US President Donald Trump is likely to serve only one term because one, he will have convinced the few that gave him the benefit of doubt that he, in fact, is not presidential or two, he may get the boot earlier by way of impeachment.
However, the progressives don’t want the latter option because then they’ll get Vice President Mike Pence, a real conservative with ability to implement a worse conservative agenda than Trump ever will.
Regardless of what outcome awaits Trump, one thing we know for sure is — as he declared at the height of his improbable candidacy — that there is a core group of supporters who will never abandon him no matter what he does and that, according to him, includes voters he will never lose even if he were to stand in the middle of a busy New York street and shoot someone. That bold and unbelievable declaration in its own right has come to be borne out as, indeed, Trump did end up being elected President, despite losing the popular vote.
The reason Trump was elected despite all his flaws is because people who never even bothered to vote before came from the woodwork and voted for him as President, regardless of what he said or did — and no matter how outrageous and crude he was or became.
A voter fixated on voting for a candidate no matter their flaws simply because they wouldn’t consider other options available, usually for nefarious reasons, is a very dangerous voter to have in any country.
In Kenya, the nefarious reason is usually tribalism and ethnicity or clannism but the phenomenon is more defined and readily apparent in local and regional level elections.
When it comes to presidential voting, however, even though there have been many occasions where marginal or second-tier candidates received votes exclusively from their tribes, it does not always follow that the presidential winner — even where they have rigged themselves into or back into office — that their victory has been or can be defined to be a function of tribal voting.
In other words, even when President Daniel Moi outrightly rigged himself back into office in 1992 and 1997 after multiparty politics resumed, one cannot say he did not receive substantial genuine votes from other than his Kalenjin tribe — never mind he would brag many a time he could buy any votes he wanted for Sh100.
Perhaps the best example we have where tribalism was not even a factor at all in presidential voting was in 2002, when the opposition united in rejecting Moi’s project Uhuru Kenyatta, and we saw Kibaki win in unprecedented numbers.
What’s of note beyond tribalism not being a factor in 2002, is the fact that among the Agikuyu community, Kibaki trounced Uhuru by 71.8 per cent to Uhuru’s paltry 27.4, an outcome that reflected the national trend. Kibaki won with 62.3 per cent of the vote, sending Uhuru home to lick his wounds with a face-saving 30 per cent. The voters, even Kikuyus who Moi tried so hard to woo, had had enough with the incumbent and it didn’t matter that he fronted one of their sons to succeed him.
Question is, would the Kikuyus have given a non-Kikuyu anywhere near what Kibaki received had that person been the one Raila endorsed?
Empirical evidence beyond the scope of this column shows no. Not even close. When it comes to presidential elections, Kikuyus ( 95%+) vote only for one of their own.
This is just wrong.
Our beloved country needs our brothers and sisters from Central Kenya to break loose from whatever has held their community hostage and to not seeing men from other communities as deserving of a chance to lead the nation as well, ever when more qualified than their “own.”
Only a sycophant, ignorant or stupid person cannot see this is nothing but a noble and very Kenyan ideal and God save us from any of them, come August 8.
Samuel Omwenga is a legal expert and political commentator in the United States