If there is one observation which became evident on Saturday at the ODM-KS Annual General Meeting, it is that there are Kenyans in Scandinavia who are genuinely interested in doing whatever they can to try and bring positive political changes in Kenya. One would have expected that after the much publicized crisis in ODM-KS characterized by mud-slinging, character assassination, calumny, slander and vituperation that was orchestrated by the opposition, Kenyans and friends who were genuinely interested in ODM-KS would simply retreat into their private lives and leave the matter alone. What happened was the direct opposite.
There was a tripling of the number of members who paid up their dues ahead of the AGM. Before the crisis, the Party had 43 members out of which 23 had kept their membership up to date. By the time of the AGM, the number had reached 68 with over 20 members joining the Party after the crisis. At the inaugural meeting where ODM-KS was formed, about 20 supporters attended out of which 15 paid their membership fees on the spot.
At the AGM, 35 attended while 6 sent their votes. In fact, the crisis has helped in building ODM-KS rather than destroying the Party and the question now is how the new Party leadership can consolidate using the good membership base to further the agenda of the Party. Since it was set up, ODM-KS has never pulled the kind of crowd that turned up at the AGM. It was a mixture of elderly Kenyans and friends, middle aged and the youth. What really contributed to the huge urgency for supporters to make their position known within the Party at a time of crisis?
According to members who were interviewed by KSB, the crisis was largely being seen as “artificial”. Problems began after the nomination of Hon Raila Odinga as the Party’s preferred candidate. Many members believe that this should not have been a problem because the general view within the membership is that Raila is the person who is fit to take on President Kibaki. In other words, many members came, not just to elect a new Office but also to defend the Raila nomination. The outgoing Committee brought up the matter very clearly in the Annual General Report but when the issue was exposed for discussion, there was no opposition.
Supporting Raila Odinga from Scandinavia as the preferred candidate to take up Kibaki is something very little for Wakenya and friends who might not even be in Kenya in December to vote. However, ODM-KS members who openly engaged in discussions especially after the AGM were of the view that the Party needed to send signals in Kenya that Raila is not just popular in Kenya but also among Party members in Scandinavia. ODM-KS leadership had stated that if another candidate is nominated by Party members in Kenya, ODM-KS will throw its weight behind that candidate. This was a point that was repeated several times by some members who believe that this is how democracy works.
The opposition made a big mistake by creating a crisis then going ahead to violate the very Constitutional pillars upon which ODM-KS is built. The crisis burst into the public lime light when Mr. Dancan Munala, former Secretary, went out with a unilateral statement contradicting the Party position on the Raila nomination. For members who expressed their sentiments, this was wrong because the move set a dangerous precedent for the Party. The view was that there would be total chaos in the Party if every Committee member begins to go out with a statement whenever there is a disagreement within the Committee.
ODM-KS LEADERSHIP SHOULD NOW BUILD THE PARTY
Another issue is that when the Committee called a Committee meeting to discuss the issue, the opposition comprising of three Committee members called an “Emergency members meeting” with a notice of two days. This move eroded the credibility of the opposition in the eyes of the membership which began to read “mischief” in the whole project. In calling the member’s meeting, the opposition boycotted a Committee meeting that was called to discuss the crisis. This was a move some members could not understand because if the Committee had refused to call a Committee meeting to discuss the crisis, the Constitution is very clear – the opposition should have sought the support of 20% of members to force the Committee to call an “Extra-ordinary members meeting” to discuss the issue, giving members good time to attend the meeting. Some members felt like they were being treated like “kindergarten children” by the opposition which, they claimed, “assumed the intelligence of the membership”.
The dirty vilifications of Committee members in the Internet by the opposition simply acted to poison the minds of the membership and some new members who have been interested in the Party joined officially because they believed that if they do not do so, individuals who were exposing themselves as opportunists could break the Party and curtail campaigns to get President Mwai Kibaki out of the way.
Another issue was the question of “reliability” on the three Committee members who had created the crisis. For many members, the political record of Committee members who were defending the Party has been tested over time while Committee members who constituted the opposition were all making their debut in politics through the Party. The dominant view was that the opposition lacked the kind of experience that was needed to deal with the situation and under the circumstances, some members thought that the opposition opened a war without realizing their “underdog status”.
There are many situations where “underdogs” have performed better than the “veterans”. In this case, the opposition missed one major point. That you need to know the level of support you have within the membership of a Party before you push a controversial agenda. Even if you have unquestionable support, you still need to follow the rules of the game otherwise you will be opening yourself to charges of “undemocratic behavior”.
When the opposition failed to mobilize even a single member at their “Emergency meeting”, they should have changed strategy by toning down on rhetoric while at the same time getting to the grass roots to measure the political pulse of the membership. This did not happen. As the opposition made noise in the Internet, the leadership was busy mobilizing at the grass roots.
ODM-KS leadership should now move on with the task of building the Party. The leadership has the support of the membership. Fundamental lessons have been learnt during the crisis but this is normal with politics where there are always new opportunities popping up for political education.
ODM-KS members should feel proud that through their support, the crisis has helped in building the Party at a critical time when Kenyans in Scandinavia should be organizing politically in order to be able to add their voices to the political process in the country.
Okoth Osewe
About the Author
