The question is, how do we create a whiskey moment for Uhuru and Raila?

While delivering a talk titled “The future of capitalism” at The New School in New York, former maverick Greece Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, once famous for showing up at Number 11 Downing Street, the official residence of Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, for an important ministerial meeting dressed like a beatnik – tight blue shirt, tight black pants, black leather overcoat and black leather boots – gave a little secret away.

Varoufakis, whose country was in financial turmoil, intimated that he had a theory, “adults in the room”, which went that whenever he disagreed with anyone, including Europe’s finance ministers, he always hoped he was wrong and his interlocutors were right.

This secret desire that there could be another “adult in the room” who knew better than him was his way of keeping hope alive, since he almost always disagreed with everyone around the table.

To imagine that he was right and everyone else was wrong seemed utterly catastrophic, since most, if not all times, those he differed with and the countries they represented wielded more power and influence than either him or Greece.

MEETINGS

The theory was put to test one late night during an incident in a hotel lobby in Brussels. Varoufakis had spent the day in back to back meetings with International Monetary Fund functionaries, unsuccessfully negotiating Greece’s colossal $400 billion debt repayment plan. That night, he joined Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, for a speedy whiskey.

According to Varoufakis, that moment was the most vital bit of the negotiations because Lagarde told him something deeply illuminating.

‘‘Yanis, of course, you’re right,’’ she said, ‘‘this programme can’t work. But you must understand we have invested so much political capital in it. You must accept it in order to remain credible.’’

The IMF and European finance ministers were pushing a proposal for Greece to borrow even more in the pretext of helping the country repay its pre-existing loan, bandied around as the largest loan in history.

RADICAL

However, Varoufakis and his radical left Syriza party were opposed to more blanket borrowing, hoping for drastic debt restructuring. To them, accepting the IMF’s and Euro Group’s proposal was akin to one finding themselves in a hole and keep digging.

Had it not been for that moment of truth over whiskey, Varoufakis and his leftist cadres back in Athens would have continued pushing blindly for the adoption of their far-reaching reform agenda, with the hope of making headway some day.

But with the new insight donated by Lagarde, he was now aware that no matter how hard he pushed, much as his propositions were the best for Greece under the circumstances, they would never be adopted. This occurrence aided the Greeks in starting to think of a Plan B while still in negotiations, readying themselves for the point of total collapse of talks when their proposals would get thrown out the window.

Despite how hard Varoufakis pushed – including winning overwhelmingly a referendum against the Euro Group’s and IMF’s proposals – his political comrade, Greece Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, finally capitulated under immense political pressure. Varoufakis resigned in protest. Lagarde had indeed proved to him that there were no “adults in the room” as he had wished for.

POLITICAL IMPASSE

The current Kenyan political impasse puts President Uhuru Kenyatta and Opposition leader Raila Odinga in almost similar circumstances to those of Varoufakis and Lagarde.

Like Varoufakis, Raila is pushing for far reaching systemic reforms and, like Lagarde, Uhuru is working to perpetuate the political and economic status quo. The difference between the Varoufakis-Lagarde and Uhuru-Raila scenarios is that much as the former were pushing for radically diverse propositions, they readily committed to negotiations, and, even more importantly, managed to sneak in a swift whiskey moment in the hotel lobby in Brussels, which incident turned out to be a game changer.

Uhuru and Raila may each be hoping, like Varoufakis, that the other is the “adult in the room”.

The opposition leader may be hoping that as much as he is disagreeing with the President, the latter could have a better idea of getting Kenya out of the current stalemate.

RIGID POLITICAL SCRIPT

Uhuru, on his part, may be hoping Raila has an even better plan out of the muddle. The mistake they may both be making is assuming too much. Like Varoufakis, they may realise late in the day that the other side doesn’t have a better plan but are merely sticking to a rigid political script, like Lagarde was doing, which monumental realisation may catch both or either of them flatfooted in the end.

Dialogue between Uhuru and Raila doesn’t have to result in agreement.

The more critical bit is for them to know what the other is thinking. And if they have a whiskey, which may result in a moment of truth, they may just open up to each other and agree that neither of them is the “adult in the room” with a master plan out of the standoff, thereby deciding to work together towards a common resolution. Question is, how do we create a whiskey moment for the duo?

 Isaac Amuke is a Kenyan writer and journalist. Twitter @IsaacOtidiAmuke