Post by miguna on Mar 28, 2007 7:19:42 GMT 3
Is Kalonzo a fox or a chameleon?
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 24 March 2007
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 24 March 2007
Two questions have dominated quiet political debate in Kenya, post ODM-K London trip debacle. First: Has Kalonzo Musyoka become a true, certified political fox or he is a chameleon? And second: Are some ODM-K presidential candidates playing their cards under the table?
In a game of cards (including the political one), players are permitted to shuffle the deck. However, it is not allowed, even in the avaricious Las Vegas, for any player to hide his cards under the table. It underlines the principle that there are rules even in gambling.
There may be very few enforceable rules governing the political game in Kenya today. It might even be safe to assert that Kenyan political players seem to operate without rules. The lacuna is filled by all sorts of improvising, which are changed whimsically to suit each individual player’s idiosyncratic interests. But the ordinary person still has some expectation that the primary political players, especially on the national stage, ought to conduct themselves with some decorum and order. Kenyans are yearning to see politicians engage in open and ethical conduct.
In other words, Kenyans expect their politicians to be truthful. This may be naïve. Nonetheless, fidelity to the truth and respect for the politicians’ respect for their word is what ordinary Kenyans desperately want to see as operational in the political field.
So, what rules govern ODM-K leaders? Who have been diligent at observing those rules and who have run afoul of the same? I urge patience from my readers as we revisit the ODM-K London debacle.
Oh, yes, we are not done with that episode of ODM-K’s very public exposure of its underbelly. Not in a long shot. We are not going to defer to Raila Odinga’s wish for us to declare that debate closed. So, hold your horses.
It is necessary to revisit one important disclosure made unwittingly by Kalonzo Musyoka when trying to explain the kafuffle, particularly his decision not to travel to London. Readers will no doubt recall that it was Kalonzo who initially publicly disclosed the impending rendezvous and characterized it as “a bonding trip” that would include an attempt by ODM-K to reach a consensus on its presidential candidate. That was at a rally in Kakamega, Western Province.
About one week after his public declaration in Kakamega, Kalonzo made a complete about turn. The explanation Kalonzo gave a few days after he - together with William Ruto, Uhuru Kenyatta, Dr. Julia Ojiambo, Naslan Umar and Najib Balala - released a joint statement and later addressed a press conference, canceling their trips, was quite revealing.
In attempting to justify his last-minute decision to cancel his trip, Kalonzo stated that he had sent a “reconnaissance team” to London to monitor the situation before he could travel. Apparently, his scouting team sent back word that things were not good “on the ground” necessitating his dramatic decision.
Yet, in their joint press release earlier and at the press conference afterwards, Kalonzo and other ODM-K presidential candidates who “boycotted” the London trip never mentioned that their decision had anything to do with ODM-K London office. They implied, however, that an “impression had been created” (from God knows where) that the trip was to crown one candidate (meaning Raila), and that they were opposed to such machinations.
In the joint statement, the stay home ODM-K team spoke principally of “an impression that had been created” that they were going on a begging trip. They also indicated that they were staying behind in “solidarity” with Ruto, who had reportedly been denied a visa to the United Kingdom. Although Ruto refuted the claim that he had been denied a visa; his denial was considered a joke in view of the fact that he appended his name to the joint statement that purported that the “decision” had been taken because of him.
A few days later, as their trip cancellations boomeranged, Kalonzo tried to spin the story. Without going into details about what was “not good” in London, Kalonzo later emphatically stated that his decision was based primarily on the advice of an advance team of spies he had sent to London to conduct reconnaissance.
No one had ever heard of Kalonzo’s reconnaissance team before this. When they released their joint statement and held a press conference over the matter, Kalonzo, Uhuru, Ruto and Dr. Julia Ojiambo never mentioned anything about information being relayed from London by some spies.
Information has now filtered out that the main reason why Kalonzo did not travel to London was to avoid embarrassment of not having anybody at his dinner table. Reliable information within the ODM-K team suggests that as of the date when Kalonzo cancelled his trip, no one had bought any tickets that were going for one thousand Sterling Pounds each to sit with Kalonzo. The same sources confirm that more than sixty people had signed up to sit with Raila; more than twenty to sit with Uhuru; but apparently no one wanted to sit beside Ruto or Kalonzo.
To the extent that this information reached Kalonzo in time to avoid what was going to be an extremely embarrassing situation; one could argue that Kalonzo’s spy team did their job well.
However, the hard question has to do with why Kalonzo feels that he needs to have spies within the ODM-K family. Do other ODM-K presidential candidates have their own spies? Are ODM-K candidates spying each other?
The fact that Kalonzo felt the need to rely on spies rather than the formal ODM-K sources for information about the situation in London proves that he does not trust ODM-K as a political organization, together with all its functionaries. More so, he seemed to have suspected that the ODM-K London office was working for one candidate only.
It is not clear why he would have suspected that ODM-K or its London office was either not neutral or not on his side. To have spent large sums of money on his personal spies is clearly a confession on his part that he does not trust other ODM-K presidential candidates, especially Raila.
Either that or Kalonzo tried to turn his apparent unpopularity within ODM-K supporters in London to his advantage. He first pretended that his decision was in solidarity with Ruto. Cunningly, he created the impression that the candidates boycotting the London trip were united against the only other candidate that had attended. Gilbert Deya’s name was also thrown in for colour. And when all these failed to get political traction with Kenyans, Kalonzo span another yarn; this time disclosing what should have been the only explanation: the information sent back by his reconnaissance team.
It is difficult to imagine anyone being responsible for ODM-K-London supporters’ individual desires to sit either next to Raila or Uhuru.
As soon as Kalonzo’s attempt to isolate Raila boomeranged, he tried to change his reasons for not traveling. In one week, Kalonzo changed his position so many times that it was impossible to pin him in one spot. That’s not a good sign for anyone who wants to be considered a serious presidential candidate.
By failing to show his cards at the outset (choosing instead to hide them under the table); Kalonzo appeared inconsistent, cowardly, untrustworthy and lacking in courage.
Are these the tactics of a political fox or a real chameleon? Is Kalonzo ODM-K’s version of “the enemy within?”
______________________________________________________________________
*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
Miguna@migunamiguna.com
