Why loser of March election may not concede defeat
Posted Saturday, January 5 2013 at 18:26
- Neutral: I can’t emphasise how key a neutral and firm hand by Hassan and the IEBC will be
My crystal ball tells me the ghost of the 2007 election may come back to haunt the 2013 polls. That’s right – the jinx of 2007 may bite us again in March.
I wish I had more cheery news, but I don’t. The “tea leaves” are telling us something sinister – let’s read them without emotion, or tribal myopia.
You know what they say about history – those who don’t learn from it are bound to repeat it. Methinks we are history-blind, and prognosis-deaf. In matters politics, most of us listen to our hearts, not our heads.
We wishfully think, and don’t thoughtfully wish. I have five reasons why the loser of the 2013 election may not concede defeat.
First, the main protagonists look eerily similar, give or take a few additions, or subtractions. There are two main challengers who face each other across a huge chasm.
Theirs is a blood and ideological feud.
If the courts don’t bar Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta from contesting, he is certain to face PM Raila Odinga.
The psychosis of such a contest ought to be clear to all and sundry. Like in 2007, a Kikuyu candidate will face a Luo contestant. This might otherwise be OK, but history tells us it’s not.
The names Odinga and Kenyatta conjure up bad history. The father of the latter mistreated the father of the former. Then the scions locked horns in 2002 and 2007.
In 2002, Mr Odinga denied Mr Kenyatta the presidency when he led a mass exodus from Kanu and said “Kibaki Tosha”.
In 2007, Mr Kenyatta paid Mr Odinga in the same coin – he said “Kibaki Tosha”.
Mr Kenyatta was then fingered by the International Criminal Court as among other Kenyans bearing the greatest responsibility for the post-election violence.
He wears the indictment for crimes against humanity like an ugly “bling” around his neck. He has blamed Mr Odinga for his woes at The Hague. Although a false fabrication, Mr Kenyatta has got his fanatical supporters to drink this laced Kool-Aid.
Their delirious devotion to Mr Kenyatta may not allow them to accept defeat. This is especially true if Mr Kenyatta balks at the results.
Second, a mano-a-mano duel between Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta has negative tribal implications. It pits “Kikuyu entitlement” against “Luo victimhood”. The Kikuyu have produced two of Kenya’s three presidents. The Luo none. The Luo might feel a third Kikuyu president is too much to bear – especially if the third is named Kenyatta.
They think “it’s their turn”. Besides, they feel the Kenyan state has either eliminated, or persecuted to irrelevance, their brightest political stars. A few names come to mind – TJ Mboya, Robert Ouko, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.
PM Odinga himself served almost a decade in detention. This is the kind of history that could explode.
Juxtapose this against the “Kikuyu entitlement” to rule and the picture isn’t pretty.