|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Even before the grass has grown upon the grave of the late ODM party leader, Raila Amolo Odinga, his party is experiencing upheavals; public spats and deep rifts have appeared that threaten to tear the party asunder. RAO was a larger-than-life figure, the undisputed flag bearer of the party, and although he never wielded a “big stick” to maintain order and discipline within the party ranks, it was inconceivable that anyone would go against his wishes or contradict his words. Such was RAO’s influence in ODM strongholds throughout the country that an aspirant needed only his endorsement, and the electoral contest was settled. In elections held since Raila passed away, such as in Kasipul Kabondo, his name was mentioned more times than that of the contesting candidate. Although Raila had a national stature and had support from practically all of Kenya, in his native Luoland, he occupied the position of a messiah. He was the biblical Moses who was destined to lead the Luo people to the promised land – the presidency of Kenya.
The Luo believed the presidency was their entitlement, something that had eluded the community through historical mischance. The hope of that dream being fulfilled resided in Raila. His death has had a cataclysmic impact on the ODM’s presidential ambitions and dealt a devastating blow to the Luo nation’s hope of ever securing the presidency. Samuel Atandi, member of parliament for Alego-Usonga and Chairman of the Budget and Appropriations Committee of the National Assembly, says,
“[I]n 2027 nobody from our community is going to run for president… One of us will run for president in 2032… so 2027 we are not going to run for president. Our community has had politicians who have been around since Jaramogi [Oginga Odinga] they were with Jaramogi when he was alive, they were trying to help Jaramogi become president, they failed. Then Raila Amolo adopted them, they tried to help Raila Amolo become president they also failed. Now that Raila Amolo Odinga has moved on, they still want to give us direction. I want to tell those politicians that your time is up. You will not give us direction… We are saying that for us going forward, our campaign and our pursuit is for a Luo to sit in State House…”
The confusion in ODM and within sections of the Luo community is captured in Harlem, a poignant poem by Langston Hughes:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore…
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over…
Like a syrupy sweet
Maybe it just sags
Like a heavy load
Or does it explode?
Political pundits have already confined the ODM party to the graveyard as a result of the intra-party battles that have split ODM followers into three factions; one faction supports the newly minted ODM leadership led by Dr Oburu Oginga and Gladys Wanga, while the second faction aligns itself to those opposed to Oburu and who view him as a usurper. This faction gravitates around the embattled Secretary General, Edwin Sifuna, who has the support of the ousted deputy party leader, Godfrey Osotsi, and members Babu Owino, Caleb Amisi, and party elder James Orengo. A third force within ODM are the moderates interested in brokering a rapprochement between the warring sides. This group is fronted by the likes of Ruth Odinga, Millie Odhiambo Mabona, and Otiende Amolo. The three factions are differentiated by their response to President Ruto’s political overtures to ODM. While the internal leadership turmoil is within its branches, structures and among its members nationwide, the epicentre of the ODM Tsunami is the Luo nation which has all along considered ODM as “marwa’, our own, built by “wuodwa”, our son, to bring “loch”, overlordship, to the Luo community, a thing that they consider to be their birthright.
In the post-Raila period, some leaders have promoted the notion that ODM and the Luo nation are inseparable. Despite occupying a national office, Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi, the immediate former chairman of ODM, held a press conference after meeting members of the Luo Council of Elders and went on to conflate the ODM party with the Luo community. Mbadi made the claim that the foundation of the ODM party lay in the Luo community and that the fortunes of the community are reflected in ODM. He argued that when the Luo community is divided, so is the ODM party, and asserted that the party cannot be without the Luo.
The tension within the ODM party is an expression of the anxiety among the Luo leaders in ODM who feel that the party leadership cannot go outside the community lest the dream of a Luo presidency dies. Luo entitlement to the presidency is embodied in RAO’s struggle, sacrifice, and leadership. While RAO was committed to a nationalist cause and agenda, the current leadership is hanging onto a circuitous dream of getting the community to the house on the hill by supporting a second term for Ruto. There are loud community voices stating that RAO’s demise has left the community with no one capable of mounting a nationwide presidential campaign this time round and that Ruto will support one of them in 2032.
RAO, the hope of the Luo
Raila Amolo Odinga embodied the Luo community’s hope after Jaramogi Oginga Odinga’s failure to ascend to the presidency and fulfil the community’s dream. The narrative of the evolution of the Kenyan state at the Luo grassroots has contributed to the sense of Luo entitlement to the presidency; it is a dream that has been deferred since independence. It was a dream that RAO embodied perfectly and, in his absence, the current paroxysm arises from the realization that, among the Luo, that dream faces uncertain fulfilment; to borrow Langston Hughes’s words, will it metaphorically dry up, fester like a sore, stink like rotten meat, crust and sugar over, or just sag like a heavy load, or explode?
In Kenya’s over-ethnicized political culture, the cult-like following of an individual political party proprietor defines political contestation, and the quagmire facing the Luo nation is not unique. Even the most politically naïve individual in Kenya can identify the “owners” of each of the political parties found mainly among the “big five” (by population: Kikuyu, Luhya, Luo, Kalenjin, and Kamba) ethnic communities.
Once the implosion within ODM settles, it might usher in a totally new political dispensation whose ripple effect will impact all political parties and bring about fundamental change in the political space. There is a possibility that the tide will sweep away those “old school” political thinkers and usher in a totally new political dispensation, one where regional and ethnic ring-fencing will be superseded by national socio-economic issues. The changes are the aftershocks of the Gen Z revolt that is redefining political engagement throughout the land. The Gen Z uprising obliterated the Dynasty vs Hustler narrative and brought to the surface the deeply felt socio-economic issues such as taxation, poor education and health services, personal security, and human rights violations; these were too big to fold into ethnic boxes. Understanding the events in ODM and in the Luo nation will help prepare other parties and regions for what is inevitably the future.
The Luo dream deferred
The presidency has been elusive to the Luo since Kenya’s independence, and the community has felt repeatedly betrayed, mainly by their pre-independence comrades, the Kikuyu. Jaramogi was favoured by the colonial administration to become the first head of state, but he declined, asserting that Jomo Kenyatta was the legitimate leader of the liberation struggle. In a well-known and oft-quoted response to the colonial offer, Jaramogi is reported to have retorted, “No Independence without Kenyatta”, affirming Jomo as the legitimate leader of the liberation struggle and the obvious founding father of the nation. However, this loyalty was soon to face the test, and, in the words of political commentator Basil Jambason Otieno, Jaramogi and all the nationalists were betrayed by Kenyatta.
“In the end, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga’s experience symbolizes the tragedy of his generation: they won political independence but lost control over the direction of the nation they had helped to create. His sacrifice for unity helped secure freedom, but it also strengthened a system that later excluded and punished alternative visions of development and justice. For him and his peers, this meant repression, broken dreams, and long-term marginalization, while for Kenya, it meant that the early opportunity for ideological pluralism and deep social reform was largely closed off, shaping decades of political conflict, inequality, and resistance.”
Jaramogi’s loyalty to Jomo Kenyatta and the independence struggle resulted in the dream of a Luo presidency becoming deferred. This sacrifice was later bitterly characterized by his followers as naïve and idealistic in a post-independence political dispensation where national politics took on a less nationalistic and more ethnic hue. The Luo feeling of marginalization from the presidency and political centre was reinforced by the proscription of the Jaramogi-led Kenya People’s Union (KPU) and, later, what has been referred to as the Kisumu Massacre. The ties between the two former nationalist colleagues broke, and the dream of Jaramogi ascending to the presidency after serving as vice president faded.
In August 1982, the dream of a Luo presidency was revived for a brief six hours when Hezekiah Ochuka, as the chair of the People’s Redemption Council, declared himself head of state. In some Luo circles, Ochuka is feted as the third president of the Republic of Kenya. The dream of a Luo presidency was once again snuffed out by the crushing of the coup and the subsequent court-marshalling of the coup plotters. However, this coup was the crucible from which Raila emerged.
The dream reborn in Raila Amolo Odinga: The making of an enigma
As has been alluded to above, Raila first came to prominence in circumstances relating to the 1st of August coup, where it was alleged that the mutineers were in consultation with both him and his father. In Raila’s autobiography, The Flame of Freedom, co-authored with Sarah Elderkin, Raila does not admit outright to being part of the conspiracy, but there is evidence that he knew more about the plot than other Kenyans. Raila acquired a Mandela-esque aura as a result of the multiple arrests, the aborted treason trial, and his subsequent detention without trial. He was now recognized as a freedom fighter and political martyr. Raila became the symbolic nemesis of the undemocratic and brutal KANU regime. Raila’s father’s house arrest and his mother’s death while he was incarcerated added to the martyrdom. He was released after six years and twice rearrested and detained before he finally fled to exile. Raila’s arrests and detentions were seen as persecution; with every arrest and detention, his stature grew, and by the time he returned to Kenya and vied for an urban parliamentary seat, his election was a foregone conclusion; he had succeeded his father as the most visible Luo leader and opposition figure.
Come 1991, Oginga Odinga, Phillip Gachoka, Ahmed Bamahriz, Salim Ndamwe, Masinde Muliro, and George Ntenge formed the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD) with Jaramogi emerging as its titular leader. The dream of a Luo presidency was reignited, but this opportunity was soon shattered when Kenneth Matiba returned from exile and fomented the breakup of FORD into FORD-Kenya and FORD-Asili. According to Charles Rubia, who was among the leading lights of FORD, Kenneth Matiba stubbornly refused to go along with the earlier agreement that Jaramogi Oginga Odinga would be the FORD presidential candidate. Gitobu Imanyara and Paul Muite both agree that opposition unity was scuttled by ethnic jingoism aided by the machinations of the then-ruling party, KANU. Moi defeated the disunited opposition, with Jaramogi coming a distant third in the race, behind Moi and Matiba. The combined votes of the opposition and even the number of parliamentary seats would have assured the opposition of victory, yet once again, the dream of the Luo presidency was deferred.
When Jaramogi died on 20 January 1994, the dream of a Luo presidency seemed to have dried up like a raisin in the sun, especially because Jaramogi’s FORD Kenya was “taken over” by Michael Kijana Wamalwa. The raisin did not fester for very long, and after two tumultuous years of a power struggle, Raila bolted out of FORD-Kenya and joined the National Democratic Party (NDP) alongside a coterie of elected Luo leaders, carrying with him the hopes and dreams of a Luo presidency. Ahmednassir Abdullahi SC describes the move then and likens it to the current imbroglio in ODM. He argues that upon Jaramogi’s demise, there was a “conspiracy” to wrestle the party from Raila, who represented the Luo community. He further pushes the “the dominant big three” vs the marginal tribes theory of political contestation that argues that political contestation in Kenya gravitates around this axis of three vs the rest, and that the other tribes that he describes as “secondary” tribes have no ambition to lead Kenya but rather to act as functionaries. He controversially concludes that,
The Luo has ambition to become president. The Luhya is fighting to become a minister… allow the Luo to head/run the party and let him try his luck to go to State House. In a political cohabitation/alliance between the two, Luos will always [lead] and Luhyas will always follow. That is the natural order… just like he did between the Kikuyu and the Meru.”
Ahmednassir’s position is one adopted by many who still view Kenyan politics as schemes between ethnic or regional blocs. Secondly, Ahmednassir fails to realize that Oburu is not Raila, and he has been told as much. Oburu has made an effort to recast himself as a cut-and-paste of his younger brother Raila, and the current ODM leadership is at pains to present him as Raila’s natural heir, but this has not gone down very well. Only those with heavily patriarchy-tinted lenses fail to note that Winnie Odinga has stepped into her father’s shoes. During Raila Jr’s cultural installation as the male head of the Raila family, Oburu took time to emphasize that Raila Jr is not RAO’s political heir but only head of the Raila family, and that he Oburu, was the de facto head of the larger Odinga family. He implied that there was a vacuum and that he himself had assumed that position. It is noteworthy that he did not mention Winnie Odinga at all yet she is a sitting member of the East African Legislative Assembly.
Oburu’s omission reaffirms that he believes that culturally, Winnie, a woman, is essentially irrelevant in Odinga family politics. Oburu went on to respond to Winnie’s criticism of the manner in which the new leadership was handling matters by stating that “Nimesikia mtoto wangu Winnie akisema Raila alikuwa hapo na sasa tutafute mtu mwingine kusaidia kuendeleza hii broad-based government. Ninamuambia hiyo (…) tutaongea kinyumbani” Essentially Oburu is reducing Winnie’s policy and procedural challenge to a family tiff, and he rebukes her and promises to speak to her and probably set her right in private – kinyumbani. In a family setting where Winnie has been rendered irrelevant, what chance does she have to air any views, and secondly, why would Oburu imagine that ODM matters are to be handled like a domestic dispute between father and daughter? On her part, Winnie made it very clear that she was carrying the legacy of her late father. At Raila’s funeral, where she played a larger role than all her siblings, she declared, “The King is dead, but long live the crown”. We posit that the current political dispensation is challenging this misogynistic and ageist configuration and that this challenge is playing out not only within ODM but also in other political formations.
When Raila merged the NDP with KANU under Moi and was given the post of secretary general, he had crossed the ethnic/regional Rubicon onto the national stage. Those eyeing his ascent to KANU secretary general were even more convinced that he was as well-positioned to rise to the top as Jaramogi had been while serving as vice president. Moi was not a candidate in the 2002 election, so Raila’s move positioned him for a stab at the presidency. It is at this time that cartoons with a tractor (Raila’s party symbol) deep inside the bowels of a cockerel (the KANU symbol) emerged, depicting a cockerel suffering debilitating constipation. However, the merger did not last, and as soon as it became obvious to Raila and his team that Moi had all along planned to present Uhuru Kenyatta as his preferred successor, RAO led a team of disgruntled KANU members out of New KANU into the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
Raila bid his time and threw his weight behind Mwai Kibaki after signing an MOU concerning the sharing of the spoils after the elections that the opposition was obviously winning. The dream of a Luo presidency was once again strategically deferred, and the despondency was expressed through the contestation over the failure to honour the MOU. Although the disagreement was presented as being due to the failure to fulfil the terms of the MOU, Shumbana Karume traces the division to personality clashes as well as to the Luo entitlement that was coiled within the party. He says,
“It appears that the strains in the new government are caused largely by tensions and disagreements between the former opposition parties and the LDP, which consists of the former KANU members and Raila Odinga’s Luo supporters.” (page 8)
Karume goes on to make the connection between the constitution-making process, ethnic politics, loyalty, and how the MOU ignited ethnic embers:
“In summary, the parliamentary treatment of the constitutional draft after Bomas did not resolve the “contentious” issues on system of government and devolution of power. Rather, the process became embedded in struggles between the ethnic leaders about which governance model was likely to serve their own interests in the short and long term (with the 2007 elections in mind) [Emphasis mine]. This rivalry, moreover, has a “pre-history” in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) (Raila Odinga) and the National Alliance of Kenya (NAK) (Kibaki) that made the formation of the NARC possible only a month before the 2002 General elections and secured Kibaki the presidency and NARC parliamentary majority. The MOU stated that a position of an executive Prime Minister be introduced by the adoption of a new constitution “within a hundred days” and that Raila Odinga would fill this position. After the elections, however, the NAK faction of NARC reneged on its promise.” (page 3)
The highly contested MOU contributed to the strained relations between Raila and Kibaki that played out in the 2005 referendum on the constitution that the Kibaki side lost, laying the ground for the tensions that fed into the disastrous 2007 elections. If there ever was an election during which the dream of a Luo presidency was palpable, it was the 2007 elections. Indeed, it is an election that the Luo, Raila himself, and his supporters believe was stolen. While addressing the clergy on 15 March 2025, Raila said, “The only free and fair elections since we started multiparty politics were in 2002. I have won many elections, it’s only that I have never been declared winner.” He said that, in the aftermath of this “electoral fraud”, he was under pressure from his party and supporters to be sworn in as president – to go the Madagascar way – but he refused for the sake of peace. Raila’s assertions are supported by SK Macharia, the owner of Royal Media Services, who described state interference in several electoral cycles aimed at ensuring that Raila lost.
Raila-less and rudderless: The infallible leader
The uncertainty bedevilling the ODM party is born out of the perceived infallibility of the late Luo leader. Raila had built a cult-like following such that he could not be questioned or contradicted. In the lead-up to the adoption of the 2010 constitution, there were followers who responded to the call to read the new constitution by saying that “Baba amesoma”, meaning that if Raila had read and approved or disapproved the draft, there was no space for contradiction. It was a rare ODM member who could say anything contrary to a Raila pronouncement. In the recent past, Edwin Sifuna grew to be perceived as Raila’s thought balloon on matters around the broad-based arrangement. It was believed that Sifuna voiced what Raila himself thought and would have said but for reasons of realpolitik or diplomacy, did not. It is to be noted that Raila used every opportunity to defend Sifuna’s right to speak his mind and even contradict him. Both Raila and Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o publicly shielded Sifuna and asserted his right to free speech. Raila railed at his party members, “Kama Sifuna ameongea, ako na haki ya kuongea. Kama wewe unatofautiana na yeye kimaoni, sema yako. Mimi sijasema (…) usiongee kwa chama namna hii. Hata kama unaona Baba anafanya makosa sema.”
Prof Anyang’ was even more blunt in defending Sifuna,
“Sasa wewe ni nani? Sasa wewe unaanza leo kupinga Sifuna. Wewe ni nani? We in the party sourced Sifuna from his professional work to bring him to the party and he has been doing an excellent job since then… The guy is built for the future, ama sivyo? (…) Ukiangalia huko mbele utaona Sifuna.”
Raila’s fanatical followers did not dare think for themselves; his word was holy writ. His ardent follower Junet Mohamed stressed that, “Sisi Baba akisema left ni… akisema right ni…”, meaning that there was no way that Raila could be questioned. Taking his cue in sycophancy from his predecessor, Peter Oloo Aringo, Alego-Usonga member of parliament, Samuel Atandi declared that RAO is the Alpha and Omega of politics in Luoland and anything he said could not be questioned.
The chorus from the ODM brigade was intolerant and borderline dictatorial, especially regarding the broad-based government and support for President Ruto as he seeks a second term. While Raila was very clear on the purpose for supporting Ruto in the broad-based arrangement, he made it very clear that ODM’s support was assured only up to the end of Ruto’s first term. He clarified that after that, the party would take a stand in the following election. Raila resoundingly asked, “We are ODM. Who told you that ODM will not have a candidate in 2027? Who has told you?”
While Raila was very open to dissenting and contradictory voices within ODM and was keen about nurturing the younger leadership, the dominant political dispensation in Kenya is ethnic, regional, misogynistic, and thrives on patriarchy and patronage. As a counterargument to those in ODM using Raila’s name while seeking to gag and marginalize the youth, Raila’s sister, Ruth Odinga, has unequivocally asserted that RAO was very committed to free speech and the freedom of the youth to express themselves.
Those eager to maintain the old-style patronage politics in Kenya see the 2025 Gen Z revolt as the beginning of the paradigm shift in politics, while it was actually the tipping point; the shift had been simmering and simply came to a boil. The changes in Kenyan demographics, the economic realities, as well as the freedoms enshrined in the 2010 constitution have radically altered the socio-political space. Kenyan youth with better access to education and communication have freed themselves from the ethnic enclaves that were designed and maintained by successive generations of Kenyan politicians. Since independence, ethnic-based politics had spewed out ethnic kingpins who routinely used population sizes to negotiate deals in the national arena. The highly patriarchal politics kept out women and the youth and has created one of the most unequal societies. The old-school politicians have used regional and ethnic balkanization to rally support for themselves and to bargain for positions.
Ethnic-based politics encourage the kind of tribal rhetoric that has Atandi saying, “The Luo community for a long time – if I compare with the Indian caste system – is regarded as a community that should be at the lower level… that there are people in the higher caste and people in the lower caste.” Similarly, Rigathi Gachagua has created a “murima” narrative to isolate the Kikuyu as belonging to the Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP), his own personal six million-strong voting bloc.
The youthful revolt is a pushback against being herded into an ethnic voting bloc. The youth breaking away from ODM are in the same boat as the youthful Kikuyu politicians like Ndindi Nyoro, Kimani Ichung’wa, and Susan Kihika, who have refused to subscribe to the House of Gikuyu “murima” narrative. Perhaps Gachagua’s most telling moment was when a young Kenyan lady in the US spoke on behalf of Gen Z and roundly rebuked him for promoting ethnocentric politics. Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro has also carved for himself a national image by discussing the wider economy and economic justice outside the orbit of “murima” politics. This new generation of leaders are identifying themselves with performance records as opposed to blind loyalty to dominant parties.
The growing boldness of the youth was evident when Mercy Tarus confronted Senator Jackson Mandago and his co-accused over the Finland scholarship saga and delivered an unprecedented scathing public dressing down. Kenyan youth all over the nation are demanding accountability from their leaders and are no longer afraid to call them out. Propesa, a youthful content creator for Mongetu Chito Chronicles, has racked up a huge following by highlighting the performance (or rather the lack of it) of the Bomet County government. Using social media and speaking in Kiswahili and the local Kalenjin language, he is demanding accountability in a manner that the leadership cannot ignore.
The youth rebellion in ODM, and in Luoland in general, is indicative of a shift in the manner in which political engagement is taking place. There is a saying that when a large tree falls, it collapses with a lot of lives that depended on it. Raila Amolo Odinga’s departure from Kenyan and Luoland politics ushers in a new dispensation where the infallible, larger-than-life super-leader will no longer hold sway, and greater accountability will be demanded of leaders. Any politician hoping to “inherit” the kingpin position is living a lie; the imminent change of guard ushers in the end of the dominant party and regional zoning, and opens a period of greater political accountability and democracy.
