Manifesto Yetu: Why Are Kenya’s Youth Embracing the Failed Policies of the Old Guard?

By: Muoki Musila

Not much beyond Yesterday’s “Manifestos”

At the launch of  Manifesto Yetu, a political statement and a social contract between the Kenyan youth and those that seek to lead them, one would have been optimistic that the age group is done with the ways of the old guard. This comes after a continued agitation of the youth for change and is undoubtedly a positive indication of a youth already assuming an active role ahead of 2027 elections and beyond. The youth continued to position themselves as the vanguard of change railing against the old associated with corruption, inefficiency, and failed economic policies.

However, the recently released Manifesto Yetu document reveals troubling paradox where the same generation demanding for transformation is advocating for the same statist and socialistic policies that have long kept Kenya in poverty and dependency for over 60 years. Section 5 of the document on social protection reads like a 1970’s socialistic manifesto calling for cash transfers for unemployed, reserved housing quotas, expanded social security, and a Universal Basic Income insinuation. These deserve scrutiny because, in as much as they are well-intentioned, they represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth and prosperity is created and how poverty is perpetuated.

Robbing Wanjiku to Pay Juma

The Manifesto demands, a “Youth Social Protection Fund” arguing for the provision of Ksh 3,000 monthly to the unemployed youth for six months and an emergency fund for youth-headed households. While the quest for stipends for apprenticeships and internships is reasonably captured, they sounds compassionate until we ask ourselves the obvious: where does the money come from?

The answer, undoubtedly is taxation, a cruel monster that send the same youth to the streets barely two years ago. The same youth receiving these transfers will eventually be taxed to fund them, or more accurately, the productive members of the generation will be heavily taxed to subsidize the unproductive. This is a classic Ponzi scheme where future taxpayers will subsidize the current consumption with no elements of wealth creation in between.

Subsequent Finance Acts and amendments continue to pile up on Kenya’s tax burden which is already crushing. These include the introduction of the Housing Levy (1.5% of gross salary), increased PAYE, doubled VAT on petroleum products, and imposed new taxes on everything possible including digital services and betting. It has to occur to the youthful population that insufficient cash transfers don’t cause youth unemployment but rather largely by the over-taxed, over-regulated economy whereof creation becomes prohibitively expensive.

Every shilling co-opted for cash transfer is an investment in productive enterprise short of a boost. This is a shilling not available for the young entrepreneurs to start businesses, absent from a company that ought to hire an additional young person, and missing from innovation and risk-taking imperatives for sustainable employment creation.

The delusion of Affordable Housing

The document of demands further buys into the ongoing affordable housing circus. As opposed to condemning and questioning the fundamentally flawed Affordable Housing Program that forces Kenya’s to contribute 1.5% of salaries to fund a project based on opaque governance and unclear ownership terms, it demands that 40% of the units be reserved to the youth.

“We must wake up to the fact that youth unemployment is a symptom of an economy that is increasingly punishing productivity and reward rent-seeking behaviors.”

This is indicative of a youth comfortable with the status quo of forced contributions, centralized allocations, and the introduction of demographic-based quota with the expectation of efficient outcomes: Socialism 101. History has shown us that when governments run housing programs, they produce expensive market-wide failures or dystopian concrete jungles what no one desires to live in.

Given, the 40% youth quota is pernicious and desirable to any young person in this Country. However, by what logic should a 34-year -old receive preferential access to housing over a 49-year old? Has housing challenge ceased being a need for all Kenyan’s? This introduces an arbitrary age-based discrimination which perpetuates the very unfairness the manifesto claims to oppose. Even worse, it creates a perverse incentives model where youth are encouraged to remain dependent on state allocation as opposed to demanding for an everyone to create wealth and improve their purchasing power.

The manifesto accurately identifies that the program is ‘urban-centric” and has an “unclear ownership model” and “double taxation”. The solution therefore is not to expand and feed off an unjust program but to call for the abolition of the forced levy entirely and unleash the private sector to offer housing solutions.

The Omission of the Private Sector’s Role is Glaring.

One of the most glaring omissions from the manifesto is the near-total absence of the private sector and failure to recognize its role in providing solutions. Sadly, the document outlines the state as the only entity capable of fixing the many challenges that the youth and the nation faces. This is despite a history that show’s that government’s score remarkably poorly in allocation of resources, innovation, and responding to market signals.

It therefore suffices to ask why wouldn’t the supposed progressive Manifesto Yetu Consortium advocate for the liberalizing of the housing market by removing restrictive laws, simplifying building permits, and reducing land and building related costs? Private developers have and will always build faster, cheaper, and are more responsive to the actual demand when not shackled by government bureaucracies. If the regulatory burden and corruption could be lifted, youth housing cooperatives, community land trusts, and employer-provided housing programs could flourish more.

In place of socialistic demands, why wouldn’t the Manifesto Yetu demand for the removal of barriers to private sector job creation, excessive licensing requirements, rigid labor laws where hiring becomes risky, and tax burdens that make business uncompetitive? We must wake up to the fact that youth unemployment is a symptom of an economy that is increasingly punishing productivity and rewarding rent-seeking behaviors.

Moreover, the Manifesto demands that informal sector workers be “integrated into NSSF with flexible contribution models which sounds desirable. One would however wonder why the solution has to be a state-run pension fund that has a history of poor returns and corruption. Was it a lack of imagination to go further and call for the liberalization of the pension industry for the private sector? More competitive retirement savings vehicles would certainly allow the young to have increased control, access and to invest better based on their tax tolerance levels.

Universal Basic Income, a Mirage of the Equity of Outcomes

At the core, the cash transfer proposal demanding a six-month stipend for job seekers is largely a youth-targeted Universal Basic Income (UBI). While this has gained support globally, it rests on several fatal fallacies.

First, it is premised on the assumption that poverty is primarily a problem of insufficient income as opposed to insufficient productivity. The creation of value is however the source of sustainable prosperity as opposed to the redistribution of existing wealth. While a cash transfer is likely to help young people buy bread for six months, it does little to address the skills mismatch, regulatory barriers, and economic challenge that resulted in the unemployment in the first place.

The pursuit of a UBI is premised on the need for equity of outcomes, the notion that all should have similar economic results regardless of efforts, skills, and contributions. This is economically destructive (why work hard if everyone receives the same) and philosophically bankrupt. True equity (assuming it’s a thing) ought to come from equal opportunity access and the equal treatment under the law as opposed to guaranteed equal results.

Thirdly, the UBI is bound to create permanent dependency. Once these programs are established, they often become politically untouchable as campaigning tools for politicians. It would inevitably be extended to nine months, then twelve, and then indefinitely. With the “emergency” becoming permanent, survival lessons point to increased government control and consequently even hire mismanagement and taxation.

A Better Way Forward

The Kenyan youth ought to fight for better for themselves and refuse to desire repackaged socialism. A transformative agenda ought to feature the elimination of barriers to entrepreneurship with the abolition of licensing fees, simplification of registration to a single day, and removal of sector specific restrictions that prevent youth entry. Equally, there is a need to call for reduced tax burden as opposed to introducing new taxes to fund transfers. This can be enhanced by cutting government spending, reducing in PAYE, VAT, and corporate taxes for the young to keep more of what they earn.

The liberalization of labor markets by embracing and safeguarding more flexible employment contracts, internships, and apprenticeships without demanding specific benefits is needed. This can increase the overall opportunities for youth to gain experience. The social security imperative is to further allow the young to opt out of the NSSF in favor of private retirement accounts that offer better control and access for genuine emergencies.

The ultimate irony of Manifesto Yetu is that Kenya’s youth, frustrated with the failures of big government, are demanding more of it. They oppose the “old guard” while embracing the old guard’s economic philosophy: that prosperity comes from state intervention rather than individual initiative, from redistribution rather than creation, from government allocation rather than market innovation. True empowerment comes from economic freedom in form of the liberty to start a business without permits, to keep the fruits of your labor, to make voluntary exchanges without state interference, and to build wealth through productivity rather than political connections. Real change requires rejecting the socialism of previous generations and embracing the radical idea that has lifted billions from poverty worldwide: economic freedom.