The Price of Liberty in Kenya: Grand Coalition versus Grand Opposition

The overwhelming majority of Kenyans agreed, it seems to me, that a Grand Coalition Government was necessary on two purely pragmatic grounds. First, it was the only sure way to prevent the country from falling apart in an orgy of violence following last December's general elections. Second, it was not really possible to determine which candidate had actually won the Presidential race -- much as ODM had claimed, using its own inconclusive and even flawed evidence, that Raila had won without question. And yet, it was clear to nearly everyone, Kibaki and PNU had stolen the Presidential vote -- with a lot of help from Kivuitu and others at ECK.

What was not in dispute was that ODM was the single largest party in the new parliament. Its leader was Raila Amolo Odinga. So when Koffi Annan eventually brokered a compromise at the end of last February, it was clear that power-sharing would have to be spearheaded by Kibaki and Raila. Since Kibaki was not going to give up the President's seat -- being, inter alia, the incumbent -- and nobody, not even Raila, had the wherewithall or wits to ease him out, the only viable option was to create the Executive Prime Minister's seat for Raila, and to work out a formula for equal power-sharing at the cabinet and other levels (in particular, at the level of Assistant Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Ambassadors and High Commissioners, and top positions in the parastatals). Surrogates were to negotiate details of the deal, with the two principals having the final say regarding issues on which the negotiators failed to agree. Eventually, there was no real agreement between the negotiating teams, and the two principals decided to take the bull by the horn at Sagana.

The size and composition of the cabinet, and the apportioning of ministries between PNU and ODM, as agreed at Sagana, clearly signalled to most Kenyans that ODM had been seriously, if not cynically, short-changed. Kibaki, long dismissed as indecisive and incapable of standing toe-to-toe with Raila (Agwambo), had not only outwitted Raila but also proved to be a savvier negotiator. In the process, he had exposed to the wider public a character flaw in Raila which some close observers of Raila's public life have for some time now quietly worried and/or grumbled about -- not without a large dose of despair and even exasperation.

The flaw is, simply, that when left alone with "the other side," he is more likely than not to end up siding/agreeing with that side -- to his side's chagrin. Some observers believe that they have figured him out even more finely, arguing that what drives Raila is not any malice toward any friend or ally -- but purely and simply self-interest (regardless of the consequences).

Raila argues that the power-sharing was more than numerically equitable, if you look at it all with a fine tooth-comb. But no one believes him. Not even his thousands of fanatical, long suffering, followers in Kisumu City and its environs -- as the events of last Saturday suggest. He argues, moreover, that the ministries that he negotiated with Kibaki for ODM were fairly distributed among the ODM fraternity. But no one believes that either -- with the possible exception of the actual beneficiaries of that rather skewed distribution. There is considerable disquiet about that skewness in Rift Valley and Nyanza, and even parts of Western Province -- all bedrock of ODM support. And there is exasperation that he did not get the ministries of foreign affairs and finance.

Now, as I see it, it is this disquiet that is driving the call for a Grand Opposition in parliament -- to be underpinned by an act of parliament for additional political cover. And Raila is, of course, vehemently opposed to the idea. Is there any merit -- is there a compelling reason -- for the Grand Opposition?

In principle, Raila is right. There should be no grounds whatsoever for members of a party, elected to parliament under its banner, to technically decamp to another grouping of whatever kind -- for this has the very real potential of taking away, extra-democratically, their party's legitimately won parliamentary/legislative power. Parliamentary majority represents any party's understanding of the very basis of parliamentary/legislative power in a multi-party democracy. It is what drives all inter-party contests during and between general elections. It is why party discipline is taken so seriously. A party's parliamentary voting block is its only armament.

Proponents of a legislated Grand Opposition, on the other hand, argue that they are driven by an equally, if not loftier, principle: keeping the country from sliding back into a de facto one-party state. That is, creating a circuit-breaker against those who might be tempted to revive the Moi-era type of dictatorship. They imagine that only a Grand Opposition can resonate with the public as the people's voice, quite distinct from the government's voice. Moreover, only such a legislated Grand Opposition would qualify as an official opposition -- and an official opposition is provided for in the constitution. In their view, the Grand Coalition violates this important constitutional provision.

Yet it can equally or more persuasively be argued that what gives potency to the call for a Grand Coalition is a set of very pragmatic considerations -- not quite considerations of principle. One, ODM is controlled by a hard-core of self-centred individuals who, unless kept constantly on their toes, will simply use party and governmental structures to favour themselves and reward their cronies, while using party discipline to put rebellious backbenchers themselves on a short leash. The backbenchers seek to avoid the danger of being "whipped" at will to support all programmes and motions, even of questionable value, tabled in parliament by their colleagues "in government". They do not want to be denied by the party hierarchy the opportunity to participate meaningfully in setting parliament's agenda and running its committees. They do not want to be compelled to look the other way when bad governance rears its head.

Two, ODM backbenchers, in particular, have seen how dismally their "principal" performed during his final negotiations with Kibaki for cabinet and Permanent Secretary slots. They are bound to wonder how many more skewed deals between the President and the Prime Minister they can endure in silence till the next general elections. More specifically, they fear that the government agenda for the next five years will be PNU-driven, at the expense of broad-based ODM interests. They fear, moreover, that the Prime Minister does not see the danger, given his poor one-on-one negotiating skills. They can point to how the IDP issue is being handled as another clear evidence of this. In their view, it has been mandled hurriedly, one-sidedly, without due regard to history, and with Raila's acquiescence.

Since the 1980s, Raila has cultivated the political persona of a fearless, unstoppable representative of the people's will -- and a fearsome adversary with a fanatical power-base. The political brand he has created is next to none in Kenya and the region. He has rightfully earned the nickname Agwambo. So it was in amazement that the massive rally in Kisumu last Saturday, and the millions who tuned to their TVs or radio, heard him characterize ODM's entry into the Coalition Government as a surrender. "He who surrenders lives to fight another day," he argued. It might have been a slip of the tongue. The saying is,correctly, "He who retreats lives to..." He seemed to have realized the misspeak, as he immediately added the Maoist phrase "Two steps forward, one step backward" -- which captures the notion of inexorable forward-motion, despite short-term reverses. But what the audience heard was "surrender!" The live audience did not seem to like much of what he had to say that day, and was very loud about it -- and that must be a worry.

In Kisumu, and at Bondo, he was particularly worked up about the idea of a Grand Opposition. He argued that it was unnecessary and intended to undermine the government -- of which ODM was now, belatedly to be sure, a part. He asked its proponents, whom he labelled frustrated self-seekers, to resign and seek a fresh mandate from the voters.

But the proponents are already accusing him and others opposed to the move(such as ODM-K's Kalonzo Musyoka) of "dictatorial and draconian" tendencies, and of personalizing the issue. They insist that they will carry on, and will not resign their parliamentary seats. It is not known, however, wnat would happen to the Grand Opposition if its proponents -- particularly Isaac Ruto, Ababu Namwamba and Julius Kones -- were to be offered Assistant Minister positions tomorrow; or if they were to be thrown out of their political parties, forcing them to stand for re-election.

Having written the bulk of the foregoing yesterday, I now read in today's (Wednesday's) local daily that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Kenneth Marende, yesterday threw a spanner in the works. He announced that backbench MPs were free to form a Grand Opposition without having to stand for re-election. There was, indeed, as he pointed out, a provision for an opposition in parliament, although parliament could expunge the provision if it deemed it detrimental. Clearly, however, expunging it would require the concurrence of the 85 or so MPs who already support the Grand Opposition, and whose support would be required to deliver the new constitution promised by ODM by April 2009.

On largely pragmatic grounds, I think the Grand Coalition is a good idea whose time has suddenly, surprisingly, emphatically, come. It is an idea which was hardly conceivable even two months ago. It is intended to undermine the Prime Minister. Rather, it underscores the old adage that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The Prime Minister should support it for the good of the country, and for his own good. Do I think that we will have a new constitution by April 2009? We may have a new constitution, but not the kind of comprehensive constitution which ODM has been promising. Far from it, given the twists and turns we have witnessed since January 2008.