Politics

By Steve Mkawale | 11 hours ago

 

The strong bond of friendship between Kenya’s founding President, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, and independence Vice-President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga instilled a sense of confidence and hope among the citizens of the newly formed state. 

As has been recorded in the country’s political history, Odinga turned down a clever request by colonial power brokers to form a government and ascend to power as Prime Minister as Mzee Kenyatta languished in prison.

In a move that shocked the British government, Odinga outrightly rejected the offer declaring that there would be no independence without Kenyatta who he described as the undisputed leader of the African people.

Later responding to a question by a British journalist in early 1960 months before Kenyatta was released from prison, on why he refused that offer, Odinga said; “How can we be better than our father? Mzee Kenyatta is our teacher and we all stand solidly behind him. There is no independence without Mzee Kenyatta.”

Odinga had in 1952 mobilised resources to hire lawyer Dennis Pritt, then a Queen’s Counsel, and a team of other lawyers to defend Kenyatta following his arrest and others by the British government on October 20. The charges were supporting the Mau Mau movement.

Daytime meeting

Odinga’s loyalty did not waver while Kenyatta served a sentence in Lokitaung and later Maralal. During the formation of Kanu on May 18, 1960, at a daytime meeting at the current Kirigiti stadium in Kiambu, the leaders elected were Kenya African Union’s (KAU) James Gichuri and Kenya Independence Movement’s Tom Mboya who had collapsed his party into Gichuru’s KAU to make Kanu, becoming secretary-general.

Gichuru became chairman and Odinga vice-chairman. However, both Gichuru and Odinga considered Kenyatta the leader and Gichuru would give way after Kenyatta was finally set free from Maralal later that year.

Upon changing the 1963 Constitution turning Kenya into a republic and Kenyatta becoming President in 1964, Odinga became the natural choice for the position of Vice-President.

However as has happened with the Ruto-Gachagua ‘prayerful’ political union, the political bliss of the two founding fathers — Kenyatta and Jaramogi – lasted for only two years.

The two political soul mates parted ways and ushered the country into a season of heightened ethnic rivalry, tensions, and intense mistrust.

Odinga who had built a solid support base in his Nyanza backyard and across other parts of the country resigned from office in 1966 citing frustration within the government which had made it difficult for him to serve the people.

A year before he resigned tensions had already built between the two leaders whose tipping point was the assassination of Odinga’s loyalist, Pio Gama Pinto, in 1965 which triggered continued disagreements. 

Political commentators and historians have said the fallout between the two leaders sowed the seed of Kenya’s politics of betrayal between presidents and their deputies which has been the hallmark of politics in Kenya over the years.

Veteran politician and long-serving Molo MP Njenga Mungai told The Sunday Standard that the Kenyatta-Odinga conflict re-configured the country’s political landscape as each of the two leaders solicited the support of their ethnic communities to fight their political battles.

Mungai said the conflict which was based on political differences and conflicting ideological inclinations undermined the country’s spirit of nationalism, social integration, and cohesion.

The retired lawmaker, currently serving as the chairperson of the Jubilee Party’s Council of Elders said; “The intrigues of the complex Cold War being perpetrated by influential forces from outside Kenya impacted negatively the relationship between Kenyatta and Odinga leading to their fallout.

“The political challenges facing the country today owe their genesis to the seeds of disunity and ethnic rivalry that were sowed amongst members of the big ethnic communities over the struggle for political power and influence shortly after the country attained independence,” Mungai told The Sunday Standard during a recent interview at his Molo home.

Former Subukia MP Koigi wa Wamwere, a key figure in the second liberation, attributed the fallout between the two leaders to what he described as; “the concentration of State power in the hands of a cabal of ethnic chauvinists.”

Wamwere, once a celebrated political prisoner forced to flee and find refugee in Norway, said although there were invisible external forces that created a wedge between Kenyatta and Odinga the competition for control of State power and acquisition of material possession amongst the ruling elite caused fissures in the newly formed government.

The former fiery politician and assistant minister, who was first hurled into detention without trial by Kenyatta said the fallout between the two leaders was a result of “political power having fallen in the hands of individuals who did not believe in the values of the liberation struggle and who were interested in serving their selfish ends.”

“Bildad Kaggia, one of the freedom fighters who was jailed together with Mzee Kenyatta but later aligned himself with Odinga would always say the struggle for independence was a struggle for land and freedom, and without the two, it would mean that the struggle had been betrayed,” Wamwere recalled.  

During the struggle for independence, Kenyatta and Odinga championed the cause of a unitary state of Kenya as their counterparts in Kadu agitated for a federal system of government that would create independent regions fairly free from the centre in Nairobi.

Kadu drew the bulk of its support from the minority ethnic communities which in the late 50s and early 60s were the Coastal communities, Luhya, Kalenjin, Maasai, while the Kenyatta-Odinga-led Kanu political party had the support of the Kikuyu and Luo which were Kenya’s largest communities at the time.

The leaders of the Kadu party were elected members from the smaller communities; Ronald Ngala (party leader) from the Coast, Masinde Muliro (secretary-general) Luhya, Daniel Arap Moi (deputy party leader), Kalenjin.

The fallout between the two leaders sparked off a wave of enmity that pitted Kenyatta’s populous Kikuyu community against Odinga’s Luo.

The two communities had worked together to champion the cause of freedom with Central Kenya and Nyanza regions forming the independence party, Kanu, political bastion at the height of the freedom struggle.

Political pundits and historians contend that Kenyatta and Odinga were trapped in a complex web of interests driven by both local and external forces.

Analysts add that the different political backgrounds and personalities who formed the independent government shaped their perception of the exercise of power and acquisition of personal wealth hence triggering conflicts amongst themselves.

At the local political scene, Kenyatta is said to have fallen hostage to a cabal of Kikuyu elites who wielded power and influence in the newly established State where they used their position to acquire power and wealth.

Odinga on his part advocated for the redistribution of wealth including land previously owned by the departing white settlers, hence stepping on the toes of the influential Kikuyu political elite.

On the external front, Kenyatta and Odinga had different ideological orientations that were defined by the Cold War era and the after-effects of World War II.

Following the defeat of Adolf Hitler’s fascism, the two emerging powers that had been allies and victors of the 1939-45 war, began competing on a myriad of things including ideological ones. The US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) engaged in a battle of wits through indirect conflict where smaller nations and freshly independent States such as Kenya found themselves right at the centre of the war.

Capitalist system

The US and its allies including the British government advocated for a capitalist system of government on Kenya against communism which was espoused by the Soviet Union and China.

Kenyatta enjoyed the backing of the British and the US governments in their efforts to bolster their support in the region against the Soviet Union.

READ: Exposed: Power struggles that set Jaramogi Oginga Odinga and Jomo Kenyatta on warpath

Odinga had been calling for closer ties with China and the Soviet Union where he had political networks.

He was, however, not a communist at heart and never supported the communistic ideology. He was by all accounts a capitalist - owning huge tracts of land, had investments in transport, agriculture, retail. The tag of communism was therefore a label that hit its target at a politically bad time.

The tag came from his pronouncements where he pushed for no full alignment with the East or West but borrow what works from either.

“For me capitalism and communism is like food, you can today eat nyoyo and tomorrow you eat ugali.’’ The Western press working in Nairobi would report such statements with a tweak “Communism is like food, Odinga says”.

In his autobiography, Not Yet Uhuru, published in 1967, Odinga states that the use of public offices for the accumulation of personal wealth and oppression of the opposition by the government meant the country was yet to attain real freedom.

African leaders

Historians argue that the US was wary of a crop of African leaders who had ushered their countries to freedom and were agitating for closer working relationships amongst the newly independent states.

READ: How a powerful group frustrated Oginga Odinga's efforts to meet Jomo Kenyatta

President Kwame Nkurumah (Ghana), Leopold Senghor (Senegal), Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), Patrice Lumumba (Congo) and Kenyatta (Kenya) whose countries had attained independence from colonialists in the late 50s and early 60s were calling for the emancipation of other African countries from the yoke of colonialism.

The Soviet Union had rendered support to some of the countries in the liberation struggle and even supported liberation movements hence the need for the US and the Western block to woe independent African states to their side.

“Though the two leaders were great friends at both political and personal levels they fell prey to intense manipulations and intrigues orchestrated by the US and British forces which sought to prevent the Soviet Union from establishing a sphere of influence in the region,” Wamwere added.

Confidential documents from the US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and those from the British government depicted Odinga as a power-hungry leader who was plotting to topple the Kenyatta administration.

The two governments shared their intelligence briefs with the Kenyatta administration which enhanced its plot to isolate Odinga from the government.

The love-hate relationship between the Kikuyu and the Luo communities came to define the trajectory of the country’s politics over the years.

Candidates from the two communities have on numerous occasions found themselves key protagonists during presidential elections since the country reverted to multi-party politics.

Occasional marriages of convenience between the two communities have also influenced the outcome of major political events in the country including the agitation for the second liberation and enactment of the new Constitution.

ALSO READ: Jomo and Jaramogi: A tale of Kenya’s enduring political dynasties

The Kenyatta administration used Tom Mboya to undermine and reduce the influence of Odinga in the Luo community —where he belonged.

Mboya, who harboured presidential ambitions, was shot by an assassin in Nairobi in an incident linked to Kenyatta succession politics in 1969.

The assassination of Mboya jostled the country’s political scene and provided an ethnic shift to Kenyatta-Odinga differences.

Mboya’s assassination had been preceded by that of Pio Gama Pinto, a former freedom fighter of Goan descent who was perceived to have been the brain behind Odinga’s communist ideology and his lead political strategist.

The killing of Pinto was interpreted as an attempt to politically weaken Odinga who was kicked out of the ruling party Kanu forcing his to seek a refugee in the Kenya People’s Union (KPU) which he founded to further his political cause.

In 1969, barely months after the murder of Mboya, Kenyatta made a trip to Kisumu to open the New Nyanza General Hospital which had been constructed with the support of Russia through Odinga led to fracas that forced presidential guards to open fire on the crowd killing tens of people.

The violence broke out when agitated supporters of Odinga’s KPU party clashed with Kanu youth wingers.

As the showdown continued the mob threw stones at the presidential dias where Kenyatta was speaking from prompting action by security forces.

The incident coupled with the killing of Mboya created bad blood between the Kikuyu and the Luo with the Luos solidly backing Odinga.

The radical wing within Kanu had also coalesced around Odinga whose support threatened those in power.

Odinga’s supporters, most of whom had decamped from Kanu and were subjected to an election on a KPU ticket were arrested and hurled into detention as he was placed under house arrest to weaken him politically.

Personal ambition

Former Mukurweini MP Kabando wa Kabando, told The Sunday Standard that the fallout between Kenyatta and Odinga “epitomises how political intrigues, personal ambition and clash of ideology between the president and his assistant have defined the practice of politics in the country right from independence time hence undermining the sense of nationhood and national stability.”

Kabando observes that at the time of independence candidates from different ethnic backgrounds would contest political seats in constituencies where there were few members of their communities.

“For instance, Mboya would be elected in Nairobi in a constituency where the Kikuyu community formed the bulk of voters while Achieng Oneko was elected in Nakuru. John Keen, who had a Maasai background stood for a political seat in Kitale. The voters elected candidates based on the political agenda championed by a political party rather than based on ethnicity,” Kabando said.

He added that the fallout between the two leaders had a profound impact on the country’s political landscape as ethnicity and support for a leader became the basis of political and mobilisation.