Capitalist Foundations: Raila’s Reformist Mission, Not a Revolutionary Betrayal
From a pedestrian standpoint, Raila Odinga has betrayed the Kenyan struggle by failing to join hands with Gen Z to overthrow the government of President William Ruto. However, from an ideological perspective, to accuse Raila Odinga of betraying a revolutionary cause is to misunderstand the class character of his politics. Why?
Since entering the electoral arena, Raila has never professed allegiance to a revolution aimed at toppling the capitalist system (the main problem) in Kenya. Instead, his ideological compass has always pointed toward capitalist reform, not abolition. His political project—starting with the formation of the National Development Party (NDP), the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), culminating in his 2025 handshake with William Ruto—has consistently sought to humanise, refine, and stabilise capitalism, rather than overthrow it.
Unlike his father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga—a staunch anti-imperialist and early advocate for African socialism—Raila openly declared during the 2007 campaigns that he is “not a communist” but an avowed liberal. His economic policies, electoral manifestos, and language of governance have never reflected even a moderate critique of capitalism, let alone a revolutionary rupture with it. Every reform he has championed, from the 2010 Constitution to judicial independence and electoral transparency, sits comfortably within a capitalist framework.
This is not betrayal—it is fulfilment. Raila’s mission was never to upend the system, but to make it more bearable, less chaotic, and somewhat inclusive. The fact that many continue to expect revolutionary outcomes from a liberal reformist only reflects a deep-seated confusion about the ideological boundaries of Kenya’s political elite.
Two-Stage Politics: Raila’s Reform Achievements Within Bourgeois Democracy
Raila’s contributions to Kenya’s National Democratic Revolution (NDR) are undeniably substantial, but they fall squarely within the first stage of bourgeois-democratic reform. He has facilitated the expansion of civic freedoms, participated in the struggle for multiparty democracy, helped create new constitutional mechanisms, facilitated devolution, and implemented judicial reforms through the establishment of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice. These are the textbook accomplishments of liberal democratic development, aimed at stabilising the capitalist state, not transforming it.
Through his strategic interventions in moments of national crisis—the 1990 Saba Saba Uprising, the 2002 Narc Revolution, the 2008 Grand Coalition, and the 2018 Handshake—Raila has played a central role in calming the contradictions of the state when they have reached a boiling point. This is precisely what a capitalist reformer does: contain class conflict within institutional channels.
The expectation that Raila should now pivot towards a revolutionary dismantling of capitalism is an ideological fantasy. The logic of the “two-stage theory,” long upheld by reformist Left-wing formations such as the Communist Party of Kenya (formerly Social Democratic Party) and other remnants of the Mwakenya movement, has led to the permanent postponement of the socialist transition. Raila’s political maturity is reflected not in betrayal but in his refusal to act outside his class interest. He has completed the reformist mission of the NDR’s first stage. To expect more is to fall into a crisis of expectation.
The Handshake Tradition: Elite Accommodation, Not People’s Revolution
Raila’s handshakes—with Moi in 2001, Kibaki in 2008, Uhuru in 2018, and Ruto in 2025—are not sudden betrayals. They are coherent moments in the political trajectory of a bourgeois reformer whose primary concern is the stability of the capitalist state. Each handshake has followed a familiar rhythm: political rupture, mass agitation, elite consensus.
After the 2024 Gen-Z uprising, in which over 50 youth were killed during protests against the Finance Bill, Raila was presented with a historic moment. The youth, disillusioned with traditional leadership and driven by economic desperation, launched the most sustained anti-state rebellion since the post-election violence of 2007–08. But instead of aligning with the uprising, Raila moved swiftly into dialogue with Ruto. Why?
Because he views instability as a threat to reform, not an opportunity for revolution to overthrow the capitalist system. His belief that “we cannot burn the country to achieve change” is rooted not in cowardice, but in class allegiance. Reformist politicians recoil at revolutionary energy. Their function is to absorb discontent, convert it into negotiation, and steer it into institutional compromise. With precision, Raila’s conduct reflects this class instinct, not betrayal.
The Limits of Bourgeois Opposition and the Crisis of the Kenyan Left
Those lamenting Raila’s “betrayal of the struggle” are, whether knowingly or not, misdiagnosing the real enemy. The problem is not Raila Odinga, the man, but the capitalist structure in which he operates. Kenya’s political field is designed to neutralise radical dissent through ethnic-patronage networks, party co-optation, and elite bargaining. Within this architecture, even well-meaning actors become custodians of the status quo.
It is within this context that the absolute failure lies with the organised left. Despite mounting class grievances—unemployment, landlessness, informalisation, police violence, rising cost of living, the crisis of capitalism, attacks on democratic rights—no revolutionary formation has emerged with the capacity to capture and channel this energy. The “Communist Party of Kenya” and other pseudo-left outfits have clung to Stalinist schemas of the NDR, celebrating marginal reforms while shunning mass organising. They have failed to build a working-class movement capable of breaking through ethnic divisions and offering a socialist alternative to capitalist class rule since the colonial revolution.
This void has created the illusion that only figures like Raila can represent “the struggle.” This is anathema. Raila should not be expected to lead an anti-capitalist struggle that Kenyans need. His role, like that of any capitalist politician, ends at the gate of reform. Others, more ideologically conscious, must open the door to the revolution to overthrow capitalism.
Raila’s Political Climax Not a Capitulation
Raila’s March 2025 handshake with William Ruto, following months of protest, chaos, and elite anxiety, should be viewed not as a sellout but as the culmination of a long political journey. He has delivered on every reform a bourgeois politician could reasonably be expected to implement: the electoral commission (IEBC), a Supreme Court, a Chief Justice, a new Constitution, the disbandment of Moi/KANU after 24 years of dictatorship, a relatively free press, devolution and even electronic voting systems. While he did not achieve these reforms single-handedly, he played a leading role in these struggles.
His history of resistance—marked by detention, torture, and relentless advocacy—cannot be erased. But to demand that he now ignite a youth revolution is both unfair and politically incoherent. He has done his part in completing the first phase of Kenya’s political maturation. His willingness to negotiate power-sharing agreements and his eagerness to protect institutional continuity are hallmarks of a system-stabilising statesman, not a revolutionary vanguard.
The younger generation, now awakened by the violence of capitalism and state repression, must carry the struggle forward—not by longing for Raila to do what he was never meant to, but by organising outside the confines of elite politics to overthrow both the elites and the system.
Those calling Raila’s recent actions “betrayal” should ask themselves: Betrayal of what? Of capitalism? No—he upheld it. Of the people? Perhaps. But only if we believe a capitalist politician can somehow be loyal to a struggle that demands the overthrow of capitalism (the revolution Kenya needs).
The Revolution Won’t be Televised and Won’t be Negotiated
Overall, Raila Odinga has not betrayed the Kenyan struggle. He has completed his mission within it—a mission defined by the limits of bourgeois reform. His trajectory affirms that capitalism cannot be dismantled by those seeking to manage it. The next stage of Kenya’s liberation will not emerge from parliament, protest bargains, bourgeois elections or elite handshakes.
The revolution will be born in the streets, in workplaces, in informal settlements—where the working class and youth must unite to create a fundamentally new force. The revolution will not be televised. And it certainly won’t be negotiated. Instead of endlessly haranguing over “Raila’s betrayal” of the struggle, the Kenyan left and other progressive forces must take responsibility and get better organised to overthrow capitalism, the key problem in Kenya.
Okoth Osewe
About the Author
The class struggle in Kenya being led by the Gen Z shall continue and succeed only if capitalists like Raila Odinga, as articulated by Amilcar Cabral, committed class suicide. For Raila Odinga to become relevant he must join Gen Z against the ruling class of which he is a member. He cannot support the working class while simultaneously dining with the ruling class.