Raila must desist from making the referendum look inevitable

The makings of another elite political disagreement are becoming evident as key political leaders take differing positions on whether or not Kenya needs a referendum on political reforms. Opposition leader, Raila Odinga, has repeatedly asserted that a referendum is inevitable and is the only way to overcome the political difficulties Kenya is experiencing now.

On the contrary, Deputy President, William Ruto, supported by leader of the majority in the Assembly, Aden Duale, has dismissed the call for a referendum as a selfish endeavour and an attempt by political leaders to carve out jobs for themselves. President Uhuru Kenyatta has not spoken on this subject recently.

When he last did, soon after his handshake with Raila, he indicated his disfavour for a referendum. Musalia Mudavadi, once an ally of Raila, before the two were somewhat sundered by the handshake, has also stated that no case has been made for a referendum and that given the economic hardships people in the country are currently facing, a referendum would only provide the occasion for politicians to manipulate the public for selfish ends.

In explaining his position, Raila appears to suggest that the need for a referendum will eventually become clear once the task force that he and Kenyatta appointed, to process the nine-point agenda that constitutes the Building Bridges Initiative, submits a report of its findings. However, the task force has remained inactive since establishment and the expected engagement with the public has not yet materialised.

It is understood that a lack of funds has been the reason why the task force could not deploy and that some money has since been found that might enable the team get out of town. By suggesting what might be the eventual content of the report of the task force, Raila risks portraying the task force as an instrument of special interests, rather than a vehicle for generating positions that serve the public good.

If Raila had not reached an understanding with Kenyatta through the handshake, his natural political trajectory would have been to remain the leader of the people who, for different reasons including complaints about electoral injustice, hold strong grievances against Jubilee. In that role, Raila would have involved the people in defining the agenda for reforms and also in generating the pressure necessary to bring Jubilee to a reckoning with that agenda.

By getting into the handshake, however, Raila deactivated the grievances of the people and the idea that the people are responsible for defining the agenda for reforms. Raila also took away the agency of the people as the ones responsible for solving their own problems. Conversely, Raila appropriated for himself not only the burden of defining the reform agenda that would serve the people but also the agency of bringing about those reforms.

Raila’s rather prominent position about a referendum is a logical result of the consequences of the handshake and its infirmities. Beyond an agreement to work together, Raila and Kenyatta were looking for different things in the handshake. While Raila was looking for and derived an acknowledgement of his grievances, Kenyatta wanted and obtained political stability out of the handshake. While an acknowledgment of Raila’s grievances would lead to a programme of action as would bring about responsive reforms, political stability is and in itself and nothing further need follow. As a result, Kenyatta already has what he wanted but Raila is still searching.

Secondly, since the reforms only benefit Raila, he has the responsibility to activate whatever platform he can to try and achieve them. Because Kenyatta has no vested interest in reforms, supporting Raila’s endeavour is not guaranteed, especially since it can also jeopardise Kenyatta’s other interests. Therefore, Raila alone carries the burden of making whatever reforms the handshake implied. By getting into the handshake, Kenyatta admitted his own illegitimacy, undermining his reform credentials, and without the pressure of re-election, he has little to lose even if things do not improve after the handshake.

Thirdly, having deactivated the people on whom he relied, both for ideas and leverage, Raila must now go out and make the case for the reforms he feels are needed. Also, having disappointed a large number of people by getting into the handshake, Raila feels the pressure to make good and to show that he made a good choice. Fourthly, the task force, the official mechanism for processing the agreement between Kenyatta and Raila, is not flourishing. The resulting void has drawn Raila into making public pronouncements over matters that should have fallen into the remit of the task force.

Going forward, and since the country’s problems are myriad, Raila must concentrate on articulating a view on which of those problems command priority and what the possible solutions would look like. Since a referendum for reaching solutions, and is not a solution itself, Raila must desist from making it look like an inevitability since it does not have to be.

- The writer is Executive Director KHRC [email protected]