We have four presidential candidates, but this is clearly a two-horse race

Presidential candidates and their running mates. [The Standard Checkpoint]

Wafula Chebukati’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) blew the whistle for the presidential electoral race to start, having weeded out many players. IEBC developed serious credibility issues as it settled on four men and their running mates; three women and one man.

Some of those weeded out, like Mwangi wa Iria of Usawa Party, cried foul and made IEBC look like it was unsure of what it was doing. It embarrassingly approved Walter Mong’are ‘Nyambane’, only to revoke the approval after Jimi Wanjigi pointed out the discrepancy. The courts also faulted IEBC for the way it handled some candidates. There was, therefore, disturbing lack of transparency in IEBC’s decision-making process.

IEBC's decision-making discrepancies have two effects. They cast doubt on it as an electoral arbiter and bring out intense conflict within the 2010 Constitution that requires serious examination.

First, the Bill of Rights is there to protect ‘individuals’ from organised mischief, political or otherwise. Among the likely political mischief is confusion around ‘impeachment’.

Second, the ‘integrity’ chapter in the Constitution is primarily a moral guide on how public officials should behave in and out of office. Attempts to enforce aspects of it are haphazard mainly because IEBC is selective. Should the ‘integrity’ chapter be allowed to destroy the Bill of Rights?

As intellectuals and constitutional pundits ponder the conflict between ‘integrity’ and the Bill of Rights, attention turns to the real competition for the presidency. It is between two horses, one called Raila Odinga and the other named William Ruto, and their handlers known as Azimio la Umoja for Raila and Kenya Kwanza for Ruto.

The other two, Prof George Wajackoyah of Roots Party and David Mwaure Waihiga of Agano Party don't seem to hold much sway. Raila and Ruto have strong running mates, from neighbouring Mountain counties of Nyeri and Kirinyaga; Martha Karua, in Raila’s camp, and Rigathi Gachagua, in Ruto’s camp. Forceful, articulate, and ambitious, they serve to divert attention from Raila, Ruto, and even Uhuru Kenyatta.

They also have, in the past, displayed memorable weaknesses. Karua has little respect for status and when frustrated, she can be abrupt and walk out on presidents. She walked out on Presidents Daniel arap Moi and Mwai Kibaki. If deeply frustrated, would she walk out on ‘President Raila Odinga’ the way she walked out on President Kibaki?

What would then happen to the Azimio power arrangement involving Raila, Karua, and Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka? Gachagua’s problem is different, one of unpleasant image as an enthusiastic DO serving as Moi government enforcer.

At the height of the agitation for multiparty system, he supposedly thrilled in attacking reform advocates. He allegedly led the raid on reform champion Kenneth Matiba’s home. Would he repeat such raids, if ordered?

Ruto and Raila carry much of the 2007 baggage. Each is a schemer with political magnetism. Ruto started scheming in the 1990s after Moi disbanded YK92. After removing Reuben Chesire from Eldoret, he displaced Moi as the Kalenjin chief.

He, however, failed to escape blame for the 2007 chaos or to maintain unity among his supporters who are split and quarrel with each other. Raila, having brilliant sanitising strategists, escaped the 2007 blame.

Subsequently, Mountain power brokers started confessing sins of commission like stealing votes and demonising Raila. In their enthusiastic ‘confessions’, they inadvertently implied that Mwai Kibaki and Uhuru were illegitimate presidents.

Did they intend to? Raila did not mind such claims which increasingly promoted his ‘liberation’ image. Although Ruto had no visible ‘sanitisers’, both men are currently neck and neck in a seesaw political horse-race to the August 9, 2022 finish line.