Why “Tutam” Is Beating “Wantam

Not long ago, “Wantam” dominated Kenya’s political mood. It captured anger, protest and a desire to punish those in power. It was loud, emotional and confrontational. Today, however, “Tutam” sounds more attractive to many voters. That shift tells us a lot about how President William Ruto has managed to outplay Rigathi Gachagua at his own political game.

“Wantam” thrives on grievance politics. It feeds on frustration, exclusion and the feeling that “our people” have been shortchanged. Gachagua leaned heavily into this approach, framing politics as a battle of communities, shareholding and historical injustices. For a while, it resonated. But grievance politics has a short shelf life. It mobilises anger, not endurance.

Ruto, sensing this fatigue, adjusted his strategy. “Tutam” is not about love; it is about resignation mixed with calculation. Kenyans may complain, but many are asking a practical question: If this is the government we have, how do we survive within it? Ruto has leaned into that reality by projecting inevitability, control and continuity. He presents himself as the only serious player left standing.

Just like in currency trading, where the dealer makes money by controlling the spread rather than guessing direction, Ruto has focused on controlling the political space. He has absorbed opposition energy, neutralised rivals through co-optation, and blurred ideological lines. Gachagua, meanwhile, continues to trade in emotional volatility—high risk, low sustainability.

“Tutam” benefits from state power, incumbency and fatigue among voters who fear instability more than hardship. “Wantam” requires momentum, unity and moral clarity—things that fracture easily when politics becomes personal and tribal.

The lesson is uncomfortable but important: Kenyan politics rewards those who manage perceptions, not those who shout the loudest. Ruto did not defeat Gachagua by rejecting his style; he refined it, institutionalised it and sold it as inevitability.

That is why “Tutam” now sounds safer than “Wantam”—even to people who are not convinced, but are tired of gambling with uncertainty.