Why Uhuru, Raila manifestos will mirror each other

President Uhuru Kenyatta (left) with Raila Odinga at State House in Nairobi in 2014. FILE PHOTO

What you need to know:

  • If little or nothing has changed in the ideology, principles and philosophies of either grouping, then one might assume that the approaches outlined in 2013 will be mirrored in their 2017 promises.

  • The year 2017 represents not just a rematch of 2013 but also another instalment in the dynastic feud dating back to 1966.

In the next few days as the two main protagonists unveil their rival manifestos for the General Election, observers might be struck that President Uhuru Kenyatta’s Jubilee Party and Raila Odinga’s National Super Alliance (Nasa) might actually have more common than they have in differences.

They sometimes come out as bitter rivals with sharply different approach to issues, but a close look at President Kenyatta and Mr Odinga reveals two personalities who may be on opposite poles of the political divide, but otherwise would be largely in agreement on a wide array of social, economic and political issues.

2013 BLUEPRINTS

The 2017 General Election is basically a rematch of 2013, with Mr Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto of the then Jubilee coalition facing a second challenge from Mr Odinga and running mate Kalonzo Musyoka, who were then in the Cord coalition and now carry the Nasa flag.

If little or nothing has changed in the ideology, principles and philosophies of either grouping, then one might assume that the approaches outlined in 2013 will be mirrored in their 2017 electoral promises.

Their rival 2013 blueprints were remarkably similar in the prescriptions they offered for economic and social renewal.

They were in broad agreement on approaches towards economic growth, enhanced investments in the key areas of agriculture, roads, railways, energy, and ICT.

PLEDGES

They promised crop and livestock insurance, cheap fertiliser, extension services, irrigation projects and access to affordable credit as the answer to food security issues.

They promises more roads and railways, particularly to unreached areas, to enhance the movement of goods and people as a key economic priority, as well as to ensure reliable power supply to every part of Kenya.   

On the social side they were also in concert on access to quality health, education and social security, particularly for vulnerable groups.

All pledged to employ more teachers and healthcare workers for general improvement of public education and health services.

They also pledged to reform the security services and invest more in personnel, equipment and technology.

NATIONAL CAKE

They may have differed in the details, priorities and specifics, but the two manifestoes revealed a remarkably similar approach, that in turn reveals there is little difference between Mr Kenyatta and Mr Odinga when it comes to policy prescriptions.

The other thing is that the two documents were basically a raft of election promises comprising of lengthy lists of investments to be expected in various social and economic sectors, but very vague on actual cost and where the money will come from.

Both documents also shared a similarity in the dearth of any defining characteristic that would reveal the guiding ideological and philosophical base of the party and its leadership.

Both make what seem pro-forma nods to patriotism, national unity, equitable development, support for disadvantaged groups and regions.

A careful reading would indicate that Mr Odinga leans left with his references to equity, wealth and land redistribution, human rights, and redress of historical grievances.

President Kenyatta leans right with the emphasis on investment and economic growth as the panacea to poverty.

CLASSICAL SOCIALIST

In classical terms, Mr Odinga might be the classical socialist demanding a fairer share of the national cake.

Mr Kenyatta would be the classical right winger prescribing a bigger cake, and Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics.

In reality both are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists whose rival prescriptions will be almost identical election promises that could be distilled down to bribing the voter with all manner of carrots, but offering little in terms of a national ethos and long-term sustainability of the nation-state.

In that regard the manifestoes to be released in the coming days will be competing campaign documents rather than competing visions.

That is why the dramatis personae around this presidential election might well look back how their political careers have intertwined through various marriages, divorces, and re-marriages going back to an event one-and-half decades ago.

It was on March 18, 2002, when Mr Kenyatta, Mr Odinga, Mr Kalonzo Musyoka, and Mr William Ruto shared the podium at the Kasarani Stadium Gymnasium where then President Daniel arap Moi was presiding over the merger of long-serving ruling party, Kanu, and Mr Odinga’s National Development Party, NDP.

It was a pivotal moment in the developments following the 1997 elections when Mr Odinga - three-time political detainee, multi-party campaign hero and quintessential dissident - suddenly abandoned his rebellious ways and decided to pursue cooperation with the party of his tormentors.

It went on to lead to a formal merger which became a critical element in President Moi’s succession game plan.

Serving out his final term after 24 years at the helm, bringing Mr Odinga into the fold allowed President Moi to start putting the final pieces in an elaborate succession plan by which he would discard the older faces in the Kanu hierarchy, and pass the mantle to a younger generation ahead of the General Election scheduled for later that year.

With little ceremony, a shocked Vice President and Kanu Vice chairman George Saitoti was dropped, alongside other veterans such as long serving Secretary-General Joseph Kamotho.

While Mr Moi remained the party chairman, the post of his deputy was under the new dispensation now shared by four younger party loyalists, who included newcomer Uhuru Kenyatta, fellow cabinet minister Mr Musyoka. The other two were also amongst the younger ministers in President Moi’s cabinet, Mr Musalia Mudavadi iwho is now one of the co-principals in the Odinga-Musyoka alliance, and Mr Noah Katana Ngala who has since faded from the scene.

It was clear from the proceedings at Kasarani that while the four vice chairmen were billed as equals, the newest entrant in the senior Kanu hierarchy, Mr Kenyatta, was being treated as first amongst equals.

It seemed to keen observers then that President Moi had plans for Mr Kenyatta that were yet to be disclosed.  

On the Kanu side, there was also another newcomer keeping away from the spotlight, but very much pulling the strings from behind the scenes. He was young Eldoret North MP William Ruto, who settled for the low-key post of Director of Elections, from where he could greatly influence the shape of the new Kanu. He was working in close partnership with President Moi’s youngest son and designated heir, Gideon Moi, now the Kanu leader and Senator for Baringo County.

There were two key figures in the new Kanu constellation. One was Uhuru Kenyatta, who was soon to be unveiled as President Moi’s chosen successor.

Significantly, Uhuru was a son of the outgoing president’s predecessor at State house, founding President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta.

The other was Raila Odinga, who hoped to get through Kanu what he had failed through a lifetime on the outside—the keys to State House.

Significantly, Raila was a son of one of Mr Moi’s predecessors as Vice President, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga who was Mzee Kenyatta’s first deputy at Independence in 1963 before the falling-out that pushed the former to pioneer opposition politics in Kenya.

When President Moi stuck by his hand-picked choice for the Kanu ticket at the 2002 elections, it was Mr Odinga who led the rebellion that walked out to hand victory to Narc candidate Mwai Kibaki, end Kanu’s quarter-century hold on power, and scuttle young Uhuru Kenyatta’s first  improbable bid for the presidency.

Revenge, they say, is a dish served cold. A feud between old Jomo and old Jaramogi in the early years of Independence had travelled down a dynasty to the 2002 denouement.

Oginga Odinga had before Independence spurned entreaties by the colonial government to go for president and leave Mzee Kenyatta, then in a detention camp, in the cold. He instead insisted that there would be no independence negotiations without Kenyatta as undisputed leader of the Kenyan people.

He led the ‘Free Kenyatta’ movement that ultimately placed the nationalist leader in State House, and was content to be a loyal number two until ideological and policy differences drove them apart.

Mzee Kenyatta was the quintessential capitalist, using the presidency as a means to accumulate public land and property for personal gain.

Jaramogi was the quintessential socialist, dissenting on the government’s failure to ensure land for the landless and access to economic and social opportunities for Africans straight out of colonial deprivation. He also hit out strongly against the ‘grabbing’ tendencies of Kenyatta, and was soon drummed out of Kanu and into colonial era detention camp.

DIFFERENCES

Kenyatta could not understand why the Odinga could not be satisfied with the perks of office and take the chance to build his fortunes.

Conclusion was that he could only be a born rabble-rouser agitator who wanted only to destroy rather than build, grab the fortunes of others instead of making his own.

Odinga could not understand why Kenyatta was so obsessed with personal wealth to the detriment of the public interest. Not that he was a classical socialist himself, with the Luo Thrift and Trading Company standing as his testament to teaching his people to invest and build wealth. He was a successful investor entrepreneur in his own right.

Fast Forward to the present. A conflict that started with their parents in the early ‘sixties is still being fought as Uhuru and Raila battle for the presidency.

In the beginning there clear ideological and policy differences before it became a mere ethnic feud, and today all the fault lines reflect no more than the struggle for power.

JARAMOGI SACRIFICED

Or maybe, the struggle between a gilded prince who takes power as a birthright, and an older dispossessed prince who wants his turn at the crown and is driven imbued with deep grievances over missing out on his own birthright.

At Independence Jaramogi sacrificed and propelled Mzee to State House, only to be dumped.

In 2002 Raila ensured that Uhuru’s bid aborted, and instead help propel another Kikuyu, Kibaki, to State House. Only to be dumped with the 2005 collapse of the Narc coalition government.

In 2007, Raila felt hard done by after narrowly losing to Kibaki in a disputed election that almost sparked a civil war.

He however managed to get a share of power as Prime Minister through the post-election violence settlement.

In 2013 Raila seemed an overwhelming favourite to achieve his dream, only to make the fatal mistake of under-estimating the threat of the Uhuru candidacy. Historical grievances renewed.  

HOLY GRAIL

2017 represents not just a rematch of 2013, but another installment in the dynastic feud dating back to 1966.

Raila Odinga, at the age of 72, is probably on a last and desperate quest for the Holy Grail that eluded his father and him for a lifetime.

Uhuru Kenyatta is a still youthful 55, but fighting to secure a second and final term.

Then attention can turn to 2022 being eyes by survivors of the Kanu Kasarani state - Mr Ruto for Jubilee, and Mr Musyoka and Mr Mudavadi for Nasa or whatever succeeds the alliance.

 

This is the full-length version of the article published in the Saturday Nation of June 17.

Macharia Gaitho is a former managing editor for special projects at the 'Nation'. Now an independent journalist, he is currently at the newspaper on special assignment as the head of the election desk.