To get a job in Kenya, political connections are the new CV

In Kenya today, it is the politically connected who secure jobs. Meritocracy has been eroded, while nepotism is on an upward trajectory. The situation was evident in the recent Social Health Authority (SHA) appointments, where members of the Somali and Kalenjin communities reportedly secured a lion’s share of county positions because their tribesmen occupy senior positions in government.

Has Kenya become a nation that loudly sings the chorus of equity, equality, justice, and fair play, yet consistently does the very opposite? We put on a grand display and even wear the wristwatch, but seldom demonstrate discipline or punctuality.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Aden Duale, and President William Ruto come from the Somali and Kalenjin communities respectively. It is therefore widely perceived that the recent list of county-level hires under the SHA insurance scheme demonstrates a troubling pattern: that Kenyans who lack representation at the highest levels of leadership risk remaining trapped in the mire of unemployment, despite possessing all the requisite qualifications for the roles.

More recently, Dr Ida Odinga, widow of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and well past the conventional retirement age, was appointed to a coveted diplomatic post as Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The appointment has inevitably stirred debate about merit, generational equity, and the signals such decisions send to a restless and watchful public.

Adding to the controversy, her youngest daughter, Winnie Odinga — herself a beneficiary of political patronage as a member of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) — remarked on television that young Kenyans are being denied opportunities. The contradiction has not gone unnoticed: she decried the marginalisation of youth while appearing to support her mother, now over 70, taking up a prominent international role.

To many observers, this dissonance captures a deeper national frustration. In a country weighed down by millions of qualified yet unemployed young people, Kenya is hardly short of professionals capable of serving with distinction in diplomacy and global governance, including at UNEP. If we are to restore public trust, we must resist dressing self-interest as public service, or presenting patronage as patriotism.

Why have double standards and hypocrisy become so deeply entrenched in our national politics? Even as the Kenyan President speaks of empowering the youth and expanding opportunities for them, his administration stands accused of favouring his own community in key national appointments. It is difficult to ignore the widespread perception that a significant number of the most coveted government and public corporation positions are occupied by individuals from the President’s Kalenjin community.

We have, over time, grown accustomed to opportunistic political arrangements that appear to enrich a select few families while the nation itself struggles. Kenyans must confront an uncomfortable reality: political elites often prioritise their own survival above the welfare of ordinary citizens. What is showcased on television frequently resembles carefully managed public relations, crafted by those who rise to power on the backs of a burdened majority. True leadership calls for honesty, sacrifice, and dedication to the common good — virtues that remain in short supply within Kenya’s political sphere.

Article 232(1)(c) of Kenya’s Constitution sets out clear principles for public service, including the need for ethnic and regional balance, merit, equity, and equality in appointments. Yet weak enforcement and political manoeuvring often allow leaders to favour their own support bases. The result is a system that encourages ethnic competition for political office, rather than a focus on merit, national interest and the common good.

Is it not troubling when a leader entrusted with national stewardship distributes public resources and employment opportunities along narrow communal lines, only to later issue appeals for “Umoja wa Wakenya” while seeking votes? Kenyans must remain alert and demand better.

Call it brain drain, professional migration or simple demoralization-our doctors, nurses, engineers, and other skilled professionals are leaving in search of fairer opportunities because the country has failed to value their contribution. Who will design our roads, and care for our patients if this trend persists?

Political nominations, promotions, and appointments are widely viewed as skewed in favour of the well connected. A contact at the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) confided that teaching appointment letters often end up in the hands of those linked to the ruling elite. Even military recruitments in the country are said to be less than fair, with major political figures allegedly allocated their own slots. If this continues unchecked, where will the sons and daughters of the hoi polloi find a foothold in Kenya’s job market?

During a recent stopover in Doha, I was struck by the sheer number of Kenyans working at Hamad International Airport. One cannot help but feel a mix of pride and nostalgia when meeting a compatriot abroad. They recognise you instantly and, before long, greet you warmly in Swahili -“jambo ndugu” - with an easy laugh. We are a capable and industrious people, yet we operate within a dysfunctional system that too often rewards mediocrity rather than merit.

The human cost of this dysfunction is severe. Disillusioned and deprived of prospects, countless young people are driven towards perilous alternatives. Some risking their lives in foreign conflicts, others especially young Kenyan women are enduring harsh domestic labour conditions in the Middle East. It is telling that Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary, who also oversees Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, Musalia Mudavadi, has indicated plans to visit Russia to address the plight of Kenyans reportedly trapped there after being lured by promises of work, only to find themselves drawn into fighting in the war with Ukraine.

Meanwhile, enduring perceptions of nepotism across successive administrations have entrenched the belief that certain communities — presently including a notable presence from the President’s Kalenjin community — disproportionately occupy influential positions in the civil service and state corporations. This fuels the conviction that political power translates directly into communal advantage, intensifying ethnic calculations in presidential contests and undermining the foundations of national cohesion.

 

 

Africa's Broken Promises: Why Regional Bodies Are Democracy's Biggest Obstacles

Africa’s multilateral institutions were established to drive democratic renewal, good governance and economic progress, yet they have increasingly become arenas of rhetoric rather than effective action. The African Union (AU) and regional bodies such as SADC, ECOWAS, EAC, COMESA and IGAD were conceived as safeguards against autocracy, military rule and constitutional abuse. Instead, they have often equivocated in the face of repression, hesitated during conflict and normalised democratic decline, eroding public trust at home and weakening Africa’s moral standing in the global stage.

This institutional frailty is stark in conflict management. The Tigray war, which erupted in November 2020, exposed the AU’s reluctance to confront powerful member states despite grave humanitarian consequences, including mass displacement and severe suffering. In Sudan, instability has persisted since the October 2021 coup that derailed the civilian transition. Rival generals continue their power struggle while mediation efforts yield little progress. Regional statements abound, but enforcement is absent. The AU Peace and Security Council has struggled to take decisive preventive action, demonstrating that mediation without leverage is little more than ritual.

Electoral governance, the foundation of democratic legitimacy, reveals similar weaknesses. In Kenya, repeated disputed elections, court battles and episodic violence highlight deep mistrust in electoral institutions and elite bargains presented as reform. Since the return of multiparty politics in the early 1990s, only the 2002 presidential election has been widely accepted as free and fair; subsequent polls have frequently been marked by unrest, displacement and deaths.

Uganda’s political space remains constrained by prolonged incumbency, securitised governance and suppression of dissent. Tanzania, once praised for stability, has in recent years restricted opposition activity and media freedoms, with reforms yet to translate into firm guarantees. Regional observer missions often respond with cautious language and diplomatic euphemism, avoiding forthright condemnation. Observation without consequence risks becoming complicity.

The resurgence of coups in the Sahel further underscores democratic regression. Since 2020, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have experienced military takeovers, testing ECOWAS and AU mechanisms designed to deter unconstitutional changes of government. Although Burkina Faso’s current military ruler, Ibrahim Traoré, is praised by some for a reformist posture, rule obtained through a coup undermines democratic prospects and the aspirations of the Burkinabè people.

At the heart of these failures lies a structural contradiction: organisations composed of incumbent leaders are expected to hold those same leaders accountable. Many heads of state, themselves governing under fragile mandates or controversial constitutional manoeuvres, are reluctant to empower supranational bodies that could later censure them. The principle of non-interference persists through elite solidarity, where peer review becomes peer protection.

Leadership at the continental level has also faced scrutiny. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti was elected Chairperson of the AU Commission on 16 February 2025, defeating Kenya’s veteran opposition figure Raila Odinga. His election raised hopes for renewed commitment to institutional integrity and democratic norms. Yet many observers believe his tenure has begun hesitantly, at a time when Africans seek firm, principled and courageous leadership.

These concerns intensified after Tanzania’s 29 October 2025 general election, during which major opposition candidates were barred and political restrictions imposed. Protests followed, and human rights groups reported lethal force by security forces between 29 October and 3 November. Despite the AU Observer Mission concluding that the election did not meet AU principles or international standards, AU leadership congratulated President Samia Suluhu Hassan, prompting questions about consistency and credibility.

Regional leadership has faced similar criticism. Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone at ECOWAS and Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa at SADC are seen by some as insufficiently assertive in defending democratic norms among member states. Observers argue that stronger censure might have been expected over alleged electoral malpractice within the region. One wonders why South Africa has taken a firm stance against Israel over the alleged genocide in Gaza yet has failed to speak with equal clarity about the crises and governance failures on the African home front.

Uganda’s January 2026 election reinforced these concerns. President Yoweri Museveni secured another term amid opposition allegations of intimidation and irregularities. Opposition leader Bobi Wine rejected the results, security forces reportedly raided his residence, and tensions rose. On 17 January 2026, the AU Commission Chairperson commended the election and congratulated Museveni, a move critics viewed as legitimising a contested process. Veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye remains detained on treason charges amid reports of ill health, drawing limited regional protest, though Kenyan lawyer Martha Karua has supported his defence.

Restoring democratic credibility requires practical reforms. Electoral rules, term limits and prohibitions on unconstitutional power seizures must trigger automatic consequences such as suspension or sanctions. Observer missions should become rigorous, evidence-based exercises with honest reporting. Conflict mediation needs stronger security tools, early-warning systems and clear intervention thresholds when governments fail to protect citizens.

Regional bodies must widen participation beyond heads of state to include civil society, judiciaries, legal professionals, journalists and young people. Financial independence through transparent member-state funding is equally vital, ensuring accountability to African citizens rather than external donors.

Africa’s standing will not be restored through declarations alone but through consistent defence of constitutionalism, credible elections and rejection of military rule. As past Pan-African leaders such as Nyerere, Nkrumah, Lumumba and Kaunda embodied, principled leadership rooted in dignity, unity and social justice remains essential.

By strengthening institutions, protecting liberties, curbing corruption and pursuing equitable reform, African leaders can rebuild legitimacy and restore the continent’s political and moral stature.

 

Odinga's Dilemma: Balancing Ambition and Principle in Kenya's Political Landscape

The broad-based Cabinet formed, comprising members of the Orange Democratic Party led by Raila Odinga and his political rival, President William Ruto, highlights a stark contrast with the outcome of the 2018 handshake between retired President Uhuru Kenyatta and Odinga.

The formation of this cabinet was preceded by protests from Kenyan youth, who took to the streets to voice their opposition to the punitive taxes proposed in the Finance Bill 2024-2025. Notably, unlike the 2018 demonstrations, which were largely driven by Odinga's political base, the current protests were spearheaded by Generation Z, who feel betrayed by Odinga's decision to join the government.

Many Kenyans view his move as a betrayal of their cause and a disheartening abandonment of his former crusade for a better Kenya. The same generation that once hailed him as a champion of reform and a symbol of hope now feels disillusioned by his perceived selfish ambitions.

"How can you prioritize appointing your allies to cabinet positions when the youths killed by the same government have not even been buried?' one frustrated youth asked during a recent protest in Nairobi, questioning the urgency of Odinga's actions."

The appointment of ODM's chairman, minority leader, and two deputy party leaders to cabinet positions is a travesty to multiparty democracy, as ODM is a major opposition party in Kenya's legislative organs, the Senate and Parliament with a primary role of providing oversight and holding the government accountable for its excesses. His actions have undermined this critical function, leaving a power vacuum that threatens the very fabric of Kenya’s democracy.

It is ironic that Odinga, who fought for multiparty democracy and was even detained for it during President Daniel Moi's reign, has made this move. Odinga's decision has diluted Kenya's political scene and undermined the vibrancy and national clout of the ODM party.

This development is a far cry from the expectations of Kenyans who revered Odinga as the "Nelson Mandela" of Kenya, given his nine years of detention without trial for fighting for democratic space. They expected him to remain a strong advocate for reform until the end of his political journey, just like Mandela did in South Africa. Instead, his political influence has been severely diminished, regardless of his aspirations to capture the African Union (AU) chairperson seat.

It is widely acknowledged that during times of national crisis, leaders from diverse political backgrounds should put aside their differences and work towards the collective good of the country. While supporters of Odinga may view his recent move through this lens, the majority perceive it as a self-centred decision. This is because Odinga failed to consider the youth in the list of cabinet appointments from his party, despite their significant role in driving the recent protests against the government.

It is worth noting that if Generation Z had not revolted against the current government, Odinga would not have had the opportunity to have members of his party appointed to the cabinet.

In essence, he is reaping benefits from a field he did not cultivate or sow. This perceived lack of consideration for the youth, who were instrumental in creating the conditions for his party's inclusion in the government, has led many to view his move as opportunistic and self-serving.

Critics argue that Odinga's cabinet nominees, including billionaire politicians like Ali Hassan Joho and Wickliffe Oparanya, should focus on creating sustainable enterprises that generate employment opportunities for the poor and marginalized instead of competing for government jobs meant for the underprivileged and unemployed.

Odinga's decision to exploit the situation for personal gain, disregarding the principles of integrity and accountability that once defined his legacy, has raised questions about his true character.

Initiating a political deal with the ruling government when Kenyans strive for self-determination is an unfathomable tragedy for Kenya's democratic future. Odinga's political clout has been punctured, and he should yield the leadership of the Azimio coalition to Kalonzo Musyoka of the Wiper Democratic Movement.

As Odinga nears the twilight of his political career, he must begin nurturing emerging leaders to pass the baton to. To redeem his image, he should own up and apologize unequivocally for betraying the aspirations of Kenya's young people. Otherwise, his political legacy, built over 40 years, maybe tarnished.

It is widely acknowledged that during a national crisis, leaders from diverse political backgrounds should put aside their differences and pursue the collective good of the country. However, while supporters of Odinga may view his recent move through this lens, the majority perceive it as a self-centred decision that prioritizes personal gain over the greater good.

This perception is fueled by Odinga's failure to consider the youth in the list of cabinet appointments from his party, despite their significant role in driving the recent protests against the government. The youth, who were instrumental in creating the conditions for Odinga's party to be included in the government, feel betrayed by his lack of consideration.

It is worth noting that if Generation Z had not revolted against the current government, Odinga would not have had the opportunity to have members of his party appointed to the cabinet. In essence, he is reaping benefits from a field he did not cultivate or sow.

This perceived lack of consideration for the youth has led many to view Odinga's move as opportunistic and self-serving. Some believe the ODM leader is genuine, while others think it's time to expose his web of deceit and pretense.

Critics argue that Odinga's cabinet nominees, including billionaire politicians like Ali Hassan Joho and Wickliffe Oparanya, should focus on creating sustainable enterprises that generate employment opportunities for the poor and marginalized instead of competing for government jobs meant for the underprivileged and unemployed.

Odinga's decision to exploit the situation for personal gain, disregarding the principles of integrity and accountability that once defined his legacy, has raised questions about his true character. Initiating a political deal with the ruling government when Kenyans are striving for self-determination is an unfathomable tragedy for Kenya's democratic future. Odinga's political clout has been punctured, and he should yield the leadership of the Azimio coalition to Kalonzo Musyoka of the Wiper Democratic Movement.

Odinga's newfound alliance with the current government has eroded the confidence Kenyans once had in him. As he approaches the end of his political career, he must start mentoring emerging leaders to ensure a smooth transition and allow a new generation to take the reins. To redeem his image, he should unequivocally own up to and apologize for betraying the aspirations of Kenya's young people. If he fails to do so, his 40-year political legacy may be tarnished, leaving a lasting impact on Kenya's political landscape.

Trump's Racist Depiction of the Obamas: A Shameful Disgrace to the US Presidency

By Joseph Lister Nyaringo

The depiction of former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as primates is among the ugliest racial motifs in modern United States politics by a sitting President. This has back-peddled the country back to an era it claims to have outgrown. When such demeaning imagery is associated with a former President and first lady, the damage radiates far beyond partisan skirmishes.

Depicting the Obamas as apes on “Truth Social” was ill-conceived and deeply offensive. Even though the post was later deleted, the damage had already been done, reinforcing perceptions of racial hostility by President Donald Trump. The episode has further tarnished the President’s standing and inflicted reputational harm on the Republican Party, which continues to struggle to distance itself from rhetoric that alienates large sections of the American population.  

In June 2015, Donald Trump's presidential campaign was launched amidst a toxic storm of xenophobia and racism, setting the tone for a divisive political climate that would define his presidency. At Trump Tower, he infamously declared that Mexican immigrants were "not sending their best", instead bringing "drugs, crime, and rapists".

This rhetoric dehumanised Latin American immigrants and laid the base for a campaign that repeatedly depicted them as threats to the healthy safety and security of the US.

Before Trump assumed the presidency, he became the most prominent public figure to amplify the so-called birther conspiracy. He falsely claimed that Obama, the first Black president of the US, was not born in the country and therefore illegitimate. He persistently demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate, which was publicly released, showing that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

Trump’s apparent jealousy of the former president is rooted in a stark contrast of records and reputations. Obama left office with zero scandals. No indictments! Today, he remains a respected global figure, with a standing reinforced by the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won barely less than a year as president. This is the coveted prize Trump desperately wanted to win last year, but it passed him by. By resorting to racially charged depictions during Black History Month, against the backdrop of aggressive immigration enforcement that disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, Trump has damaged his reputation and demonstrated zero positive view on race relations in the US.  

During an Oval Office meeting on immigration in 2018, Trump was reported to have said that the United States should not accept immigrants from what he described as “shithole countries”, referring to Haiti, El Salvador and several African nations. He suggested that his preference is for immigrants from countries such as Norway. Although he later denied this, the damage was already done.

Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric did not abate during his presidency. During the 2024 campaigns, he made inflammatory claims about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, suggesting they were “eating the pets” of residents. Officials and community leaders in Ohio swiftly debunked these allegations. In the same vein, Trump publicly disparaged Somali immigrants, referring to them as “garbage”, dismissing their contributions and advocating their removal from the US back to Somalia.

Trump, along with the Christian nationalists who echo or excuse his racial slurs, among them televangelist Paula White Cain, Pastor Lance Wallnau, Pastor Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse, and John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, should be ashamed for tolerating or amplifying such a record on race relations. Likening Michelle Obama and Barack Obama to apes is not merely offensive; it is a slur with a poisonous history that has long been used to dehumanise Black people and deny their God-given right, dignity, and decency.

If President Trump casts himself as a Christian apologist, he must confront the Gospel teachings of Jesus, who preached love of neighbour, the equal worth of all people, and justice that uplifts the marginalised. Christ condemned the use of religion to exclude or humiliate and identified himself with “the least of these”. A faith that invokes Christ while disparaging people based on skin colour is not merely inconsistent but a betrayal of his core message of love, equality, and justice.

The US is founded on ideals of equality, fairness and justice, embedded in its Constitution and civil rights framework. Although the nation has long struggled with racism and discrimination, it has sought to redefine itself through sustained civil rights movements. When a leader of Trump’s stature repeatedly uses racially charged or demeaning language, the political and social consequences are therefore severe.

If such rhetoric goes unchecked, it risks normalising prejudice and deepening division rather than promoting unity. It fuels hostility towards vulnerable communities, erodes minority trust in democratic fairness, and weakens America’s moral standing globally, further straining relations with allies who see such conduct as incompatible with democratic values.

One may reasonably ask whether a healthy democracy is sustained by insults, xenophobia and racial slurs, or by robust debate, principled dissent, and respect for human dignity. History shows that democracies thrive not when leaders divide and demean, but when they elevate public discourse and affirm the equal worth of all citizens, regardless of origin, colour, social class or political affiliations.

It is also worth noting the contradiction in Trump’s own personal circumstances. His family and political circle reflect international and cross-cultural ties, from his foreign-born spouses to a vice-president married to a woman of Indian ancestry. This underscores the irony of invoking narrow ideas of race and nationality while benefiting from the diversity that enriches American society.

Ultimately, democratic leadership is defined not by provocation or fear, but by respect, dignity, and inclusion. True leadership unites, protects all citizens, and advances equality and justice. America’s strength lies in its diversity, and its leaders are obliged to recognise and honour that reality.

 

President Samia Suluhu Conundrum: PLO Lumumba gets his facts wrong

 President Samia Suluhu Conundrum: PLO Lumumba gets his facts wrong

By Joseph Lister Nyaringo

The podcast conducted by Dr Patrick Lumumba on November 3, 2025, regarding the disputed Tanzanian Presidential election, wherein the incumbent triumphed amidst controversy and was inaugurated within the confines of a military installation, merits examination. One might reasonably conclude that the sagacious PLO Lumumba could have exhorted the incumbent President to vacate office, thus facilitating the establishment of a caretaker administration entrusted with guiding the nation towards a more inclusive and representative electoral process.

It doesn't matter whether PLO is a consultant to the Tanzanian government. As a Kenyan elite with international academic acclaim, the best he could have done was keep silent. By going ahead to state that President Samia Suluhu should not be branded a dictator, one wonders: which leader imprisons key opponents and proceeds to conduct a sham election? Which leader shuts off internet connectivity in a country of almost 70 million people merely to stifle the truth, kill dissent and freedom and cling to power without popular will?

The actions of President Samia Suluhu's administration have sparked massive outrage in Tanzania and beyond. Some critics argue that her approach to governance and treatment of opposition figures differs notably from that of former leaders. For instance, comparisons have been drawn between her policies and those of other regional leaders, with some observers expressing concerns about the future for democratic freedoms in Tanzania, which has enjoyed multiparty democracy since it was reintroduced in 1992.

The late President Daniel Moi of Kenya permitted prominent opposition figures, inclu

ding Kenneth Matiba, Mwai Kibaki, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, and Charity Ngilu, to participate in electoral contests against him. In contrast, President Samia Suluhu Hassan's administration has taken a different approach, with several key opposition figures, such as Tundu Lissu, John Heche, and Boniface Mwabukusi, being detained, thereby restricting their ability to engage in the political process.

The circumstances surrounding President Suluhu's swearing-in ceremony have raised questions about the nature of her electoral mandate. The decision to hold the ceremony in a military arena, rather than a civilian venue, is the clearest demonstration that the election was a sham and her victory was fraudulent since the process lacked transparency and accountability.

The precedent set by this approach may have broader implications for women's participation in national leadership, particularly in developing countries. The perceived lack of openness and inclusivity may undermine efforts to promote gender equality in politics and reinforce existing power dynamics in Africa.

Unfortunately, PLO Lumumba sounded like someone asking Madam Suluhu to extend a handshake to Tundu Lissu, the man who is facing treason charges. This is a man who witnessed what happened in 2007/2008 when post-election violence engulfed Kenya, after the late President Kibaki was sworn in for a second term in office at night. He witnessed the killings of Kenyans and the displacement of thousands. He saw how the nation was on the brink of collapse due to electoral malpractises.

Trying to minimise the gravity of the mess in Tanzania, where madam Suluhu has been sworn in, nothing can happen, is being politically pedestrian of PLO Lumumba. The lady should step down and allow a caretaker government to take up the reins of the country for a couple of months so that fresh elections can be held in the country. This is the surest way to nurture a democratic political culture, which should be radiated or inculcated in other countries reeling from election malpractices, such as Kenya.

How long shall Africans continue to normalise anomalies? In Swahili, we say imekuwa imekuwa (it has happened, we've to live with it). PLO understands the pain of presidential electoral fraud more than anyone else! He should be the last person to appeal for dialogue by the beleaguered Tanzanian President. In fact, PLO sounded openly encouraging handshake politics in Tanzania, which has diluted our Kenyan politics and completely disoriented multiparty politics in the country.

It must be understood that President Suluhu is not the late President Magufuli, who was PLO’s friend. It's also understandable that PLO has an affinity with Tanzania, especially the founding President Julius Nyerere and, more recently, John Pombe Magufuli, President Suluhu's predecessor. As a renowned Pan-Africanist, PLO's views on African politics and governance are highly respected, and his advocacy for African self-determination and good governance has been consistent throughout his career.

PLO Lumumba's perspective on Tanzanian politics is likely informed by his historical connections with the country, particularly his admiration for the late leaders Julius Nyerere and John Pombe Magufuli. It is pertinent to recognize that President Suluhu represents a distinct political entity, necessitating a nuanced approach to understanding her administration's policies and actions. Lumumba's commentary may be influenced by his familiarity with Tanzania's political landscape and his relationships with key figures in the nation's history, but this one should not dent his viewpoint vis-à-vis what bedevils the growth and development of democracy in Africa.

PLO Lumumba's critique of Western NGOs, such as the Ford Foundation, Republican Institute, Carter Center, and Open Society, raises concerns regarding the potential undermining of civil society organisations. These entities play a crucial role in promoting good governance and democratic development in emerging democracies like Tanzania and Kenya.

The civil society, popularly known as the fourth sector, has been instrumental in Kenya's struggle for political pluralism and continues to contribute significantly to the country's democratic space and governance. It is pertinent to consider whether avenues have been explored to secure funding for civil society organisations from the exchequer, akin to the support provided to political parties. Prominent civil society groups, including the Centre for Multiparty Democracy (CMD), Law Society of Kenya (LSK), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and others, have made notable contributions to sensitisation, legal representation, and advocacy for justice.

I challenge PLO Lumumba to guide us on how prominent civil society organizations in Kenya can raise funds to execute their mandate without relying, for instance, on Open Society and the Ford Foundation if he objects to foreign funding.  

Lumumba's own engagement with international platforms raises questions about the dissemination of his ideas. He is invited to lectures in the global scene and compensated for his contributions, yet it is unclear how his thoughts have shaped Kenya's national discourse. His appearances on YouTube and other digital platforms may have limited reach, primarily benefiting those with access to mobile technology and data.

To effectively propagate his ideas, Lumumba could establish a more inclusive retail platform, engaging with diverse audiences, including idle youth in public spaces like Jacaranda or Jevanjee gardens. This is what ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato did during the 4^th and 5^th centuries.  

The laudable efforts of international pressure groups, such as the Open Society and Ford Foundation, warrant acknowledgement. Their contributions to Kenya's political development have been instrumental, as attested by notable beneficiaries including Dr Willy Mutunga, Boniface Mwangi, Susan Kariuki, Paddy Onyango, Keny Njiru, and Kepta Ombati, founder of the Youth Agenda, which received funding from external NGOs.

As a direct beneficiary of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, I can vouch for the foundation's impactful work in fostering young Kenyan leaders through annual intensive leadership training programs. In 2007, this German foundation, in partnership with the Youth Agenda, provided me with invaluable training in political leadership, a feat unmatched by any Kenyan politician or institution. Such initiatives underscore the significance of international cooperation in promoting leadership development and democratic governance.

ODM Party at crossroads: Odinga's Exit May Reshape Kenya's Political Landscape

By Joseph Lister Nyaringo

The passing of Raila Amolo Odinga has carved a profound chasm in Kenya's political topography. In the aftermath, we can expect seismic tremors to reverberate through the political landscape, precipitating a paradigm shift that will recalibrate the contours of the current administration, redefine multiparty politics, and reshape the trajectory of the 2027 presidential election.

The late party leader of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) was the linchpin that had held the two-decade-old party together. Even before the week-long national mourning period decreed by President William Ruto has elapsed, it is glaringly clear that Odinga's departure has unleashed a maelstrom of political uncertainty, rendering new realignments within the party an inevitability.

A potential merger between ODM and President Ruto's United Democratic Alliance (UDA) appears imminent, judging by the pronouncements from proponents of the broad-based government during Odinga's burial on Sunday. This development may even prompt the adoption of a new name that encompasses both ODM and UDA, a precedent that has been witnessed previously in Kenya's history of mergers and political coalition-building.

If this happens, it could completely neuter ODM’s identity in the country as a distinct opposition voice. President Ruto has already expressed his desire to keep ODM in the ruling coalition, hinting at a possible political alliance ahead of the 2027 elections.

The recent development precipitated by the demise of ODM party leader Raila Odinga may galvanize certain ODM officials to defect from the party or challenge the proposed merger in court. Dissenting voices within ODM, including Governor James Orengo, Senators Edwin Sifuna and Geoffrey Osotsi, and MPs Caleb Amisi, Babu Owino, and Milly Odhiambo, may ultimately contest the merger through litigation, thereby potentially altering the party's trajectory.

Moreover, detractors of the broad-based government and the prospective merger of ODM and UDA led my Edwin Sifuna will likely attempt to persuade fellow party members to either abandon ship or urge the pro-government team led by Oburu Odinga to defect from ODM.

The ODM saga is merely unfolding, with all eyes fixed on key figures including Siaya Senator Oburu Odinga (interim party leader), Cabinet Secretaries John Mbadi, Hassan Joho, Opiyo Wandayi, Wycliffe Oparanya, governors Simba Arati, Abdullswamad Sheriff Nassir, Gladys Wanga, and MPs Peter Kaluma and Junet Mohamed, to defect from the party and join President Ruto's United Democratic Alliance (UDA).

Another possible scenario is this, if the court or registrar of political parties approves a merger, it could result in Edwin Sifuna's group quitting ODM to form a new party or join the Wiper Democratic Front, led by Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, who appears to be President Ruto's main challenger for the 2027 presidential election.

Broadly speaking, we are likely to witness a replay of the political theatre of the early 1990s, wherein the Forum for Restoration of Democracy (FORD) splintered into two factions: Ford Kenya, led by Raila's father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, and Ford Asili, led by Kenneth Matiba.

Odinga's departure will undoubtedly trigger substantial political upheaval in Kenya's landscape. Divisions are already emerging in the Luo Nyanza region, where the community lacks a unifying figure following his passing. The interim party leader, Oburu Odinga, may find it challenging to unite the region, not to mention the Orange Democratic Movement party, given the absence of Raila's powerful leadership.

On the other hand, Senator Oburu appears to lack the charisma and diplomatic finesse necessary to broker a rapprochement between the party's antagonists and proponents. As a straight shooter, Oburu's public pronouncements since the formation of the broad-based government have reflected a sense of inevitability, suggesting that ODM is firmly entrenched within the Ruto administration and will likely endorse his bid for a second term in 2027. This stance starkly contrasts with that of ODM Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna, who has expressed open defiance towards the broad-based government, despite his late leader's erstwhile support for it.

The Finance Cabinet secretary John Mbadi who is perhaps the highest beneficiary from the ODM party by virtue of the plum docket he holds in the Ruto government does not have the glue that can hold the party together. He is emotional, combative and a maverick in the ODM party.

The Kisumu Women Representative, Ruth Odinga, who is also the younger sister of Raila Odinga, appeared to espouse a unifying spirit aimed at bolstering the party's negotiating leverage with other key stakeholders in the country during Odinga's funeral on Sunday. She seemed to suggest that ODM will pursue a pre-election pact wherein it will nominate its preferred candidate as President Ruto's running mate in 2027.

Suppose this scenario materializes under the current political landscape. In that case, it may potentially sideline Prof. Kithure Kindiki, the incumbent Deputy President, from the running mate slot in 2027, given that he currently occupies the same position, thereby rendering him ineligible or less competitive for the spot.

However, suppose Ruto's parliamentary majority successfully navigates the passage of the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) report of November 2023. In that case, it will likely precipitate a power-sharing arrangement that may co-opt dissenting voices by incorporating prominent politicians from Kenya's larger ethnic communities, such as the Kikuyu and Luhya.

One wonders why internecine squabbles within ODM have erupted prematurely, even before the week-long national mourning period announced by the Ruto government has elapsed, following the passing of one of Africa's most prominent political figures.

Would it not be prudent for ODM leaders to pause for reflection and introspection, and conduct some soul-searching, instead of throwing words carelessly about the party, even before the seven days mourning for Odinga, set by the current government elapsed?

Following the revelations at Odinga's funeral on Sunday, internal power struggles within the ODM party appear imminent. This is particularly evident between those loyal to the Odinga family and others seeking a new direction, notably Embakasi East MP Babu Owino and Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna, who also serves as the party's Secretary-General.

The pro-Odinga family faction of ODM, which seemingly favours maintaining the status quo, including remaining within the broad-based government and ultimately supporting President Ruto's re-election bid in 2027, comprises Governor Wanga, Cabinet Secretaries John Mbadi and Opiyo Wandayi, among others. Conversely, the anti-Ruto faction is led by Edwin Sifuna and Babu Owino, alongside several others who have yet to declare their stance now that Odinga has departed the political scene.

The current impasse within the ODM party underscores the imperative of succession planning for influential leaders. As the biblical adage goes, "Let a man commend himself in a small matter, and he shall be entrusted with greater" (Luke 16:10). In ancient Israel, monarchs like David wisely groomed their successors, thereby ensuring continuity and stability.

Conversely, Raila Odinga's failure to clearly delineate a succession plan for his political legacy has precipitated uncertainty within the ODM party. This episode serves as a reminder for leaders to establish robust mechanisms that safeguard their legacy and ensure the continuation of their work, rather than leaving their organisations vulnerable to debilitating power struggles and instability.

As ODM navigates a new era in the absence of Odinga's leadership, several pivotal factors will determine its future trajectory, including party loyalty and members' adherence to the party's core ideals, which will be crucial in ascertaining whether they remain committed to the party or defect to rival political formations. Ultimately, the party's future actions will profoundly impact Kenya's governance landscape, particularly in the run-up to the 2027 elections.

 

Who Bears Responsibility? Gaza tales and the Pursuit of Peace

Who Bears Responsibility? Gaza tales and the Pursuit of Peace

By Joseph Lister Nyaringo

Our world is in dire need of peace amidst the backdrop of chaos and turmoil in the 21st century. Despite the establishment of the United Nations to foster international cooperation and prevent conflicts following the failure of the League of Nations, global peace remains elusive. Tragically, careless wars lead to loss of human life, undermining societal progress. Conversely, peace is foundational for progress, nurturing social stability, human rights, and economic development.

In a poignant address to the United Nations General Assembly last year, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados emphasized the urgent need for a "reboot" for global peace and security. Mottley highlighted that pursuing revenge instead of fostering peace escalates horror for humanity, quoting "vengeance is for the Lord" to underscore the perils of retaliatory cycles. Her sentiment aligns with the UN Charter's founding vision to promote peace and security among member states. Mottley spoke at an opportune time in a fitting forum, given the UN's focus on global peace and security.

The Israel war in the Gaza Strip and Russia's invasion of Ukraine stand as two of the most pressing global crises, exacting a devastating toll on the people of Ukraine and Palestine. The enduring trauma inflicted upon civilians in these regions is catastrophic, with children, teenagers, and adults alike in Gaza bearing the indelible scars of harrowing experiences for the remainder of their lives. The unfathomable anguish of witnessing loved ones killed in broad daylight defies description.

Global opinions on the Israel-Gaza conflict are divergent, with many questioning Israel's ability to maintain its status as an economic powerhouse in the challenging Middle East geopolitical landscape. Meanwhile, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has drawn widespread international condemnation.

It remains to be seen how US President Donald Trump’s meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladmir Putin this week in Alaska, will play out in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's government in Gaza has sparked vehement international condemnation. In the Arab world, a staggering 82% population view the US response to Israel's war in Gaza as "very bad".

Professor Fawaz Gerges, of the London School of Economics has scathingly criticized Arab rulers for their passivity amid Gaza's devastation, where children are dying of starvation as Israel’s bombardment continues.

Arab countries friendly to the US, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, have been criticized for their low-key and largely symbolic responses to the Gaza crisis. These governments have issued statements, held summits, and called for ceasefires but have been largely ineffective in stopping Israel's actions.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are a notable exception, actively engaging against Israel in Gaza by firing missiles and drones at Israeli ships. Arab governments' restraint is attributed to their dependence on US support and fear of domestic turbulence if they take a stronger stance against Israel, which is a traditional US ally in the Middle East.

The Gaza crisis, marked by starvation and civilian casualties not affiliated with Hamas, has drawn widespread international condemnation, including from traditional US allies. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity has sparked significant international attention and controversy. Post-tenure, Netanyahu's position is anticipated to be precarious, potentially facing restrictions on international travel.

Several nations have taken pivotal steps regarding Palestine's status. Canada and Australia, key members of the common wealth plan to recognize the State of Palestine in September. In Europe, countries like Ireland, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, and potentially France, the United Kingdom, and Portugal have announced to recognize Palestine as a state. Israel vehemently opposes these recognitions.

There's vehement outrage among Israelis at home and abroad regarding the Gaza situation. Some dissenters criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu's approach as excessive, particularly concerning humanitarian aid and civilian suffering amidst the aftermath of the October 7th tragedy. In the midst of active war, no party emerges unscathed. Israel has suffered losses, with hundreds of soldiers experiencing debilitating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), leading to tragic cases of suicide.

Meanwhile, President Trump seemingly aligns with Netanyahu's approach to the crisis in Gaza. Under his presidency, Israel's actions in the Middle East have escalated exponentially, as evident in assaults on Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

It is noteworthy that the Gaza war commenced during Joe Biden's presidency. Conversely, during the presidential campaigns, president Trump while as a candidate vociferously argued against the war, asserting that had he been president, the war would have been averted ab initio. Trump further posited that President Putin of Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Unfortunately, he is doing the opposite.

The ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine allegedly impacted Kamala Harris's presidential bid. Many Americans thought Trump would swiftly resolve these conflicts if elected, but the opposite seems to be happening.

The Gaza crisis, marked by starvation and civilian casualties not affiliated with Hamas, has drawn widespread international condemnation while the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk stated that Israel's plan is "contrary to the ruling of the International Court of Justice" and violates Palestinian rights to self-determination.

Besides, the indictment of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity has led to significant international attention and controversy. Netanyahu's position is anticipated to be precarious post-tenure, with potential restrictions on international travel due to the indictment.

South Africa has taken a bold step by lodging a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), focusing on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. This move has gained significant support from African countries like Djibouti, Comoros, and Algeria. Additionally, countries in South America and the Caribbean, including Brazil, Chile, Cuba, and Colombia, have expressed solidarity with South Africa's legal pursuit against Israel's actions under Prime Minister Netanyahu's government.

There's a notable parallel between Iran's relationship with Palestinians and the US's relationship with Israel in terms of influence. In the US, criticizing Israel is often considered politically risky due to powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Dissent on Israel policy can quickly be labeled as antisemitic, limiting scrutiny of Israel. Conversely, Iran supports Palestinian groups like Hamas and PIJ, providing aid, weapons, and training to build a coalition against Israel.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim candidate for NYC mayor, has sparked controversy due to his strong views on Israel's handling of the Gaza crisis. Specifically, Mamdani's statement about potentially pressing for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits NYC drew criticism from Israel and some Jewish Americans, with accusations of antisemitism. Despite this, Mamdani has support from progressive Jewish groups like Jews for Racial & Economic Justice. Mamdani's campaign focuses on affordability in NYC and his stance on Palestinian rights.

US evangelicals have a strong and unique affinity for Israel based on their religious beliefs. Key figures like John Hagee, Franklin Graham, Mike Huckabee (US ambassador to Israel), and Robert Stearns are outspoken in their support for Israel. They believe Israel's existence is part of God's plan tied to biblical prophecies about Jesus' Second Coming. This support is driven by their interpretation of biblical narratives about God's covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people.

About 84% of evangelicals see Jews as God's chosen people, and 90.6% believe God promised Israel to them. 64% of white Protestant evangelicals back Israel's military actions in Gaza vs 32% of the overall US population. The original statement notes that only God judges whether these religious leaders' views are right or wrong, highlighting the role of divine ordinance in shaping evangelical views on Israel.