Scrutinizing the Inscrutable Dynamics of Power
A case study of Kenya’s presidential elections 2017 to 2022
When the sword passed from H.E. Uhuru Kenyatta’s hands to H.E. William Ruto’s, the ceremony was complete. A handing-over ritual. And in the handing over of the sword, something more significant than a sword exchanged hands: that invisible but extremely potent substance known as power.
Many scholars and thinkers since the greatest antiquity have pondered the mysteries of power. Books of great repute have been penned, which conquerors and heroes have pored over — or had their advisors pore over. In our time, the most famous and oft-quoted of these precious tomes is Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power. What is power, though, and how can it exchange hands with a simple ritual?
Is power a magical substance? After all, it is magic that often needs rituals. What if Uhuru had hidden the sword? Would power have passed over? Is power held in the sword or in the armed forces represented by the sword?
In 2017, Uhuru Kenyatta was re-elected in a contentious election that was nullified by Chief Justice Maraga. His rival, the former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, boycotted the repeat election. By all intents and purposes, Uhuru Kenyatta was officially President and had power over the entire nation of Kenya.
On January 30, 2018, Raila Odinga held an unconstitutional swearing-in ceremony at Uhuru Park, in the presence of thousands of Kenyans plus the millions watching from TV screens at home. From that day, Raila Odinga was to be known as the “People’s President”.
During this time, a map had been drawn and circulated on social media, demarcating the two territories, one belonging to Uhuru Kenyatta and another belonging to Raila Odinga. Now, in terms of landmass, Raila’s territory was bigger, while Uhuru’s was smaller but more densely populated. Calls of secession rang in the air. Citizens who associated themselves with Raila’s leadership refused to recognize Uhuru Kenyatta’s presidency. They boycotted the services of businesses associated with the Uhuru Kenyatta regime.
There were places in this country that H.E. Uhuru Kenyatta could not easily visit during this time, despite being the President of the Republic of Kenya. Therefore, we can assess the situation and conclude that though Uhuru was President, his power was not complete. His authority was not recognized in the entire country. And as long as half of the country did not acknowledge his presidency, his rule was not established and a dark cloud of illegitimacy hang over his regime.
By refusing to accept defeat, by boycotting the second election, and by illegally swearing himself in, Raila Odinga had weaponized his referent power and thereby denied Uhuru Kenyatta the total authority he needed to rule the country effectively. If Uhuru Kenyatta had been another kind of leader, he would have used violence to reclaim his authority. As it was, Raila Odinga had effectively become a second centre of power in the country. This was untenable. A nation cannot have peace where an alternative king with hostile intentions walks freely with the support of half the people.
Uhuru’s dilemma was intense. On the one hand, he could not arrest Raila Odinga or harm him for the treasonous act of swearing himself in. Or rather, he could, but that would only turn him into a matyr and spontaneous violence would erupt across the country, including in the capital city. The situation could easily explode into a full-blown civil war, which would definitely end in the secession of the Raila Odinga republic.
On the other hand, seeking out Raila would make him look weak and his win illegitimate. It would be a humiliating return to the nusu mkate government he and his deputy William Ruto had assured their supporters would never happen so long as they came out in droves to vote against Raila Odinga, which they had done with unprecedented enthusiasm.
These power dynamics are the mathematics behind the peace agreement between Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga that was officially unveiled to the surprised public on March 9, 2018, and which came to be known simply as The Handshake.
While Uhuru Kenyatta had the military, the police, the civil servants and all instruments of power, Raila Odinga had the support of half of the people. Raila at that time was at the level of a cult leader in bewitching appeal. He had radicalized his followers intensely and many were ready to die for the cause. Some did die in the run-up to the election and in the months after during run-ins with the police.
After being sworn in, Raila’s authority over his followers was supreme, because he was no longer just an opposition leader to them but a President. During this time, a mad intellectual known as Dr. Miguna Miguna was instrumental in the treasonous doings and had started a movement known as the National Resistance Movement, whose entire aim was to resist and undermine the Uhuru Kenyatta regime. In Raila and Miguna’s hands were all the ingredients necessary for a domestic terrorism / guerilla war militia to blossom.
Uhuru Kenyatta once said that power is given not taken. If Raila had at this point tried to take power through secession and civil war, he would have most likely succeeded, but at a great cost to himself and the country. For he would be forever known as the man who split Kenya in the middle. Thousands of Kenyans, maybe hundreds of thousands would have died.
Therefore, in the interest of national unity, and in line with the late Prof. George Saitoti’s sage words that there comes a time when the country is more important than an individual, Raila accepted Uhuru’s entreaty for a truce. It was a moment of profound statesmanship, when two foes sat together to deliberate for the good of their country. It was these deliberations that birthed the Building Bridges Initiative, whose objective was to seal the gaps that made Kenya such a divided society. Among the key pillars of BBI were inclusivity and shared prosperity, both geared towards creating a Kenya where the events of 2017 would not repeat themselves. The country had veered perilously close to the brink.
Most Kenyans have little recollection of these events, however, because the Handshake wiped this period clean out of their memories. As a result, it is likely the country did not learn from 2017 as it did from 2007. In fact, the people who learned from 2017 were the elites not the citizens.
The elites came up with BBI as a fruit of the lessons they had learned from the near-secession of 2017. Unfortunately, the masses had not learned anything, because the carnage was relatively low in comparison with the killing fields of 2007.
Any post-election violence in Kenya will invariably always be compared to the 2007 moment of national madness, when we almost went the genocide way, where families were uprooted from their lands, helpless people burned in a church, people massacred, women raped …
Whatever the reason, the 2017 moment was promptly forgotten after the Handshake, as if people wished to completely bury the hatchet by not just forgiving but also forgetting.
As a fruit of the lessons we learned in 2007, we crafted a new Constitution and overwhelmingly voted in favour of it. As a fruit of the lessons they learned in 2017, the elites crafted the BBI constitutional amendments; but since the masses had failed to learn those lessons, the Judiciary, presumably being influenced by the prevailing public mood, nullified the BBI project.
One of the elites, the current President H.E. William Ruto who was Uhuru’s deputy at the time, rejected the BBI, believing that it had the political intent of making Raila Odinga the most popular contender in the upcoming 2022 presidential election. Having rejected the Handshake, William Ruto fomented a rebellion within Uhuru Kenyatta’s government and in the ruling party Jubilee.
Therefore, after Uhuru succeeded in securing his power by bringing Raila Odinga into the fold, the same problem repeated itself, but this time within his government. William Ruto became a second centre of power, opposing the government’s initiatives from within the government and stridently refusing to resign and become the opposition leader. Raila’s support of the Kenyatta regime after the Handshake left a power vacuum in the opposition, which William Ruto effortlessly filled and used it to grow his profile.
It was during this time that Ruto launched an intense charm offensive on President Kenyatta’s Mt Kenya backyard. He was banking on the region’s historical hatred of Raila Odinga who was now their son’s bosom buddy.
Uhuru Kenyatta had decided to keep away from the region, ostensibly to concentrate on his legacy projects. Meanwhile, William Ruto who had seemingly abdicated his role as principal assistant to the President became a regular fixture in Mt Kenya churches and markets. One person quipped that there is no village in Mt Kenya that William Ruto did not penetrate during those five years of intense campaigning.
It had often been said that selling Raila Odinga in Mt Kenya was akin to selling pork in Mecca. The region had been subjected to nearly two decades of Raila-phobia propaganda. Children had been born and raised up to hate Raila Odinga and trained to see him as an enemy of the region. He was seen as a threat to the region’s interests, particularly in business. He was seen as a force of chaos, as a man with the capacity to bring the entire country to a standstill. In the run-up to the 2017 campaigns, Uhuru Kenyatta himself had immensely contributed to the furnishing of the Raila-monster conspiracy theory in the imaginations of the Mt Kenya people.
It is therefore understandable why the people were at a loss when their son decided to shake hands with that selfsame man he had demonized so passionately. They could not understand what had changed.
This scenario was not unprecedented. In the run-up to the 2013 election, Uhuru Kenyatta had introduced the community to William Ruto who was at the time a hated man in Mt Kenya for his perceived role in the 2007 post-election violence. Uhuru had at the time convened meetings with elders and various stakeholders in the community to make them understand his decision to work with a man who was considered the community’s enemy. Thanks to Uhuru’s efforts, William Ruto was accepted in the region and this set the ground for what he would later became post-handshake: a darling to the region.
Unfortunately, for reasons best known to himself, Uhuru Kenyatta did not repeat this consensus-building meetings with community stakeholders (this time in favour of Raila) in 2018 after the Handshake. This might lend credence to the conspiracy theory that has cropped up after the Ruto win, that claims that Uhuru’s support of Raila’s presidential bid was a long-con and that Dr. William Ruto has always been Uhuru’s candidate. However, I am of a different opinion. I think the main reason Uhuru didn’t do what he had done in 2013 is simply the very natural hubris that afflicts kings.
In 2013, Uhuru Kenyatta was an ambitious seeker of the throne. He was very much aware of his weaknesses and the threats to his bid. In 2018, after having won the election and secured it through the Handshake, Uhuru Kenyatta was content and like many kings, he was blind to his weaknesses and the threats to his power. He had graduated from kamwana (young man) to muthamaki (king). He was no longer an heir to the throne; he was the throne. This is why he never imagined that William Ruto’s forays in his backyard would amount to anything. After all, it was unheard-of for an outsider to unseat a kingpin, especially a sitting head of state, from the throne in his own region.
Fast-forward to August 9, 2022. Uhuru’s candidate Raila Odinga was roundly rejected in the entire Mt Kenya region. Voters in Uhuru’s own polling station decided to march to the ballot that day with one goal and one goal only: to humiliate their son. The defeat of Raila Odinga in Mt Kenya was not so much the rejection of Raila, but the rejection of Uhuru Kenyatta. It was not so much the embracement of William Ruto, but the rejection of Uhuru Kenyatta.
It was a lesson for all kings and would-be kings in this country: that in a democracy, power belongs to the people. No matter how powerful or strong or famous or effective you are as a king, the day the people decide to shift their allegiance or their affection, they will humiliate you. Therefore, it is very necessary for the king to often consult with the people. Dialogue must be a tool that the king uses every now and then, because direct connection to the people is important. Once the king becomes distant and makes decisions that are contrary to the will of the people, they rebel.
This is why the “hatupangwingwi” gospel was so popular in Mt Kenya particularly. It was genius for Dr. William Ruto to manipulate the emotions of the region in this manner. He knew exactly what rhetoric to inject into the minds of Mt Kenya. He presented himself as the only one who could save them from perceived oppression by Uhuru Kenyatta and his family, birthing the popular hustlers vs dynasties narrative. The hubris of the king he christened “kiburi na madharao”.
Therefore, we can conclude from this that though the king may have the sword, it is the people who bestow authority upon him. You just have to look at what happened to Sri Lanka recently, where the citizens marched to the State House and overthrew their President. This is what revolution is: when the power of the people is weaponized and used to change a regime.
In a sense, the William Ruto campaign was styled as a proletarian revolution, where the hustlers were going to take over from the dynasties, and the most popular slogan at the tail end of the campaign was “freedom is coming”.
Has freedom come? Only time will tell. The only thing we can tell, thanks to history, is that the nature of power and who wields it will continue to be fluid, elusive, mysterious and disruptive. The new President, H.E. William Ruto will do well to keep that in mind, because politics is dynamic.
