Every time Kenya comes so close to political freedom, Raila Odinga emerges to spoil the party thus denying Kenyans the opportunity to redeem this country.
His opportunistic nature sabotages our political breakthrough. Every time we get so close to liberating our county from the yokes of tribal politics, he emerges with his now tired phrase - national dialogue. The ODM leader is the sole reason where this country has remains in one position for three decades. Gen Zs are about to make a breakthrough but he is about to spoil the party, once more.
The recent decision to engage in dialogue with President William Ruto’s administration has sparked a flurry of debates and discussions. While some view this move as a pragmatic step towards national reconciliation and stability, others see it as a betrayal, portraying the Azimio chief not as a saviour, but rather an accomplice in legitimising a regime they consider rogue.
This dichotomy is at the heart of Kenya’s complex political landscape, where alliances and oppositions are often fraught with historical, ideological and personal nuances.
Raila is a figure synonymous with resistance and reform in Kenya. His political journey, marked by repeated bids for the presidency and a longstanding advocacy for democracy and human rights, has earned him a reputation as a champion of the people. However, this same history also includes instances of cooperation with ruling regimes, such as the infamous 'Handshake' with then President Uhuru Kenyatta in 2018, which was both praised for reducing political tensions and criticised for diluting opposition's strength.
President Ruto, on the other hand, represents a continuity of power that many associate with entrenched corruption and governance challenges. His ascension to the presidency in 2022 was marred by controversies and allegations of electoral malpractice, which Raila himself vehemently contested. Therefore, the ODM leader's decision to enter into dialogue with the head of state is viewed by some as contradictory to his earlier stance against a regime he described as illegitimate and corrupt.
For critics, his dialogue with with the President is not just a strategic misstep but a moral failing. It suggests a willingness to negotiate and potentially compromise on principles that he and his supporters have long held dear. This perception is particularly potent among those who have historically looked to him as a bulwark against the very elements they believe Ruto represents. The act of engaging in dialogue is seen as lending legitimacy to the Kenya Kwanza administration, thereby undermining the opposition’s moral high ground and appearing as an endorsement of the status quo.
The argument posits that by choosing to engage rather than resist, Raila risks becoming complicit in the failures and misdeeds of the current administration. This complicity, they argue, is not passive but active; by participating in the political processes of a regime he once opposed, he is perceived as aiding in the continuation of its policies and actions. This perspective is particularly resonant among those who have suffered from governmental malpractices and had pinned their hopes on Raila as a catalyst for change.
Conversely, supporters of Raila's move argue from a standpoint of pragmatism and realpolitik. They suggest that the complexities of Kenyan politics necessitate a more nuanced approach than outright opposition. Engaging in dialogue with Ruto’s administration could be seen as a strategic move to influence governance from within, mitigate potential conflicts and foster a more inclusive political environment. This approach echoes his earlier pragmatic alliances, which, while controversial, have often resulted in tangible benefits such as political stability and incremental reforms.
From this vantage point, Raila’s decision is not about endorsing a rogue regime but about ensuring that the opposition remains relevant and capable of exerting influence. By participating in the dialogue, he could secure concessions or reforms that might otherwise be unattainable through sheer resistance. This view frames his actions not as those of an accomplice, but as a seasoned politician navigating a treacherous landscape to achieve the greater good.
However, his actions could set a precedent for future political engagements in Kenya. If dialogue and cooperation become the norm, it might pave the way for a more collaborative and less adversarial political culture. However, if perceived as a betrayal, it could deepen cynicism and disillusionment among the electorate, further eroding trust in political institutions and leaders.
English and Literature in Gatundu North subcounty