Any change of guard needs to reflect moral and technical quality

A political party is defined by a set of social goals which can, ideally, be summarised by one ideological word.

But by what word can you define the ruling Jubilee or Raila Odinga’s ODM? Is it “Christian”, “communist”, “federalist”, “Islamic”, “labour”, “nationalist”, “progressive”, “republican”, “socialist”, suchlike?

There is some hope in the adjective democratic in Mr Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement. It may mean that the party is truly democratic. The question is: What exactly does “democratic”

mean? One, it may concern certain long-term goals, not just by party members, but by the whole country – like speed, quality, justice and security in the production of national wealth and services.

But, two, by “democracy”, the owners may be referring only to intra-party procedures, namely, justice in the party’s internal affairs. This can be judged on two levels. The first is that, within a general ideological framework, members are free to express differences on particular issues.

Secondly, they can vote freely and regularly on those issues – including to elect party officials – as a means of resolving those differences progressively.

YARDSTICK

But, on this procedural issue, which of Kenya’s political parties – including the “Orange” one – will pass muster by any democratic yardstick?

Each has a chairperson who appears sacrosanct, permanent and cannot be touched by any democratic procedure. Nobody is intrepid enough to challenge Uhuru Kenyatta at TNA, Kalonzo Musyoka at Wiper, Musalia Mudavadi at Amani, William Ruto at URP, Martha Karua at Narc-Kenya, and so on.

Those – like Nairobi Governor Evans Kidero and Rongo lawmaker Dalmas Otieno – who are reportedly keen on challenging Mr Odinga for the ODM’s helmsmanship – know how terribly they are risking their political careers. Mr Odinga’s retinue – who include the ragamuffins of Gor Mahia – just will not peacefully allow it.

Democracy? Is that what you call it even when a party is well known to belong by birthright to a particular family? Concerning the ODM leadership, then, Mr Odinga can consider himself as safe as Mayor Daley of Chicago’s Cook County when I was an undergraduate student in the Windy City many decades ago.

That is why it is time to ask serious questions why youngsters like Otieno Kajwang and Ababu Namwamba – minds long stymied by self-importance and which have played such a central role in creating the cult of the helmsman, thus undermining all the chances of democracy in the ODM – still enjoy such a wide latitude of expression and control in Kenya’s most important opposition party.

SELF-INTEREST

It is thus a just comeuppance if the intra-party injustices whose roots they have allowed to deepen for so long now appear to be catching up with them. But that cannot be any occasion for celebration.

The fact is that the ODM leadership as a whole remains too steeped in its own self-interest to make any democratic mark on its ruling rival.

No, I do not think that, by itself, a regular change of guard necessarily adds positive blood to a party’s democratic content and quality. It might. But – if it is too frequent – a drastic personnel change is much more likely to rob a well-meaning party of every opportunity to build a truly democratic tradition within itself and – should pan out for it to take State House – within its administration.

I think, nevertheless, that, occasionally, a change of guard will be good for the party, the government and the country as a whole. The problem is how to resolve these two values. The answer, I think, is to devise a method by which to ensure that every change of personnel represents real moral and technical quality.

Of course, Mr Odinga deserves a chance to rule this country one of these days. But he will earn it best only by ridding himself of all the human cobweb around him and arming his party only with morally and technically capable human beings.

[email protected]