Truce should never be about taking NASA into government

President Uhuru Kenyatta and NASA leader Raila Odinga after the building bridges meeting on March 9 [File, Standard]

The Friday, March 9 handshake on the steps of Harambee House brings up memories of another handshake in the same place, with some of the same people, for the same reasons, 10 years earlier. On that day, President Kibaki stood on the same steps, his right hand locked in a warm handshake with ODM leader Raila Odinga. Peace had returned to Kenya after two months of violence and uncertainty. About 1,300 people had died. Some were permanently maimed. Property had gone up in fiery flames. Some was looted. 

Then, like now, the handshake brought a huge sigh of relief. The presidential election in December 2007 had gone awry. The Opposition claimed that President Kibaki had stolen Raila’s victory. ODM refused to recognise Kibaki as a legitimately re-elected President. And so, for eight weeks, Kenya bled, burned and mourned.

But, now, international peace mediation efforts had restored the country to order. The two principal antagonists in the dark phase were all smiles, on the steps of the Office of the President. Neveragain, they said, would Kenya bleed. Never again would an election burn the country, maim her people, or cause citizens to fight one another. The warm handshake between President Kibaki and his nemesis had sealed the peace and stability contract. Yet, 10 years later, another President has had a golden handshake with Raila, on the very spot, arousing fresh excitement and words of praise. Why? Had we not closed this chapter in 2008? What went wrong with the promise of electoral peace? Will Kenyans wait with bated breath again, 10 years hence, for another President and his nemesis to shake hands for same reasons?

The past has returned to mock us. Where did we get it wrong in 2008? What happened to the euphoria of the Kibaki-Raila handshake? Does the 2018 handshake risk going the same way? The harsh lessons from the 2008 violence led us to work on a new Constitution, which we delivered in 2010. The world watched in envy as we praised ourselves for “our rare ability to convert tragedy to victory.” We said that we had the most progressive Constitution in the world. So – again – what went wrong? Why did the rain of electoral violence resume beating us? This is the question that the proposed new dialogue must address. 

A critical lesson from the 2008 dialogue is that a national dialogue should never hinge on the goodwill of two individuals. Another lesson is that it should never be about taking the Opposition into government. While President Kibaki and Raila represented the protagonists in the 2008 conflict, both the conflict and the subsequent discourse were by no means their private property. Yet, that was exactly how we seem to have treated the Kofi Annan-led talks that brought peace between them. Their warm handshake led to a grand coalition government. Historical hindsight shows that this was only a painkiller. It did not heal what ailed Kenya. 

If the Kenyatta-Raila talks are going to about getting the Opposition into government, another handshake awaits the country after a future election. This is despite a schedule of challenges the two leaders say they want to focus on. The detailed devil is in the word “inclusivity.” The 2008 talks focused heavily on formation of a joint government and on sharing of power. The country mistook power sharing for solving her problems. It was wrongly assumed that the challenge in the country was a political power struggle between the two hand shakers. Is the same mistake about to be made?

Remain sketchy

It is scandalous that 10 years later, the scenario dizzyingly replays itself. Kenyans should be holding their heads in shame. Consider this: Another election that one side views as stolen. The side that is seen to have stolen the election eventually agrees to sit down and talk. The talks lead to an agreement to begin talks on “inclusion.” Does including the Opposition in government solve a country’s political and electoral challenges? So what is the role of the ballot? 

It is not clear whether “inclusivity” will this time take the Opposition into a power-sharing arrangement or not. I pray not. For now, the details of the secret discussions between Kenyatta and Raila remain sketchy. They may, nonetheless, possibly get clear in the coming weeks. Hopefully, they will focus on a reform agenda and not on taking people into government. 

It is instructive that after the Opposition joined government in 2008, the same old story continued. It was a narrative of corruption, ethnic exclusion and incessant quarreling between the two sides in government. We possibly don’t want to go back there. The country would do well to embark on a journey of fundamental reform rather than on an expansion of the dining table so that it can take a few more members, doing the same things.

A transformational national dialogue would be one that goes beyond Kenyatta and Raila. Indeed, it should not be built around individuals. The goodwill of individuals is not sufficient to secure national dialogue. Rather, such security resides in institutions. It is, in point of fact, ironical to talk about “inclusivity” when the forum to discuss this challenge is itself exclusionist. 

The Opposition should always participate in national dialogues at the level of independent political parties outside government. Any such talks should not be Trojan horses into government. The architecture of the dialogue forum should leave them in their role as government in waiting, while the players are expended to include other critical groups of stakeholders. The issues must themselves be expanded to bring on board a broad national agenda. Barring this, we are likely to get excited about another “golden handshake” after the next presidential poll. We should not go that way again.

- The writer is a strategic public communications adviser. [email protected]