A
nuanced examination of the records of the men and women seeking to
succeed Mwai Kibaki is warranted at this moment. Regardless of the
popular perceptions of these politicians' careers, their characters are
not so easily pigeon-holed. Watching William Ruto take on his critics at
a live television interview last night, it is increasingly apparent
that Mr Ruto cannot be defined by the ICC indictment alone. He comes
across, even in this hour of great stress, as a politicians capable of
thinking fast, thinking clearly, and always having a plan. His
declaration that he is innocent is made with the certitude that we only
wish Mwai Kibaki displayed. If one has already made up his mind
regarding his presidential ambition, there is little that can be done.
But if one is still waiting to make up their mind, Mr Ruto will cause
one pause.
Simplistic arguments have defined the presidential campaigns thus far. It is received wisdom that the top three candidates are Mr Ruto, Mr Odinga, the Prime Minister, and Mr Kenyatta, TNA supremo. Each is already defined by the media, the press and the opinion-polling community. But it may be that because of these definitions, the three politicians, and the dozen or so others gunning for the presidency, are yet to define themselves for the electorate. Other than Mr Odinga's suffering during the dark days of Moi's presidency, it remains unclear whether Mr Odinga's record in public life could be defined as a success or a failure. Since Uhuru Kenyatta became President Moi's "project" in 2002, has he done much to deserve the accolades and encomiums from the people who chant his name every time he appears in a political rally? Will Mr Ruto forever be defined by YK'92 and the ICC?
It is time we began to consider exactly what presidential candidates have done and what they claim to have done. The first opportunity to do so is the November presidential debate. Kenyans have never had the opportunity to question the claims made by their political leadership. The tradition is always to get paid for attending political rallies and to get paid for voting the right way. Political activity, as with many public activities, has been eroded by corruption and serial rule-breaking. We have the opportunity to set each candidate against another and to measure their worth in an objective and subjective manner. Perhaps many will remain unpersuaded as to the political worth of their candidates' challengers; but many more will for the first time have an opportunity to gauge whether the men and women seeking their votes deserve them in the first place. It remains to be seen whether the organisers of the debates will prepare effectively for them. This is Kenya's experiment; it is imperative that we do not turn it into a caricature of the US system.
Simplistic arguments have defined the presidential campaigns thus far. It is received wisdom that the top three candidates are Mr Ruto, Mr Odinga, the Prime Minister, and Mr Kenyatta, TNA supremo. Each is already defined by the media, the press and the opinion-polling community. But it may be that because of these definitions, the three politicians, and the dozen or so others gunning for the presidency, are yet to define themselves for the electorate. Other than Mr Odinga's suffering during the dark days of Moi's presidency, it remains unclear whether Mr Odinga's record in public life could be defined as a success or a failure. Since Uhuru Kenyatta became President Moi's "project" in 2002, has he done much to deserve the accolades and encomiums from the people who chant his name every time he appears in a political rally? Will Mr Ruto forever be defined by YK'92 and the ICC?
It is time we began to consider exactly what presidential candidates have done and what they claim to have done. The first opportunity to do so is the November presidential debate. Kenyans have never had the opportunity to question the claims made by their political leadership. The tradition is always to get paid for attending political rallies and to get paid for voting the right way. Political activity, as with many public activities, has been eroded by corruption and serial rule-breaking. We have the opportunity to set each candidate against another and to measure their worth in an objective and subjective manner. Perhaps many will remain unpersuaded as to the political worth of their candidates' challengers; but many more will for the first time have an opportunity to gauge whether the men and women seeking their votes deserve them in the first place. It remains to be seen whether the organisers of the debates will prepare effectively for them. This is Kenya's experiment; it is imperative that we do not turn it into a caricature of the US system.
No comments:
Post a Comment