What gains will communities derive from the defection of dodgy leaders?

The season for madness is with us again. This time, the madness is instigated in the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). A group of Luyia Members of Parliament (MPs) are apparently unhappy with the party leadership and want to quit. But instead of actually quitting, they have chosen to threaten and perform some bravado dance that masks rather than enlighten those who voted them.

Of course, it is their constitutional right to quit ODM and find a new home. I am not even sure there is a provision in law that requires defecting MPs to explain. In any case, to whom would they offer the explanation given the low opinion some MPs hold the voters? What is clear to me is that most MPs who decide to defect never take the bold step to simply go. Most want to hang around and reap the benefit of sitting in a party they relish bashing.

One would have thought that Hon Ababu Namwamba would be different. His writing in the press and his general public demeanour demonstrated an admirable combination of youthful resolve and vision; indeed a promise of alternative leadership. One might understand the publicly stated reasons for his displeasure with ODM, the perception that he held a position without effective capacity to execute a mandate. But the timing and the misplaced conceit worry the soul.

The noisy threat of defection is strategically close to the next general election. Whatever reasons are given for it, be they due to personal conviction or externally instigated, the actions are part of an electoral calculation and are carefully choreographed to achieve particular electoral effect against ODM. We can debate who is choreographing them.

Second, the complaints have nothing to do with the people that these MPs were elected to serve. Yet, the voter should be the critical pillar around which this discussion is constructed. It is indeed instructive that none of the leaders who have complained have demonstrated that the so-called interference in their jurisdictions has affected specific development programmes in their constituencies or their capacity to exercise their representation or oversight tasks.

ARTICULATE CONCERN

Thus, though the MPs feel slighted by one or the other action of their ODM colleagues, none of them has articulated a concern that goes beyond their feeling of being slighted. As such, the issue at hand has everything to do with personal survival of incumbents. And though I have not seen any publicly verifiable evidence indicating that the motivating factor has something to do with rival political parties, it is not inconceivable that the consequence will play into an electoral narrative that seeks to depict the ODM in a particular light.

What, however, is crucial is that the actions of these MPs make one wonder when our parties will institutionalise; when our politics will mature so we can have national leaders who stand for something bigger than their egos. The pettiness of their complaint is the reason we must go beyond framing this as between being in ODM or defecting to another outfit. We must consider the bigger question of how we use this moment to empower people to operate beyond the pettiness of the current squabbling.

This is important because the season of madness tends to be defined by anything but reason. It panders on emotions and whips up ethnic nationalism that serves no one but the interests of the politicians who whip it up. That is why talk about some Luyia unity has accompanied the threat to defect from ODM. But why does Luyia unity only become urgent when politicians feel threatened elsewhere? Why do we need unity only when we want to embrace a form of jingoism that is so toxic and politically self-serving? The unity being proposed is designed to enable political entrepreneurs negotiate their relevance and secure benefit with others from other regions. I cannot subscribe to it.

Godwin R. Murunga is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi.