Willard
Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election partly because he
thought the United States is still run by old white men. The coalition
that Barack Obama assembled to win the 2008 election survived largely
intact in 2012 and helped re-elect him to the White House. By turning
the Democratic Party into a big tent, Barack Obama brought together the
youth, gays, Hispanics, single women, the elderly and pro-Israel Jews to
defeat Mr Romney's ill-assembled coalition that tended to the same
groups that the GOP has carried since the halcyon days of Newt
Gingrich's speakership in the 1990s.
Kenya's presidential contenders continue to draw the wrong lessons from the United States' elections. The current political and media obsession is with the assembling of coalitions before a December 4 deadline, the most notorious being the negotiations between Uhuru Kenyatta/TNA and William Ruto/URP. Despite what Messrs Ole Kaparo and the old men at the helm of the URP claim, Mr Ruto is being treated not only as the leader of the UR but also as the leader of the Kalenjin as Mr Kenyatta is being treated as a leader of TNA and the Kikuyu. So too Mr Mudavadi is being treated as a Luhya leader, Raila Odinga as a Luo leader, Kalonzo Musyoka as a Kamba leader, and so on and so forth.The alliances being fronted are tribal alliances; the negotiations being prosecuted are being prosecuted in the name of tribal numbers. This is the curse of the 50+1 Rule in the Constitution that demands that the winning presidential candidate must get at least 50%+1 of the total vote cast in the election, as well as at least half the votes cast in at least half the counties. Kenya's presidential contenders are held hostage to bankrupt ideas about tribal coalition-building as the cornerstone of a successful presidential campaign. They refuse to acknowledge that after the 2007 general election, millions of voters will no longer be blindly led astray. Kenya is about to experience a demographic miracle the likes of which has never been seen in its 49 years of uhuru.
Mr Kenyatta's and Mr Ruto's marriage of convenience if it comes to pass is founded on two flawed and interconnected reasons: antipathy for the Prime Minister and their indictments at the International Criminal Court. Mr Romney's backers were motivated by racial antipathy for the incumbent and a visceral hatred for his policies and accomplishments. It has always been easier to stand against something than to to stand for something but it is near impossible to sustain a policy of being against something. Sooner or later your constituents are going to ask for an alternative. What is the alternative that Mr Kenyatta or Mr Ruto offers the electorate of Kenya? So far they and their acolytes have yet to offer an alternative vision to that of the Prime Minister. For example, while we cannot make them like the PM, they should instead tell us why we should like them and why we should vote for them. By continuously banging on about why the PM is wrong, they should tell us why they are right; perhaps then we may be informed well enough to draw distinctions between their pledges and those of the PM. If all they'll concentrate on are the alleged flaws of the PM, we may be forced to decide that we are better off with the devil we know and elect him instead of them.
All presidential candidates, bar one or two no-hoppers, have drawn large crowds wherever they have gone and these large crowds have consisted almost entirely of unemployed youth, half of whom have been out of work for at least three years. It beggars belief that all these young people hear at political rallies, or what is reported about political rallies, is the promise of an alliance between this politician and that politician an not about the specific problems that the young people face. In their bubble, most of the presidential contenders refuse to see that their time in the government has been a disappointment to these people and that without addressing their problems, the talk of alliances and coalitions is only setting the stage for great strife and turmoil. The alliances and coalitions are acceptable or unacceptable only to an elite few; the majority of voters simply want to know that their day-to-day problems will be solved through the guarantee of opportunity and the promise of wealth if they work hard and apply themselves. If even this promise is not kept, the men and women fronting the alliances and coalitions will have no one but themselves to blame when the angry youth set their entire edifice on fire.
Kenya's presidential contenders continue to draw the wrong lessons from the United States' elections. The current political and media obsession is with the assembling of coalitions before a December 4 deadline, the most notorious being the negotiations between Uhuru Kenyatta/TNA and William Ruto/URP. Despite what Messrs Ole Kaparo and the old men at the helm of the URP claim, Mr Ruto is being treated not only as the leader of the UR but also as the leader of the Kalenjin as Mr Kenyatta is being treated as a leader of TNA and the Kikuyu. So too Mr Mudavadi is being treated as a Luhya leader, Raila Odinga as a Luo leader, Kalonzo Musyoka as a Kamba leader, and so on and so forth.The alliances being fronted are tribal alliances; the negotiations being prosecuted are being prosecuted in the name of tribal numbers. This is the curse of the 50+1 Rule in the Constitution that demands that the winning presidential candidate must get at least 50%+1 of the total vote cast in the election, as well as at least half the votes cast in at least half the counties. Kenya's presidential contenders are held hostage to bankrupt ideas about tribal coalition-building as the cornerstone of a successful presidential campaign. They refuse to acknowledge that after the 2007 general election, millions of voters will no longer be blindly led astray. Kenya is about to experience a demographic miracle the likes of which has never been seen in its 49 years of uhuru.
Mr Kenyatta's and Mr Ruto's marriage of convenience if it comes to pass is founded on two flawed and interconnected reasons: antipathy for the Prime Minister and their indictments at the International Criminal Court. Mr Romney's backers were motivated by racial antipathy for the incumbent and a visceral hatred for his policies and accomplishments. It has always been easier to stand against something than to to stand for something but it is near impossible to sustain a policy of being against something. Sooner or later your constituents are going to ask for an alternative. What is the alternative that Mr Kenyatta or Mr Ruto offers the electorate of Kenya? So far they and their acolytes have yet to offer an alternative vision to that of the Prime Minister. For example, while we cannot make them like the PM, they should instead tell us why we should like them and why we should vote for them. By continuously banging on about why the PM is wrong, they should tell us why they are right; perhaps then we may be informed well enough to draw distinctions between their pledges and those of the PM. If all they'll concentrate on are the alleged flaws of the PM, we may be forced to decide that we are better off with the devil we know and elect him instead of them.
All presidential candidates, bar one or two no-hoppers, have drawn large crowds wherever they have gone and these large crowds have consisted almost entirely of unemployed youth, half of whom have been out of work for at least three years. It beggars belief that all these young people hear at political rallies, or what is reported about political rallies, is the promise of an alliance between this politician and that politician an not about the specific problems that the young people face. In their bubble, most of the presidential contenders refuse to see that their time in the government has been a disappointment to these people and that without addressing their problems, the talk of alliances and coalitions is only setting the stage for great strife and turmoil. The alliances and coalitions are acceptable or unacceptable only to an elite few; the majority of voters simply want to know that their day-to-day problems will be solved through the guarantee of opportunity and the promise of wealth if they work hard and apply themselves. If even this promise is not kept, the men and women fronting the alliances and coalitions will have no one but themselves to blame when the angry youth set their entire edifice on fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment