As millions of Kenyans await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the petition against IEBC’s declaration of William Ruto as the President-elect, one irrefutable fact remains: Raila Odinga was either defeated outright, or outsmarted yet again.
The incorporation of “smart” here does not applaud what the Azimio leader claims happened, but only suggests that he failed to stop it. Given its might just prior to August 9, was Azimio not capable of sealing the loopholes now claimed to have enabled rigging?
According to Raila, someone outwitted him yet again, and compromised the election process.
One angle of assessment questions the constantly missing ingredient in the Azimio leader’s arsenal (pardon the pun).
While Raila’s contribution to this country is arguably unmatched (different debate), a widespread sentiment is that this time he owes his millions of followers more than the broken-record lamentations.
Raila had the support of the sitting president (and all that that brings), the backing of a multitude of influential oligarchs, significant media coverage, open support from key and visible members of the Executive, and endorsements from a majority of Kenya’s regional kingpins.
With all these in his favour, and while on apparent full alert against a supposed rigging plot, Ruto, an underdog and perceived outsider, still one-upped him. Shouldn’t that worry even the most adherent Railamaniac? Isn’t this time’s loss telling?
This tech-reliant fast-paced world is unforgiving of even the slightest missteps and miscalculations. Leaders require heightened awareness and mobilisation proficiency.
When Russia was accused of meddling in the 2016 US elections, nations’ safeguards against external threats came under serious question. Now, if a prospective leader confessedly and repeatedly fails to protect his loving followers’ liberating votes at the hands of an underdog, is said leader equipped to protect the nation from the more imminent threats of this modern world? Such questions put a new twist on the hackneyed rallying cry of 'In whose hands are you safe?'
This debate’s flipside shines brighter than its counterpart casts darkness. If Raila’s victory was snatched on August 9, then when could he ever officially win? Some of his supporters’ answer, though sounding self-serving, suggests a purpose arguably grander than the presidency.
The claim that Raila can only win 'a fair and just election', though righteous and admirable, slightly (and perhaps unintentionally) shifts his agenda from liberating the country to rectifying a single institution.
Does Raila desire a free and fair election process more than he desires the presidency? Isn’t Raila willing to ‘liberate’ the country at all costs? Is Raila the father (pardon the pun) who, in his view, would rather let his children die of starvation than steal to feed them, even if said food was originally his and thieving fathers get celebrated?
After Chebukati declared Ruto president-elect, someone posted somewhere that Kenya doesn’t deserve Raila, and that the Azimio chief was too idealistic and incorruptible to rule over a people driven by such divergent impetuses. A debate ensued on the premise that Kenya had not evolved at a fast-enough pace to earn her a ‘President Raila’ in the enigma’s lifetime.
Is Raila an uncompromising idealist, or does he lack the shrewdness necessary to govern a nation of Kenya’s calibre in this new dawn? The latter carries some unfortunate connotations.
However, if Raila is sacrificing his shot at the main seat by gradually reforming the process, then the fruits of his labour appear far from ripened, and he’s a greater national hero than many currently realise.
Whatever the answer is though, it would almost definitely paint him in a different light, even to his supporters.
“WATCH: The latest videos from the Star”
