Is Uhuru funding ‘dangerous’ project?

By OKECH KENDO

It is decisive moments that expose the character of politicians clamouring for national leadership. Leadership means making decisions, right or wrong, and standing by them.

A colleague last week wrote that were old Jomo Kenyatta alive today, his political son Uhuru Kenyatta would probably be the first candidate for the butt of his famed bakora. The colleague had argued Uhuru has systematically presided over the dearth of Kanu. He has rubbished the party’s heritage of holding power for more than four decades.

Old Jomo, the first president of Kenya, was among the founders of the party for which Uhuru has played a competent undertaker. Jomo joined the leadership of the independent party midway, but he gave it a strong grassroots foundation. But it was President Moi who would fortify this base to hand over to Uhuru an even stronger party in 2002 for his abortive presidential run.

Although Uhuru inherited a buoyant party, today Kanu counts for little as a viable machine for acquiring power. The man is in Kanu by registration and inheritance only, with his heart and mind in PNU. He hopes to ‘inherit’ President Kibaki’s clout in PNU and central Kenya.

Uhuru is in Kanu and PNU at the same time despite calls to him to decide. PNU is his future and Kanu is his past. He is caught in between like the mythical hyena that wanted a bite of the carcass in two different directions.

This, however, is only one of the errors of commission for which Uhuru should taste the butt of Old Jomo’s bakora. But there is an even more compelling reason the man should be whipped. A nyahunyu would be more effective in sending the message about the tragedy of indecision.

The want-to-be president is caught somewhere mid-way between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ — a political no-man’s land. Sadly, the Constitutional Review Act 2008, which drives the search for a new constitution, does not recognise anything midway between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

Sudden attack

The Kanu chairman has been a review insider for two years. He helped shape the Proposed Constitution, through membership of the Parliamentary Select Committee. But through a sudden attack of patriotism, he has just discovered the draft is divisive.

Being a patriot, he does not want to be party to a conspiracy to divide the country on moral lines (abortion), religious lines (Kadhis’ courts), economic lines (land), and gender lines (Bill of Rights and proportional gender representation).

Uhuru’s new-fangled discovery would have been forgiven had it stopped there, but it goes much further. As Minister for Finance he is asking Parliament for Sh9 billion to finance a ‘treasonous’ scheme.

Now, if Uhuru believes the Proposed Constitution shall divide the country, why is he funding it? Uhuru the wannabe president is fighting Uhuru the Minister for Finance. It is a conflict of interest — a politician at a crossroads. Uhuru is looking for an alliance with ‘No’ man William Ruto and his constituency so he wants to occupy the halfway zone between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

At least Ruto, Uhuru’s potential ally in a Kikuyu, Kamba and Kalenjin (KKK) alliance, has taken a bold decision to disown his own proposals as a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee and ODM representative during the Naivasha Accord.

It was Ruto who proposed a strong presidency based on the US model, to spite a second centre of power represented by Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Now Ruto says the monster he petted in Naivasha is a ‘super-imperial presidency’. On that account, he wants further negotiations on the Proposed Constitution to ‘liberalise’ the presidency.

Like Saul becoming Paul on the road Damascus, Ruto won’t join Uhuru, a voyeur marooned at sea. Uhuru’s strategic indecision is intended to placate Ruto’s turf. But Ruto’s decision is also a test-run for his 2012 presidential bid.

By rejecting the product of his ‘convictions’, Ruto is on a ‘dry run’ for president. He wants to exploit the ‘No’ vote to test his clout. The man who effuses ‘patriotism’ is exploiting national business to test his personal popularity.

Yet it was Uhuru, as the Leader of the official Opposition in the Ninth Parliament, who accused President Kibaki of being hands-off and legs-off the leadership pedal. Now Uhuru is sitting on the fence, blowing hot and cold at the same time.

Second fiddle

The double-speak is telling, coming from a deputy prime minister who has presidential ambition. But Uhuru is in good company of Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, who thinks the review should not be ‘politicised’, even though constitution making has always been a political process.

Here is the conundrum: KKK trio — Ruto, Uhuru and Kalonzo — waited for Raila to return from an Easter visit to Uganda to declare the ‘Yes’ campaign. The trio would probably go ‘Yes’ if Raila switched to ‘No’. They don’t want to play second fiddle. So it was the Kibaki Succession bug biting its children all along?

The writer is The Standard’s Managing Editor, Quality and Production.

kendo@standardmedia.co.ke