Why fight for the presidency boils down to the rich, brave and backed

Kenya's State House in Nairobi. [File, Standard]

Before the 2002 General Elections were held, a team of supporters of the National Rainbow Coalition (Narc) from Kakamega visited Wamalwa Kijana in Kitale.

Wamalwa had just been chosen as presidential running mate to Narc flag bearer Mwai Kibaki in the days leading up to the historic Narc victory at the ballot on December 28, 2002.

A former Kenyatta University student, Osundwa Chitechi, was among the supporters. Their issue with Wamalwa would be summarised into a single question: “Why have you surrendered the presidential ticket to Kibaki, who was never with us in the struggles of the 80s and is not more popular than you?”

Wamalwa gave them an account of what had transpired. A popularity assessment for aspirants was conducted by the opposition and, according to him, the process picked him as the most acceptable candidate across the country. That was not, however, the only consideration. Focus shifted to resources.

All contenders, Charity Ngilu of the National Alliance Party of Kenya, Kibaki of the Democratic Party, and he of Ford Kenya, were challenged to table their financial muscle for a decision to be made on who among them would be able to run against the then Kanu juggernaut.

Wamalwa tabled bank statements that revealed he was worth Sh5 million in cash, Ngilu tabled Sh17 million in cash of her own, and said she could speak to her engineer husband and increase that twofold. Kibaki tabled a statement from one account only, which was a whopping Sh300 million. He said if he called friends and his supporters, he’d beef up his basket to a bigger sum.

Wamalwa told the team Kibaki had mobilised one thousand cars and his people had put together Sh2 billion for the campaign.

“My people, can we raise that amount of money? Tell me.”

By the time he was meeting the enraged team, his rent arrears in his Kitale residence were approaching a million. He had no car of his own and was using Cyrus Jirongo’s vehicle. He had been blacklisted in Kitale Club for failing to pay bills. Not so long ago I had paid him a visit in Lavington with his daughter, who was my fiancée, and we had problems sitting because he had just been auctioned. He had no furniture in the house.

The money factor

The long and short of it was apparent, to win a presidential campaign, one needed three things identified by the United States’ 35th President, John F. Kennedy: “Number one, Money; Number two, Money; Number three, Money.”

In the Kenyan scenario, it has generally been accepted that only three politicians have had the capacity to independently fund a presidential campaign: Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto and the late Raila Odinga. That leaves out all current opposition aspirants for presidency. Pursuant to this factor, debate then shifts to who enjoys whose endorsement.

Since all the front-running opposition aspirants have been depicted as projects, one must find an answer to this question: Whose sponsor has the greater economic muscle for his project? Is it Rigathi Gachagua for Kalonzo or is it Uhuru Kenyatta for Matiang’i? While this factor is not conclusive, it does provide an indicator of the power of the engines of the two opposition contenders for the presidency. History would pronounce itself on this matter through the Wamalwa experience.

Wamalwa’s guests also raised the issue of Kibaki’s credentials in the struggle as a pertinent consideration. That should remind us of the presidential candidacies of, among others, Dr Mukaru Ng’ang’a, George Anyona, Martha Karua, George Wajackoyah, Peter Kenneth and Prof Katama Mkangi. Despite their glittering curricula vitae in public service following involvement in the struggle, they are continuously cast aside by the voter. Why wouldn’t history repeat itself in 2027?

Against this historical background, we require an outbreak of new unforeseen circumstances for the breed of credible presidential aspirations to be viable. They are known: CJ Maraga, Wajackoyah, Boniface Mwangi, Okiya Omtatah and myself. The justification for their participation in presidential elections can be found in building momentum for change in the unforeseeable future.

They remain protest candidates, in line with their USA equivalents, who are never captured in the media during presidential contests. Like Wamalwa Kijana in 2002, the distance they will run in that race may not deliver a trophy.

The third consideration is the character, bravery and determination of the competitor Ruto requires for an opponent. The fascistic Ruto requires a brave, professional and no-nonsense operative as a competitor.

I am reminded of what Dr David Ndii told me about the opposition leaders he was with in a Karen hotel when Raila was being sworn in as “The People’s President” at Uhuru Park. He told me: “I have never seen adults so scared.” The guys couldn’t join Raila in what looked like a suicidal move.

Ruto needs a courageous competitor so that a bullet through the windscreen does not send them running for cover away from the frontline of campaigns — a cowardly aspirant alone may send an opposition candidate to Australia in exile. Musalia Mudavadi captured his personal shortcoming in his character well when he said: “I was not born to be jailed.”

Do we have presidential candidates with a similar coming? I think we do. Ruto would laugh at facing such an opponent and utilise his instruments of terror to push the weakling into submission to the gang in power.

Thoroughness and the no-nonsense spirit at work are legitimately Matiang’i’s attributes. You see that in his performance as Minister under Uhuru. In the recent by-elections, he successfully kept Ruto out of his stronghold by winning the three wards, beating his competitors for the United Opposition ticket who were overrun in their strongholds.

In the same breath, like him or hate him, Riggy G shares in this strength, save for the content of his politics, which differ from Matiang’i’s. The two have the spirit that can engage Ruto in a general election. In terms of substance, though, the Iron Lady, Karua, may beat them both.

The issue of viability of a candidate as reflected in the numerical strength of his/her stronghold is important. Times may have changed a bit. The Kikuyu nation voted for Ruto, whose community ranks fourth in numbers. Since then, a new community has emerged called the Gen Zee.

It’s not just now that Kenyans are being treated to pride in numbers within ethnic communities. Kimani wa Nyoike used to say the same thing in 1992: “Mutikamake. Turi aingi” (Don’t worry. We are the majority). Those replaying this chorus need to check outcomes of the presidential results of 1992, 1997 and 2022. It’s not in all circumstances that numbers serve their own person.

As we continue observing the opposition, a comparison should be made about the conduct of the current opposition candidates with our past experiences. Which candidate is demonstrating stability in messaging? Who is articulating reform messages comparable to Raila in his days? It’s not difficult to spot one who continues growing with time and those who are trapped in the vicious circle of moving four steps forward and five steps backwards.

The last consideration is what history will recommend for Kenyans to choose. Jomo Kenyatta was elected President not because he had demonstrated ability and expertise in running government, but because he had been detained for ten years. Detention was the consideration.

The primary consideration for the elevation of Daniel Moi to vice presidency was never pegged on his skills in running government.

Kibaki became a compromise candidate because of his seat on the fence, a harmless guy to all. He later performed well as a surprise, but government was never considered in selecting him. Uhuru became president because he came from the royal family. If competence in management was a consideration, perhaps Muhoho, not Uhuru, would have been picked, being the sole governor of the family economic empire.

Nobody considered Ruto’s skills in managing public affairs. If this was done, he would never have been elected because his CV in this regard was ugly. This manifests in every ministry he served in, climaxing in the impeachment motion in the Ministry of Agriculture.

The only candidate who is featuring in the race for presidency on account of demonstrated ability to positively manage government ministries is the one who was summoned by the Gen Z to quit his lucrative job in America and return home to run for presidency. I believe history will cast its vote for him as the candidate with a difference, a candidate committed enough to fix the messes in government. His name will need to be Mr Fix It.