funded by the US philanthropic organisation Ford Foundation.
Why did Ruto level this accusation? Here’s everything you need to know:
Why are antigovernment protests taking place in Kenya?
Protests began in mid-June when Ruto’s government announced tax hikes that would have raised the cost of many basics.
But the $2.7bn tax reform was just the tip of the iceberg: stagnating wages and unscaled corruption have frustrated the populace for years. The tax plan was merely the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, said Al Jazeera’s Malcolm Webb, reporting from Kenya’s capital, Nairobi.
That is also why protests have continued despite Ruto scrapping the planned finance bill on June 26, as well as dismissing almost his entire cabinet and offering “multi-sectoral” talks to address protesters’ grievances.
The clampdown on protests, in turn, has been severe. More than 50 people have been killed during the demonstrations, with another 59 abducted or missing, and 628 others arbitrarily arrested, according to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.
On Tuesday, Ruto threatened a “total shutdown” of the country if protests continued.
What accusation did Ruto make and how did the Ford Foundation respond?
On Monday, Ruto made a slinging accusation at the Ford Foundation, the organisation founded by Henry Ford of Ford automobiles fame. The Kenyan president said the organisation was sponsoring those who had caused “violence and mayhem” in Kenya, but provided no evidence for the claim.
The embittered leader told a large crowd: “That money they are giving out to sponsor violence, how are they going to benefit?”
“If they are going to sponsor violence in Kenya, if they are going to sponsor anarchy, we are going to call them out and we are going to tell them that they either style up or they leave.”
A day later, the Ford Foundation rejected the allegation, saying it has a strictly non-partisan policy for its grant-making.
“While we acknowledge the right of Kenyans to peacefully advocate for a just and equitable country, we repudiate any actions or speech that are hateful or advocate violence against any institution, individual, or community,” the organisation said in a statement.
Does Ruto’s accusation against the Ford Foundation have any merit?
Ruto has offered no evidence to back his accusation, which appears to be aimed at deflecting responsibility for his own actions, said analysts.
His recent decision to fire almost his entire cabinet signals an attempt to shift blame amid Kenya’s financial and political challenges, said Jervin Naidoo, a political analyst at Oxford Economics Africa.
“Despite claiming to heed the Kenyan people’s concerns and promising better governance, Mr Ruto has not publicly or privately accepted any personal responsibility for the controversial finance bill and the ensuing protests,” Naidoo told Al Jazeera.
In his address on June 26, when he recalled the finance bill, Ruto blamed foreign elements and alleged that the protests were infiltrated by criminal elements, the analyst explained.
“Historically, during the Cold War, the Ford Foundation was accused of covertly supporting US security and foreign policy goals, but there is no evidence supporting collusion between the US government and the Ford Foundation in the present context,” Naidoo added. “Ruto’s accusations seem to be a strategy to divert attention from his administration’s shortcomings.”
Fergus Kell, a research analyst with the Africa Programme at Chatham House, agreed that Ruto’s allegation is “baseless” and meant to deflect responsibility.
“Ruto’s claim that the Ford Foundation is funding antigovernment protests is a baseless attempt to discredit and dilute deep-seated public anger in Kenya by attributing motivation to external forces,” Kell told Al Jazeera, adding that the foundation publishes records of its grants online and that officials in Ruto’s government praised its work earlier this year.
Ruto has a history of deflecting blame away from his actions, said Samar al-Bulushi, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California Irvine and author of the forthcoming book War-Making as Worldmaking: Kenya, the United States, and the War on Terror.
In the lead-up to Kenya’s 2013 elections, Ruto, then the vice presidential candidate, and presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta, faced charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their role in the 2007 post-election violence, al-Bulushi explained.
“They accused the ICC of being a neocolonial entity that was meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation,” she told Al Jazeera. “There was considerable irony to that charge, as the pair relied on a British public relations firm to craft their messaging.”
But Ruto may have singled out the Ford Foundation this time to relay his message to a domestic audience that understands the political affiliation of specific individuals who have links with the organisation, Fadhel Kaboub, a senior adviser with Power Shift Africa, told Al Jazeera.
The Kenyan president’s political adversaries include Willy Mutunga, the former chief justice who previously worked for and still has an advisory role at the Ford Foundation, he explained. Additionally, one of the key individuals at the centre of the protests against the finance bill is Boniface Mwangi, Kaboub, one of Mutunga’s close associates, added.
Ruto’s allegation was made both in English and Swahili, a subtle but perhaps deliberate tactic to package his message, the analyst said.
“President Ruto’s comments in Nakuru County started in English when he was referring in general terms to ‘those who are behind the anarchy in Kenya, those sponsoring violence in Kenya’, then switched to Swahili to name the Ford Foundation, then switched back to English to say ‘we’re going to call them out and tell them they have to either style up or leave,’” Kaboub said.
What might this mean for Kenya-US relations?
Kenya’s distinctive relationship with the US – deep ties that surpass any other African nation – will likely cushion any negative effect of Ruto’s comments on Kenya-US relations, said Naidoo.
“Kenya is a crucial ally for the US, receiving substantial aid and playing a key role in US security interests in the region, such as counterterrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa and West Africa,” he said.
US President Joe Biden made a recent proposal to designate Kenya as a “major non-NATO ally”, highlighting the country’s importance to US foreign policy, particularly in countering Russian and Chinese influence in Africa, said the political analyst.
Military ties between the two countries continue to deepen as well, with the US funding hundreds of millions of dollars in Kenya’s defence capabilities in recent years. Kenya also participates in US military exercises and academies, and the US has lent support for the Kenyan-led UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti, said Naidoo.
But other analysts said the protests themselves could strain these deep-seated ties.
Allegations of Kenyan security forces’ extrajudicial killings of protesters have been met with some concern already among the US administration, said Kell.
The US is also deeply concerned by the possibility of destabilisation of one of its key African allies – which may not affect relations immediately but could have longer-term consequences, said Irina Tsukerman, a geopolitical analyst at the media advisory firm Scarab Rising, and a human rights and national security lawyer.
“If such handling of civil unrest continues, [the] US will likely be tougher; however, in the meantime, it is an opportunity to engage in dialogue … solve ongoing economic issues, and [share] best practices in law enforcement,” Tsukerman told Al Jazeera.
What has been the history of the Ford Foundation and other organisations like it in Kenya?
Some analysts said the Ford Foundation, which has operated in Kenya since the 1950s, has a track record of supporting Kenyan civil society organisations in a non-partisan way.
Over the decades, it has focused on everything, from economic development to women’s rights and higher education, said Naidoo.
According to Kell, the foundation has “contributed to Kenya having one of the most vibrant civil society spaces on the African continent”.
But while there have been no major controversies directly involving the organisation in Kenya, questions occasionally arise regarding its funding and the selection of its sponsored projects, said Naidoo.
That distrust extends beyond the government, to some segments of the Kenyan population as well, said Tsukerman.
“While some activists and communities welcome their role in amplifying voices for change … many not only inside the government but amidst the population view them as an unofficial arm of US or Western foreign policy, as an unwelcome interference in local affairs,” she explained.
Many believe that the foundation’s involvement should instead be replaced by domestic actors over “self-serving outside organisations”, Tsukerman said.
Still, Ruto’s charge that the foundation is funding Kenyan protesters is more unlikely given that it is “part of the very capitalist system that the protesters have identified as [being] part of the problem rather than the solution”, said al-Bulushi.
“The reality is that the Ford Foundation, much like other large major grant-making organisations, have contributed to the depoliticisation of activism in Kenya by channelling much-needed conversations about social change into boardrooms and conference rooms, away from the terrain of popular struggle,” the professor explained.
“While groups like Ford can at times provide a buffer between persecuted activists and the state, they have also contributed to the rise of a distinct class of professionalised activists who become imbricated in power structures that perpetuate rather than challenge the status quo.”