The cooperation between KANU and NDP has gripped the political scene in Kenya since it started three years ago in a fierce and unrelenting embrace. As it bubbles to a merger or a partnership the frenzy that has greeted this development is spectacular, if anything the resilience of political dispensation in Kenya is facing one of the most severe tests in recent times.

Many political analysts have already pontificated a variety of rationalisations as to the destiny and ramifications of this alliance. Some have dismissed it as inconsequential, while others have branded Raila a sell out and an opponent of democracy, an opportunist and tribalist who is using his late father’s legacy for personal gain. Most have predicted the demise of this cooperation and the ditching of Raila by Moi who is said to posses rare political prowess and political acumen that has sustained him for several years as a colossus. The view that this is at best a marriage of convenience may have some credence but certainly Raila is not Moi’s wife. It is also accurate to say that this is the first such political experiment in Kenya and thus its future is difficult to predict.

At the outset I would like to distance myself from the over simplistic comments that have been lent to this subject some of whose hallmarks I dare say with confidence exhibit a condescending attitude and flippant research by the commentators. Our major newspaper columnists may know what I am alluding to here. There is need for objectivity in this debate and to steer clear from the simplistic interpretation of this cooperation as merely Moi’s usual flirtation with the opposition for his own gains as most commentators have predicted. Therefore in the preceding paragraphs I get into the sea without my landman’s prejudices.

One needs for example to ask whether there is a philosophy, which instructs this cooperation? What are the facts of Kenya’s political stability and where is the center of gravity of political power today? Does this alliance possess a structural and social basis? What is its institutional framework? Too much energy is being spent discussing Moi and Raila rather than the presidency, the president rather than the elaborate power structure built up around him. Power in Kenya is synonymous with the state structure and this explains why any potential foci of organized opposition bear immediate and focused wrath of the state. This is not unique to Kenya and it is as should be for the game of politics is about interests, these are what remain permanent. It is such reality that Raila Odinga has managed to grapple with. That in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies. Philosophically this cooperation stems from the historical organisation of politics in Kenya around the fact of tribe. The first President of Kenya himself a Kikuyu made his group feel for over a decade that they were the only pebbles in the beach, that they are best endowed with qualities to lead Kenya and this endowment is perhaps ordained by god when looked at against the backdrop of their sheer numbers.

It is for these reasons that the Kikuyus led by Dr. Njoroge Mungai attempted without success to block Vice President Moi from succeeding Kenyatta in 1978. This very same greed saw them scuttle the original FORD in 1991 to block Jaramogi from making a go for the presidency. This Kikuyu hegemony during Kenyatta’s reign is what led other tribes to organise themselves to oppose the government and its policies which were skewed in favor of the former. Indeed many attempts at alliance building have mainly survived in as long as the interests of the Kikuyu are favored. This has now changed particularly after Raila Odinga decided to work with Moi after the 1997 general elections at a time when Kibaki was wooing him to have them jointly reject Moi’s victory.

Over the years therefore the tribe in Kenya has suffered a decline as a base for political opposition so that serious political opponents must position themselves strategically with the establishment if they are serious about succeeding this regime. The constitutional framework in Kenya is that of a winner take all electoral system, one in which a minority government is possible. So that sometimes it is true to say that in Kenya the people are not quite the source of power. The locale of power here is perhaps in the security forces and its ubiquitous presence, which has overwhelmed the people, one can say sadly though to servitude. The cooperation group controls the machinery of the ruling party, the provincial administration, the para-military GSU, the Special Branch, the CID all of which are crucial assets in Kenya, a country of band wagon politics. The role of these forces in the 1978 succession are quite vivid in our minds and perhaps within their possibilities we can quickly locate the bravado and confidence with which the cooperation partners have been associated. Indeed Kenya’s political stability is a function of the foregoing factors not a constitutional order of any description. Calculation I think is a reliable lever of power and here is where dismissing Raila Odinga’s strategy is a mistake.

Transition of power in Kenya will be smooth and uneventful and there will be no struggle as many pseudo commentators have often times predicted. Like with Kenyatta there will be no heir named for Moi, Africa is not known to be in the habit of naming successors. As with Kenyatta the unofficial struggle for succession in Moi’s reign should not surprise serious politicos. It is this struggle that will contribute significantly towards the future of Kenya. This struggle is about the balance of power between two main factions, the opposition and the ruling class. Sometimes these factions pass by the pseudonym Ufungamano and what has come to be referred to as KANU/NDP cooperation.

Whatever the factions, the balance of power between these groups weighs very heavily in favour of the cooperation group. Like in 1978 when the Moi/Njonjo alliance pushed the view that it is in the best interest of Kenya to have a second president who is non-Kikuyu against the Kikuyu group which regarded the presidency as their legitimate inheritance and a guarantee to their privileged position, the Moi/Raila cooperation is saying the future must be a future of partnership for Kenya. That power must be shared and that we must as politicians be astute enough to discuss with both friend and foe.

The partnership represents really the first real consolidation of support and assertion of political maneuvering and stratagem Kenya has ever witnessed. Indeed the face of Kenyan politics has changed immensely since this cooperation began. One open effort where the competing forces have really exhibited muscle is the constitutional review process. Those of the Ufungamano side see the present constitutional arrangement as considerably supportive of the incumbent and likely to give him undue advantage in the event of a general election. This explains their obsession with the line that Moi should honor the constitutional provision that requires him to retire after the expiry of his two five year terms. Those who are shouting such slogans are indeed taking themselves less than seriously, it only reveals one fact that the political opposition is on its last decadent gasps of redundancy.

This is happening against the background of an impending constitutional review process arbitrated entirely by the pro-partnership/cooperation players. While the cooperation side seems intent on hammering out formal, ideological and effective organization the Ufungamano group still remains rather opportunistic and seems only interested in scuttling the efforts of the former to goad their share of political resources. The Moi/Raila axis is more cohesive and better placed to mobilize support for their cause of these two factions.

With the cooperation KANU does not need to go to its internal elections just as it failed to do in 1978. With their control of the law enforcement machinery the cooperation side will continue to effectively undermine the strength and confidence of their opponents. What the cooperation has so ably shown is that politics can be well planned, well rehearsed and creatively orchestrated. The cooperation to put it more clearly is a settlement of the succession as we wait for the formal one come the ritual of elections sometimes soon. To date there is no logical candidate of the opponents of the cooperation, each party leader will still gun for the presidency on their own party tickets. This explains their interest in the review process in order to have the constitution change to have the president elected by 50% majority votes which favors people like Kibaki or independent candidates to favour the likes of mageuzi politicians. In the same vein the review process concerns Moi and Raila in as far it can be used to create conditions that will guarantee clear political lead, which can persist. Like the 1978 change the constitution move this particular drive has everything to do with the transition.

We see two scenarios in this matter, Moi and Raila waging a joint campaign for the next dispensation and the two sharing power. We see a document that will accommodate a power sharing arrangement being hammered out by the Ghai commission. As usual with elections the demand for continuity will outweigh the struggle for a people driven constitution among politicians. The cooperation enables its main actors to make full use of state apparatus to increase their influence among politicians and the public. What this suggests is that the cooperation should be viewed differently. This is what this piece has attempted to do.