The wrangles in ODM point to serious schism in Government

By George Nyabuga

Amid the political chaos that emerged this week out of the fundraiser for the evictees of the Mau forest, there is apparently more than meets the eye. And in the labyrinth of political demagoguery and grandstanding, there is a feeling that all is not well in Government.

The foregoing are conclusions that emerge out of the cacophony of the rhetoric that reveals the thinking behind the Mau saga, and attendant effects of public spats between various politicians.

Even though there is little doubt, as I have written previously, about the gravity of the wanton destruction of the Mau, and the need to evict illegal squatters irrespective of their political, social or economic status to conserve the environment and the future of this country, the issue has created a storm that may swallow some before calming.

And not only in politics: The complexity of politics means it has a domino effect upon society, economic activity, and ethnic relations and cohesion, among other matters.

The Mau saga has had numerous and disparate consequences on the relations in Government and the occupants of Cabinet posts. That the relationship between Orange Democratic Movement leader Raila Odinga and his deputy William Ruto is on the rocks is no secret. At least in public. And public perceptions are hard to handle.

That the two are strong characters with equally strong minds is not in doubt. And that the two have some clout and following cannot be gainsaid.

There is a popular African saying that whenever two bulls fight, it is the grass that suffers. Essentially, the ‘fight’ between the two will have serious effects and interesting intrigues not only within ODM but also in the Government.

This thinking is reinforced by the fact that the two seem not to be wavering in their quest for supremacy in whatever political action they are engaged in.

While Raila Odinga seems unwavering in his quest to rid Mau of illegal human settlement without compensation, Ruto thinks he is unconcerned with the suffering of the already dejected and miserable squatters.

Clearly, images of children and women huddled together in the cold and rain are not pleasant. But neither is the destruction of vegetation and forest important to the country’s survival and future.

In essence, Raila and Ruto are caught in a catch-22 situation. And to waver would have numerous connotations. To dither would be a sign of weakness, unpredictability, and inability to withstand pressure even in the worst of circumstances.

Weakness, unpredictability and lack of principles are signs of a failed or failing leadership. In this situation there may be no reverse gear. And this calls for Machiavellian politics characterised by cunning and duplicity, and survival at whatever cost.

As Niccolo Machiavelli advises in his seminal work The Prince, the acquisition and effective use of power may necessitate unethical methods. In other words, politics operates independent of ethics. In short, politics and power are dirty games characterised by dirty tactics. And there have been a lot of dirty tricks lately.

The statements emanating from the Mau fundraiser reveal the murk in politics, particularly when there are disagreements over contentious issues. Whilst there is no doubt that politicians have constituencies whose interests they should represent, and that their election into Parliament, for instance, is dependant upon how well they perform in the advancement of those interests, some things are more important than those parochial interests.

And herein lies the Mau issue. The Mau debacle is becoming murkier, and virulent. And the political virus it has released into the environment looks increasingly threatening to political relationships, particularly within ODM, and the careers of some protagonists in the drama.

The irony is that most of the political grandstanding is hardly followed by action. What with Ruto saying he is ready to be sacked for his stance on the evictions? Ruto should resign if he is man enough. He may look up to Martha Karua.

When she considered her position untenable, she quit the Government. Similarly, Ruto should quit if he feels seriously aggrieved and unable to defend the Government’s position on the Mau. In other words, he should not wait to be fired.

There is more to serving the people than being in a Government whose views and actions one neither subscribes to nor agrees with. Such political grandstanding is opportunistic and schematic, and reveals how parasitic and unprincipled politics and politicians can be.

—Dr Nyabuga ([email protected]) is the Managing Editor, Weekend Editions and Media Convergence