This is a great move by the President, both legislatively and politically.
Legislatively, it is the first real test of how much power and influence Ruto wields over Parliament. Yes, the President had all his Cabinet and other senior officers of his government approved, but that is to be expected of any president.
Rarely has the National Assembly failed to approve a President’ picks and, if they have, they have been ignored and the appointment made anyway.
Some may argue if the President wanted the IEBC 4 (the four IEBC commissioners who protested how the electoral agency chairman Wafula Chebukati declared the presidential winner) not hounded out of office, he would have intervened and stopped the National Assembly from calling for a tribunal to try them.
Every politician and, therefore, every President operate on four imperatives: the moral, legal, political and practical imperatives. Decisions are made in careful consideration of all four imperatives and a decision made depending on what outweighs all others, or in some combination.
An upright, moral president or politician will always be governed by what is moral, which closely mirrors that which is legal but often in conflict with what is practical or politically necessary. Weighing what is moral and legal on one hand against what is politically necessary or practical on the other often yields an outcome driven by ignoring or skirting the former.
There is nowhere this phenomenon is starker than chapter six of our constitution which may as well be repealed and thrown into the dustbin of history.
Therefore, to those who would say the President should have intervened to stop the efforts underway to try the IEBC 4, the question is why would he do that? To what end?
The letter to Parliament is a different matter. Going by what the President’s ardent supporters are thus far saying, though more in grumbling than barking, they are not boarding the bus with the President on this one.
Those in the opposite camp are a bit giddy, calling the move a backdoor means of implementing the Building Bridges Initiative, which is loathed by many for reasons that have nothing to do with its merits or demerits.
“Is President Williams Ruto seeking a ‘colorful’ handshake with my party leader Raila Odinga through Parliament? His recent letter to the speakers of both Houses of Parliament depicts a man whose future will be determined by application of 48 Laws of Power, and not chest thumping,” tweeted Senator Ledama Olekina.
For his part, the President has no reservation on what this is about, saying he believes the idea of official Opposition Leader office makes tremendous sense in terms of institutionalizing governance, strengthening oversight and deepening democracy.
The President is right.
Something Ruto has also acknowledged is that the winner-takes-all presidential system is not ideal for Kenya as it leaves the minority party in the cold for five years, especially their flag-bearer, who is barred to even be a member of the National Assembly.
The consequence is that the overall leader of the minority side is “excluded from meaningful political participation” as the President puts it.
Many hated, and still hate BBI because they saw it as a backdoor way of putting former Prime Minister Raila Odinga back to power.
Though not to the same level of intensity, many of those opposed to the Opposition Leader office as proposed by the President do so because they assume, rightly, that Raila, who they hate or otherwise can’t stand, will occupy the office.
That can’t be a good reason to oppose the President’s well-intentioned request to Parliament.
We are witnessing Ruto’s legacy already shaping up and this office will be one of the legacies. Not for Raila, but for generations to come, unless we turn Kenya into Israel and other countries with permanent coalition (handshake) governments.
