It will take a miracle for UDA and Azimio to agree on agenda
I am not terribly optimistic about the bipartisan engagement between UDA and Azimio. Frankly, my hunch tells me it will flop before any serious talking begins. But miracles happen. So I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
The gulf dividing them is too wide. UDA wants a purely parliamentary engagement, between the teams of MPs formed on Tuesday by the ruling party and Azimio. It wants only to discuss changes to the process of appointing IEBC commissioners. Nothing more, nothing less.
It has rejected Azimio’s suggested talking points about a forensic audit of the electoral servers used by the IEBC last year; the reappointment of four commissioners forced out this year; respect for multi-party democracy by the government ceasing to “poach” Opposition MPs; inclusivity in public sector appointments, and a constitutional review that will address the winner-take-all political system. No deal.
UDA’s position is that these issues fall outside the scope of Parliament. It has also stated that some of the demands, like reinstating the four IBEC commissioners, are moot because there is no provision in law to recall a public officer who has resigned or was removed from office.
On Azimio’s hot-button demand of dealing with the high cost of living — the lowering of the cost of unga and fuel, and a freeze on the recent hike in electricity prices — the government says it is working on that through the policies it is instituting.
Predetermined position
But why come with a predetermined position even before negotiations start? Azimio will see no point in engaging with UDA when they come with a fixed mind. The demeanour of UDA’s parliamentary leadership comes across as unyielding, almost dismissive.
For starters, Azimio does not believe its issues can fully be addressed by Parliament. It is proposing a broad-based “national dialogue” akin to the 2008 National Accord moderated by Kofi Annan. It insists such a dialogue cannot be confined exclusively to Parliament.
It wants important stakeholders who are not necessarily MPs brought in. Azimio have another problem of timelines. They definitely don’t want the talks delayed forever. Their launch today of public rallies (coyly called people’s barazas) is a warning signal that their patience won’t last long.
That would be a prelude to fresh demonstrations. Azimio has noted with concern UDA’s determination to stick to only one item — reconstituting the IEBC — to the exclusion of all other negotiating points. They are also miffed by the inclusion of Jubilee’s Adan Keynan (MP, Eldas) into UDA’s negotiating team, which they cite as an example of the ruling party’s habit of poaching Opposition MPs.
In agreeing to engage, UDA’s immediate objective was to get Azimio off the streets. Otherwise, they look ambivalent about genuine negotiations. The ruling party thinks of Azimio as saboteurs and that talking to them is a waste of time.
They are convinced Raila Odinga is creating a fuss merely to make way for a Handshake. Deep down, they consider Azimio’s demands as irrational. This is unhelpful. One UDA MP with a ranking position in the National Assembly likened those demands to “bar talk”.
If it wasn’t for pressure from important influencers — local and foreign — it’s doubtful the idea of bipartisan talks would be on the table. The government frankly thought it would crush the demonstrations without a sweat.
Things will get sticky if Azimio restarts their demonstrations. Our battered economy will just go to the dogs. The hardliners on both sides will be in charge.
I foresee a harsh reaction from the government to Azimio leaders. There’s the inevitability of bloody responses to the protesters by the police. However, it’s unlikely the protesters will relent. A local daily had an alarming story last week about a rogue police unit that operates outside the normal chain of command.
It reportedly answers to a top Nairobi policeman and his political godfathers. The policeman was installed in the city last November. It is believed the unit was responsible for the reprehensible brutality meted out on journalists during the previous Azimio demonstrations.
There’s always been this obsession in Azimio about opening the electoral servers. Frankly, it irritates UDA, who retort that Azimio can as well raise the matter with IEBC or force the issue through the courts. I recall the same matter coming up during the hearing of the presidential petition at the Supreme Court.
A letter from Smartmatic, the Venezuelan company IEBC had contracted for technical backup, was read out in court in which the firm rejected to grant access to its server(s), citing “proprietary rights”. Were there other servers in the custody of IEBC as Azimio intimates? I don’t know.
* * * * * * *
America finds itself in uncharted territory following Donald Trump’s indictment and arraignment on a criminal case (involving a porn actress).
It’s a dubious “first” for a former or sitting US president. Trump could even be charged with other more serious federal crimes. Suppose he eventually gets convicted and jailed, which is a possibility.
Now, there’s nothing in US law or constitution that bars a person facing a criminal charge or even a convict from running for President. Nothing at all. The only explicit bar for prisoners in most US states is that they can’t vote.
Trump had declared he was in the presidential race months before his indictment. He still is. And despite his indictment, he is the frontrunner in the Republican party presidential nomination contest, buoyed by a highly passionate party faction beholden to him.
Now let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Suppose Trump actually gets elected president when he’s in jail. Weird. Very. How would he govern?
Nothing of the sort had ever been contemplated in the US of A before. BY DAILY NATION



Post a Comment