The future is not an unexpected event

We then act surprised that they turn out weak and transient. In successive electoral cycles, we consolidate the vote by mobilising tribe against imaginary enemies, often other tribes. By defining others as our enemies, we force them to become, then act surprised at the outcome.

On the policy front, the debate hardly goes beyond our choice words for each other. For instance, we ignore the fact that our economy cannot carry large budget deficits indefinitely without a reset of the fiscal imbalance.

Then we act surprised that domestic public debt is crowding out the private sector from the credit markets, resulting in sluggish economic activity, lower than expected taxes, and a vicious cycle.

My critique is not new. Alvin Toffler proposed, in the 1970 best-selling book Future Shock, that modern humans suffer too much change in too short a period of time. That change, he argued, overwhelms us, leaving people disconnected and suffering from stress and psychological disorientation. He claimed that the majority of social problems are symptoms that condition.

Toffler posited three stages of development of society and production: agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial. Each phase develops its own ideology to explain reality. That ideology affects all the spheres that make up a civilisation: technology, social, information, and power patterns. John Githongo critiqued the ideology of our time, terming it, Our Turn to Eat in Michela Wrong’s book by the same name.

Today, technological and social advancements are so rapid that the human adaptive mechanism struggles to keep up, leading to a profound sense of disorientation. The large volume of new information, data, and choices available paralyse the human decision-making process, causing individuals to feel exhausted and overwhelmed.

We are suffering information overload, Toffler claimed. And that was before the internet, social media and the now ubiquitous mobile phones.

Now, everything - products, jobs, places, values, and even interpersonal relationships - has become temporary and easily disposable, leading to a lack of deep-rooted permanence. As social ties loosen, people develop transient, modular relationships.

We interact for specific, often transactional purposes, rather than forming deep bonds. We are nomadic workers, constantly adapting to new environments.

Modern life bombards individuals with unprecedented novel experiences and endless choices. While choice is necessary for freedom, an excess of novelty creates cognitive and emotional overload.

Toffler argued that rather than rejecting progress, individuals and institutions must build future-shock absorbers. These might include personal coping strategies, setting up environmental screens for new technologies, and social futurism to help humans take control of their own evolution.

Toffler was critiquing society not just for being surprised by its own outcomes, but for its complete failure to anticipate and prepare for them.

Though this was 56 years ago, it sounds very much like modern Kenya. Two senior clerics and I thought the Gen Z revolt akin to a miracle.

Never before had it been possible to mobilise politically at such a large scale. But in hindsight, is this not to be expected, given technology?

The recently adopted zero-based budgeting holds the promise of forcing institutions out of the comfortable assumption that the future is a slightly faster version of the present. This assumption leaves institutions blind to radical, structural shifts.

On their part, politicians and planners must stop merely reacting to crises after they occur, and use foresight to guide technological and social growth.

Still, for every new technology, we should look beyond its short-term economic benefit and evaluate its long-term psychological and cultural fallout. Our democracy cannot survive if we leave the future to chance. We must actively democratize the planning process to prevent collective panic – that is why the Constitution makes public participation mandatory.

The future is not an unexpected event. It must be systematically managed, so we must banish the illusion of continuity, reactive leadership, and technological blindness.

That is why debate on the development trajectory of our beloved republic is critical, and urgent. I hold the data backed view that we can achieve high-income status in this generation. If you think we cannot go to Singapore, where do you propose that we head to?

@NdirituMuriithi, an economist, is partner at Ecocapp Capital, the advisory firm.