Why the Kenyattas topped the Odingas – again
- This brings me to the second reason why Mr Kenyatta emerged “victorious”. He was able to cobble together a large collection of tribal voters while “dispersing” some critical Cord strongholds, most principally the Luhya.
In contrast, CJ Willy Mutunga declared on March
30, 2013, that this year’s presidential elections were “free, fair, and
transparent”. That’s the “legal opinion” of a “unanimous” Supreme Court.
But a “legal opinion” and “material reality” could
differ. Even though most people have accepted the court’s ruling, a
large number are using Judge Kriegler’s words to describe this year’s
election — they are unconvinced the election wasn’t “materially
defective”.
That’s called freedom of thought and conscience. But there’s a bigger question. Why did the Kenyattas top the Odingas — again?
Scholars will forever debate whether Jubilee
flag-bearer Uhuru Kenyatta won the election, or Cord’s Raila Odinga lost
it. I am convinced we’ll never know the truth. That’s because the
Supreme Court’s judgment is final, and there’s no opportunity for
further review.
In reality, this leaves the country divided down
the middle. Whether President-elect Kenyatta can overcome this chasm
remains to be seen. His predecessor, President Mwai Kibaki, never
overcame the illegitimacy of the 2007 elections.
But no matter where you fall on the political
divide, you must ponder what Mr Kenyatta’s “defeat” of Mr Odinga means
for Kenya. Tribal jingoism and chest-thumbing can’t wish this pivotal
question away. These two key protagonists represent more than their
individual selves.
There are four reasons Mr Kenyatta “vanquished” Mr
Odinga. The first reason is simply who controls the State. This is a
historical matter. Some have argued, incorrectly, that both Mr Odinga
and Mr Kenyatta belong to the same political class. I say baloney.
Mr Kenyatta is a bona fide “insider” while Mr
Odinga is an “outcast” and an “outsider”. Mr Kenyatta belongs to the
faction of the ruling elite that’s always controlled the Kenyan state.
Mr Odinga has led an elite that’s always knocked
on the door, only to be turned away at every turn. Even as Prime
Minister, the closest he’s ever come to the inner sanctum of power, Mr
Odinga was relegated to the margins.
It’s true Mr Kibaki and State House mandarins may
have tried to stop Mr Kenyatta from succeeding him, but he outsmarted
them. Mr Kibaki’s aides thought Mr Kenyatta woes at The Hague wouldn’t
be good for business.
Nor did the optics of one Kikuyu succeeding
another look attractive. Word was that State House fronted UDF leader
Musalia Mudavadi as a “safe pair of hands”.
That term simply meant someone who wouldn’t
disrupt the status quo. That’s because Mr Mudavadi — though Luhya — is a
true insider. By birth and ideology, he’s part of the multi-tribal
elite that’s run the Kenyan state since independence.
But Mr Kenyatta cannibalised Mr Mudavadi’s
candidacy through chicanery and skullduggery. He outfoxed Mr Kibaki’s
aides. In the end, Mr Mudavadi’s lone entry into the race ate into Mr
Odinga’s support among the Luhya.
This brings me to the second reason why Mr
Kenyatta emerged “victorious”. He was able to cobble together a large
collection of tribal voters while “dispersing” some critical Cord
strongholds, most principally the Luhya.
The tribe remains king in Kenya’s electoral map.
The Big Five — the main ethnic groups that make up 70 per cent of
Kenya’s population — determine presidential elections.
I doubt Mr Kenyatta reached the required 50 per
cent plus one vote to win outright — given the irregularities adduced at
the Supreme Court — but I think he assembled enough tribal votes for a
run-off. That wouldn’t have been possible but for the tribe.
The third reason for Mr Odinga’s “defeat” is
“patronage” and “patrimony”. The Odingas and the Kenyattas come from
different worlds. The Kenyattas — according to public records and Forbes
magazine — are one of Africa’s wealthiest families.
Poor planning on CORDs part
ReplyDelete