Mau crisis may have cemented Raila’s place ahead of the pack

By Kilemi Mwiria

Most Kenyans agree that evacuation from the Mau should be done humanely. The solution will, however, not come from politically charged harambee drives which are more about political alignments for 2012 than they are about struggling squatters. Note that the big Harambee raised a mere five million shillings. Could the nine Cabinet ministers not raise this amount and even more from the Government if they were that serious? The Special Programmes ministry alone is spending many times that amount, not to mention well-wishers such as the Red Cross.

And why did the objecting politicians not take similar stands on other water tower related evictions or the murderous deportation of some communities from the Rift Valley in 1992, 1997 and 2008? Why did those who are now revealing to us that Raila did not win in 2007 not intervene against revenge murders of innocent Kenyans?

By painting him as the bad guy, Raila’s opponents have only made him stronger. Many Kenyans now know that you can count on him to take a decision that could derail his political ambitions for the sake of country. This side of his character is not new. When he was Roads minister he ruffled the rich who had grabbed road reserves by demolishing their big bungalows. By now one hopes that Kenyans can no longer be easily swayed by political fence-sitters and extremists. They will no longer just follow what politicians tell them blindly; not after a chain of poor advice.

Raila’s political history has clearly demonstrated that among his competitors he has been the most consistent and has paid the highest price for his beliefs. I doubt that anyone of them has done more to liberate Kenya from an oppressive state. In addition to years of detention, Raila was a key member of the team that stuck their necks out for change in 1991. His "Kibaki Tosha" declaration at Uhuru Park in 2002 was crucial in sending Kanu packing. Just think of what would have been left of this country if Kanu continued its reign or if some of these Kanu characters bounce back to the top job.

Unlike Raila, his opponents and the fence-sitters have demonstrated a different kind of consistency; the kind that almost led this country to the dogs in an undemocratic Kanu regime they served rather faithfully. Some of them made a kill from the excesses of the time through corrupt business and land deals. If some had their way, they would have preferred continuation of that plundering regime.

There are those who have argued that virtually all our top leaders, Raila included, have at one time or the other been Kanu strongmen. I however believe that Raila joined Kanu out of frustration with an opposition too divided along ethnic lines and a section that sold the propaganda to the effect that a Luo was unfit for the presidency. Changing a system from within is an acceptable political strategy; Raila used insider privilege to destroy Kanu for the national good. In fact, most of those who dumped Kanu in 2001 would not have done so were it not for the power and organisational ability of Raila after Moi overlooked them for the top seat.

The Mau has presented us with an ideal opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff as we head to 2012. We should ask some simple questions: Who among the presidential aspirants has a demonstrated history of fearlessly standing up for what is right irrespective of the possible negative consequences for self and family? Who has been the more national in outlook?

It is time we ashamed agents of tribal politics aware that tribal alignments can only lead us back to the Banana and Orange fights of 2005 and 2007. Let’s be mindful of political rolling stones who detest permanent homes because they are a real danger to national stability.