Between Ruto, Raila the choice in August could not be clearer

Kenyans can be forgiven if they react to the ‘new dawn in Kenya’ promised by the main political formations with hostile scepticism. After all, there have been many false dawns.  

And yet an objective examination of the promises of Kenya Kwanza and Azimio coalitions reveal that the people of Kenya truly face two clear choices: moving forward or moving backward. The contrast, for those willing to be objective, is stark.   

First, Kenya Kwanza, diagnoses Kenya’s fundamental ailments as lack of economic democracy. It believes in democratising economic opportunity. Specifically, theirs is about moving away from an elitist, exclusivist and entitled model of economic governance inherited from the Colonial State to an equal opportunity and inclusive society.

Azimio believes Kenya’s fundamental ailment is lack of unity, hence Azimio la Umoja (declaration of unity). The chief sponsors of this movement have been heard saying, ‘there is no development without unity’. By unity, they mean change the Constitution to create top jobs for the five most populous tribes. It is a crude form of Consociationalism; the contention that, in countries deeply divided by tribe, race, or religion, the most stable form of government is a coalition of the major groups.

The obvious question is, can development founded on inequality and exclusion guarantee lasting unity? Second, the Kenya Kwanza movement believes that the power of an organized people is greater than the people in monopolized power. Specifically, they believe in the power of the ‘powerless’, the Hustler! They believe the power of the people to organise, support, oppose, or actively resist initiatives that impact their lives, should be strengthened.

The Azimio formation believes that, with State power and the power of a select elite, they can organise society to serve their interests. This explains the darkroom schemes that led to attempts to change the Constitution, and the ongoing illegal use of states resources to bribe, intimate, trick and blackmail the voters to support the Azimio presidential candidate. This is what some Kenyans mockingly call kupangwa, a tactic straight from the colonial rulebook.

Third, the Kenya Kwanza movement believes in respecting every hustle. They believe in the dignity of every work and trade (kazi ni kazi), as symbolized by the wheelbarrow. They believe that, in the journey to prosperity, every lawful occupation, however humble, should be taken.   

By contrast the Azimio formation believes the Hustler does not deserve respect. They use words such as takataka (rubbish), thief and bottoms up, to describe hustlers and the bottom-up economic model.

Fourth, the Kenya Kwanza movement believes that, in development planning, process precedes content. The bottom-up economic democracy is about respecting ordinary citizens by ‘listening up’ as they talk about their priorities. The Azimio formation appears to believe in ‘talking down’ to the people and prescribing 10-point plans that were decided by a privileged elite sitting in board rooms. 

Fifth, the Kenya Kwanza movement believes in the State as the enabler not as the oppressor. It believes the State is what is holding Kenyans back. Inherited from the colonial era, it is built on a servant/master foundation in which a privileged elite thrive on state patronage. Judging by the political and commercial actors steering their coalition, the Azimio formation appears set to perpetuate State capture.

Sixth, the Kenya Kwanza movement knows the most effective way to fight corruption is a blended approach involving strengthening the independence of institutions; economic inclusivity; a free press, strong civil society, and stronger whistleblower protection; timely and restorative justice; and education. More importantly, organised economic interest groups, a key principle in the Bottom-Up Economic Model, can be an effective accountability tool against corrupt governance.

The Azimio formation appears comfortable in weaponizing and selectively fighting corruption, which they narrowly define. Is the misuse of public resources to tilt a political contest not one of the worst forms of corruption?