My case against personalising politics

Last Friday, I trended on social media on "funny grounds". I had gone to launch Inua Mkulima Programme cards at Kigumo Constituency Murang’a County.

This is a programme where milk and mango farmers were being given e-vouchers to redeem various products in agrovets and shops.

It was raining heavily and I decided to shield myself under a branded umbrella. Incidentally it was branded the name of my main competitor in the 2022 general election.

Social media went aflame. How could the governor cover himself publicly using an opponent’s merchandise?

It reminded me of another event when I served as a member of Parliament for Kiharu in 2017. Then, I was a Senate candidate vying against the incumbent, who was then Deputy Speaker of the Senate.

A massive rally was held in my constituency by a delegation aligned with my opponent (deputy Senate Speaker). Fellow MPs planned to attend to show solidarity with a legislator who was vying to be governor, aligned though with my opponent.

The choices were stark — fail to attend and give my opponent a field day. Alternatively, I attend to at least reduce all-out attack. I attended and delivered a speech that appeared to endorse my opponent.

Some even surmised, erroneously, that I had bowed out of the race.

It all boils down to a single issue: should politics be personalised? Should political competition be deemed to be personal rivalry? Shouldn't politics be a competition on ideas?

What is the difference between political competition and business competition, say for instance, between Citizen TV and NTV? Or Shell and Total?

Within any radius of any central business district of any town, there are hundreds of shops that sell almost similar goods. How come rarely does one find personal animosity? Yet, in politics, people compete and even plot very dark outcomes for rivals ?

Humans are too complex to understand.

Kenya would be miles ahead if only politics were to be depersonalised. Probably the henchmen surrounding Jomo Kenyatta would have spared JM Kariuki or Tom Mboya if politics of the day had been depersonalised. Indeed, Daniel Moi’s henchmen would not have cared about comments by Robert Ouko, Kenneth Matiba or Bishop Alexander Muge.

Depersonalisation enables one to see politics as service to the public and nothing more. You do your best and leave the stage. There is nothing inherently embedded for one to hold onto politics forever.

And doing one’s best does not necessarily guarantee you re- election – ask Winston Churchill who lost an election badly immediately after winning the devastating World War two. Do good for goodness sake. But remember, the people's verdict is rarely ever wrong.

Voters are like customers: they are always right. When Churchill was voted out , the new government turnout to be one of the best UK governments ever. Its reforms remain the most defining feature of UK governments.

In retrospect, dumping Churchill was the right thing to do, despite him defeating Adolf Hitler. Voters ushered in the reformist government of Clement Atlee.

But how do we depersonalise politics?

First, one ought to realise they will not be in a position of power forever. A lucky few are akin to President William Ruto who has never lost an election. When former Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbot lost his long held seat of Waringah to Zali Stengall, he said politics is one of the very few occupations where everyone must enter in jubilation and exit in tears.

Second, one’s deeds are nothing more than "contribution". Nothing is new or messianic under the sky.

Leaders with messianic complexes are dangerous as they view leadership as a personal fiefdom.

Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Hitler of Germany all had that messianic complex and have beewn judged harshly by history.

My mantra: The world won’t end with you, just as it did not begin with you. Many leaders have preceded us and many more will come after us.

Third, it helps to appreciate one can be powerful without necessarily holding formal political posts. And that tends to the best form of power. The best example of persons who held this form of “disguised power” was Deng Xiaoping of China (1978-1990). He was never President but everyone knew he called the shots in China. And he did an excellent job despite eschewing the trappings of power. What of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore who resigned as Prime minister in 1990 to become a Minister without portfolio. But his opinion always carried the day on account of the work he had done.

Finally, it helps to always see political reality in terms of ideas. As Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of US (1933-1945) said: “Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events while great minds discuss ideas.”

Whenever a politician starts discussing political reality in terms of Onyango, Kamau , Wanjiru, that's a red flag. Why not discuss prices, unemployment and so on?.

Usually, the best way to think big is to avoid use of "first person language". Avoiding " I" . Or second person language of "us" or "we".

Third person language is good because the content requires an objective tone and creates distance from the speaker. This detachment enables one to see the bigger picture as opposed to getting caught up in one's feelings.

It is not about "me" the narrator, but the people.

Amos Wako, former long serving Attorney General , was a master communicator in third person language. He would always address an audience thus " The Attorney General has opined..." when talking about himself. Probably that explains why he lasted so long as AG.

A depersonalised political culture would help Kenya switch into issues-based politics. Then only can politicians to view their competitors as nothing more people determined to share alternative solutions to societal problems.

Politics would be less toxic and violent. Because sisi sote ni wapita njia (we are all mere passersby).

- Dr Kang’ata is the governor of Murang’a County; Email [email protected].