National Dialogue for whose salvation; Raila’s or Kenya’s?

Economists have conceived of scarcity in a wide variety of ways. One of the concepts is that scarcity changes the value and leads to new market conditions.

ODM party leader Raila Odinga is undoubtedly a fervent politician who understands the political application of the scarcity principle. He is back from his sojourn in the United States.

He went there for reasons best articulated in the various speeches he has delivered since his return.

He is hoping that the US trip that made him scarce on the Kenyan political marketplace, has injected some fresh impetus in his otherwise withering political influence and nose-diving political career.

As he travelled back, Kenyans chose to engage him with a largely humorous Twitter hash tag, which accidentally hyped up his homecoming.

In their address, Raila and co-principal Kalonzo Musyoka folded their shirts ready for a political tussle.

They announced their demand for a national dialogue, which out of their ambiguity, was understood by all and sundry that they were proposing a government of national unity. Raila released two statements the following day clarifying their vagueness.

The 60-day ultimatum and a call for action on the famous Saba Saba day if the President would not have convened preparatory talks between the Jubilee Coalition and the CORD coalition to agree on the agenda and timetable for the national dialogue was a shrewd gambit to sustain the Raila comeback momentum.

The vagueness of the demand for national dialogue reflects both the political intentions of those calling for it and the motivation for doing so.

Since losing the March 4 2013 presidential race, Cord has fought hard, often applying unorthodox means to stay afloat. Long before the election, Raila referred to the Judiciary  as “Mahakama Bandia” and repeated again in attempt to keep alive his claims of stolen victory following the Supreme Court dismissal of his presidential poll petition.

He continues to castigate the lndependent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) demanding its commissioners be removed from office on grounds he is yet to officially table.

By the time he was leaving for the US, he had flopped miserably in his attempts to re-energise his ODM party through party elections.

But for a moment, let us consider CORD’s call for National dialogue as genuine before we focus on the issues they propose to form part of the agenda. 

National dialogues are negotiating mechanisms intended to expand participation in political transitions beyond the political and military elites.

Their ambition is to move away from elite deal-making by allowing diverse interests to influence the transitional negotiations. Kenya is not undergoing any transition because a legitimate government and constitution are in place.

So the kind of national dialogue that President Kenyatta’s government welcomes is that of building enough trust and deliberating on the process through which the country might resolve some of its most contentious problems.

The idea of negotiating among a narrow set of elites without expanding participation to a wider set of political actors cannot be entertained.

In general, the envisaged national dialogue must be from a clear, manageable mandate, with a consensus on its powers, how it will relate to existing institutions and how to implement the concrete outputs.

CORD raises five issues, which constitute major concerns to all Kenyans: high cost of living, insecurity, devolution, corruption and the IEBC.

The president has not accepted the proposal for a national dialogue because the government has failed to address them as Cord leadership may wish Kenyans to believe.

Raila Odinga and his CORD fraternity shall not use the national dialogue to re-brand and sustain momentum.

He is better off trying his luck by applying the scarcity principal. 

Mr  Oloo is the TNA Secretary General