Like everything else involving a complex historic figure in the making like the man with the most endearing nicknames in African history — the latest being ‘Baba,’ this is not a question that lends itself to a simple answer.
Rather, it requires one to first understand the context in which it is being asked, the dynamics at play, and the known knowns. In this case, the context is Raila ‘losing’ his bid for AUC chairman.
I put that in quotation marks because there are two schools of thought about this; the fi rst one holds that Raila made a deal with his then-nemesis President William Ruto for Odinga to save him from being chased out of State House during the Gen Z eruption in exchange for Ruto supporting him to be AUC chairman.
The AU position became attractive to Raila when he calculated and figured there wasn’t much of significance to do in Kenya with Ruto in office, so he might as well fi nd something worthwhile to keep him busy.
The cynical would say ‘to keep him busy for a year or two’ before he resigns to take on Ruto — and runs for the presidency for the six time.
The more objective would say that after vying for the presidency so many times, and given his age of 80, being AUC chairman would be a fitting way to crown his illustrious political career and let him retire with the full accolades of a statesman, dwarfi ng all current politicians at home, including the President.
The truth is somewhere in between, even though a betting person would wager that in due time, history will prove both were correct.
Why? Well, that opens doors to additional schools of thought, the third and fourth schools of thought. They firmly hold that indeed Raila saved Ruto from being chased out of State House in a quid pro quo that involved Ruto supporting Raila’s AUC bid, however, a cunning Ruto took advantage to have his cake and eat it, too.
How? By on the one hand supporting Raila for the AUC bid, while at the same time orchestrating his ultimate defeat. Any good professor of politics will give an ‘F’ to any student who presents this school of thought as a genuine theory.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Ruto do that? Even more importantly, why would Raila — the quintessential man who can see far as a giraffe as his father once said of former President Daniel Moi — not see that dangerous scenario and nip it in the bud, or more accurately, return to the trenches and toss Ruto out of State House with his own hands?
The answer is because that did not happen and could not happen. Which leads to the fourth school of thought that is more plausible and likely what may have happened. It goes like this: even though Raila was all for running for AUC chairman and initially campaigned hard for it, the dimming prospects of Ruto’s political survival were getting even dimmer.
Thus, it is likely both men decided that Raila would be more useful for their mutual objectives if he stayed put in Kenya, did not wander all over Africa as AUC chairman.
This school of thought makes a lot of sense but also begs questions that are beyond this piece to ask and answer, leaving them for others to take on.
Suffice it to say that in this school of thought lies the strong belief Raila and only Raila can save Ruto this time from being a one-term president.
Of course, Raila still commands massive numbers of followers and admirers, though their support is not as unconditional and stratospheric as in the past.
If Raila makes a deal with Ruto whereby the President agrees to take on and rid the country of rampant big corruption, and if Raila pushes Ruto to make amends for the sins committed against Gen Z, while addressing their issues, Raila will make Ruto’s reelection a given.
If Raila associates with Ruto but Ruto fails to deliver on these fundamentals, then both men will be ejected from the political scene. And rightly and mercilessly so.
The US-based writer is a political commentator
