Was the NAK-LDP pact a political mirage?As the country goes to the Bomas II talks tomorrow, we need to unpackage the politics behind LDP and NAK. But before we do so, I want to dedicate a story to Mr Raila Odinga as he braces himself for war in the coming months. Once upon a time, a brave mercenary soldier saved the town of Siena from a foreign invader. Thrilled by his bravery, the citizens of this town wanted to reward him handsomely. No amount of money or honour could compensate his selfless actions. The citizens thought of making him Lord of the City, but even that, they decided, was not good enough. At last, one citizen stood before the people�s assembly and suggested to the citizens of Siena " . . . let us kill him and then worship him as our patron saint." And so they did. The mercenary soldier was not killed because the citizens of Siena were ungrateful. The reason was simple: nothing was lost by killing him. Although a hero, he was replaceable. And this is a fundamental lesson for Mr Odinga. He had his heroic moment in December last year. Like the patron saint of Siena, Mr Odinga is now before us ready for his reward. We could make him Prime Minister or we could make him the �patron saint of Kenya�. But all this depends on his leverage and whether or not he is indispensable. If he is replaceable, we could behave like the citizens of Siena. We might just decide to honour him with the title �Saint Odinga of Kenya� for his role in the second liberation. And with this honour, we could order a saintly �halo� to be placed on his head permanently. In other words, he could lose all the political mileage covered so far in exchange for admiration and worship. But in the alternative, he could make significant gains depending on how he plays his game. For starters, the argument on the MoU is a tired one. In fact, LDP should abandon this argument altogether because it makes them look like spineless losers. I say so because you never enter into covenants if you cannot enforce them. In politics, there is nothing like a gentleman�s agreement. MoUs are made to be broken and those who expect them to be honoured are naive. This is so because the cardinal rule in politics is simple: there are no rules. That is why Thomas Hobbes submitted in the 17th Century that "covenants without swords are but mere words." This philosopher was not talking about political violence. He was talking about political leverage. In other words, when you covenant with someone, you must have enough muscle to force them to honour their side of the bargain. And if you do not, it is your loss! Having said that, we should not dismiss LDP�s arguments on the MoU altogether. Let us look at two contentious issues here. One, LDP and NAK agreed to have a 50:50 power sharing formula should they win the election. On this element of engagement, NAK did not deliver. And because of this, LDP has every right to complain �until thine Kingdom come�. But while they are at it, we must ask a fundamental question here: by how much were they �cheated�? Yes, NAK had agreed to a 50:50 formula, but they shared the cabinet positions at a ratio of 60:40 instead. In other words, NAK delivered 80 per cent positions to LDP; LDP therefore lost marginally by 20 per cent. Statistically speaking, out of every 5 cabinet positions due to LDP, they got 4. And the question we must ask here is: if politicians are by nature dishonest, how must we judge the Narc government? Is delivering 4 out of 5 promised positions a good score or is it a bad one? Let us examine the second issue. LDP submitted a list of politicians to be appointed into the cabinet. This list had many people, but the most notable included Mr J.J Kamotho, Mr William Ole Ntimama and Mr Odinga�s own brother Dr Oburu Odinga. Some names were left out. And at face value, this was definitely wrong. In fact, it was tantamount to bullying. Consider the following with me. The LDP list comprised of powerful brokers who had sorted out their boss in Kanu. Now they wanted half of Narc cabinet in exchange for support. A lot of water has gone down the bridge in eight months. LDP and Kanu have renewed their �co-operation� ready to do battle with NAK at Bomas II. If half the cabinet was made up of the �Moi cronies� proposed in the LDP list, NAK would be frying in its own fat today. We must ask a question at this point the way a winning American would: was the president right, or was he right? Let us now examine the cabinet deal that was brokered by a team of 11 ministers this week. Without wanting to sound like an anarchist, there was nothing clever about this deal. These good people did not tell us anything new at all. Whatever they recommended could have been proposed by any ordinary Kenyan. In fact, if they have been listening to the FM stations, their proposal has featured almost every day since April. And in my view this is good. It means that we are one with the Narc government. But it could also mean that the cabinet is no better than the rest of us when it comes to solution to our country! This view however is not wholly true. In the case of our cabinet, the important thing is not the solution they arrived at this week. It is the fact that at least they returned to the house of �Uncle Moody� to strategise. And more fundamentally, that they were ready to talk to each other. While this is a forward step, it does not resolve the tensions between NAK and LDP. What would have de-politicised the Bomas II talks completely is the appointment of a non-executive Prime Minister under section 16 of the current constitution. After all, if the politicians are agreed on this in principle, why wait for a new constitution? Such an appointment can be made right away! In fact, I would not be surprised if LDP pushes for this as a precondition for their dropping the idea of the Executive Prime Minister at Bomas II. And now on another note, I hold the view that former president Daniel Moi should be treated with a modicum of decency. Threatening to auction a container of gifts sent to him by the Senegalese President is in bad taste. The Narc regime should be reminded of a basic principle of natural justice: everyone is judged by the standards they set. If they harass Mr Moi in retirement, they too shall be harassed. If they set up inquiries to investigate sins of commission, similar inquiries will be set up to investigate their errors of omission. This is called �poetic justice�. Comments\Views about this article |
|
Front Page | News | Comment | Letters | Sports | Cutting Edge | Feedback |
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?�Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger
