The Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election delivered an emphatic repudiation of President William Ruto’s political machinery. Democracy for the Citizens Party candidate Sammy Kamau Ngotho secured 35,440 votes against United Democratic Alliance candidate Samuel Muchina Nyaga’s 5,450. The magnitude of the defeat revealed growing resistance within Mt Kenya and confirmed that former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua retains formidable regional mobilisation capacity.
However, the result must not be romanticised as proof of a coherent national opposition. Eight opposition-aligned candidates contested the seat. Their participation exposed the fundamental contradiction between the opposition’s rhetoric of unity and its material practice of fragmentation. Ol Kalou was won despite opposition division, not because that division had been overcome.
The warning had already appeared in Mbeere North, where opposition candidates collectively received more votes than UDA, but their fragmented support handed the ruling party victory by only 494 votes. The lesson is brutally clear: popular rejection of the government does not automatically produce political power. Without organisation, discipline and a unified strategy, public anger becomes scattered electoral energy—emotionally explosive but institutionally impotent.
Ol Kalou therefore contained both a promise and a prophecy. It demonstrated that Ruto’s government can be defeated where resentment is effectively mobilised. Simultaneously, it revealed how competing opposition interests could preserve the same administration they publicly condemn.
Many Ambitions, No Common Programme
The opposition’s central weakness is not the absence of grievances against Ruto. The social foundations of resistance are visible everywhere: punitive taxation, unemployment, collapsing household incomes, public debt, corruption and widening inequality. Workers, unemployed youths, farmers, small traders and the urban poor are carrying the economic burden while politically connected elites continue accumulating wealth through contracts, monopolies, taxation and state patronage.
Yet the opposition has not transformed this widespread suffering into a unified political programme. Instead, it remains a congregation of presidential aspirants bargaining over positions while the working majority waits for substantive alternatives.
Gachagua’s DCP is consolidating Mt Kenya and presenting the region’s votes as negotiable political capital. Komboa Kenya—the rebranded Azimio coalition—contains Kalonzo Musyoka, Martha Karua, Fred Matiang’i and Eugene Wamalwa but lacks an agreed presidential candidate. Linda Mwananchi promises generational transformation while confronting internal competition involving Edwin Sifuna, James Orengo and Babu Owino.
These formations agree that Ruto should serve one term, but removing an individual is not equivalent to dismantling the economic order that produced him. Most opposition leaders criticise the government’s excesses while avoiding a direct confrontation with the system that concentrates wealth, commercial influence and political authority within a narrow ruling class. Their quarrel is frequently over who should administer the existing structure, not whether that structure should be fundamentally reconstructed.
This ideological ambiguity intensifies the leadership crisis. Every principal demands unity, but largely on the condition that others subordinate themselves to his or her candidacy. Kalonzo and Gachagua are separately courting Linda Mwananchi, while younger leaders fear absorption into the same ethnic and establishment politics they claim to oppose. Under these conditions, one presidential candidate remains a mirage.
The possible incorporation of ODM into a Ruto-led coalition could further rearrange elite alliances. If ODM joins the government, Nyanza may cease functioning as a dependable opposition stronghold. Such a coalition would not necessarily represent ideological reconciliation; it could constitute a redistribution of state power among competing political elites.
The Presidency Is a Machinery of Class Power
Kenya’s presidency is not merely an elected office. It sits at the commanding centre of patronage, public expenditure, coercive authority and economic policy. The incumbent controls enormous political visibility, enjoys access to superior campaign resources and possesses the capacity to influence local elites, administrative structures and the general environment within which elections are conducted.
This makes opposition fragmentation potentially fatal. A divided opposition scatters votes, duplicates expenditure, weakens polling-station representation and complicates the defence of disputed results. Where institutions are susceptible to executive pressure, disunity provides fertile ground for manipulation. Electoral theft does not always require the spectacular invention of millions of ballots; it can flourish through administrative opacity, compromised agents, selective obstruction, engineered confusion and the calculated exploitation of opposition incompetence.
Raila Odinga’s repeated failures should serve as a sobering historical indictment. He possessed national recognition, established party structures and extensive coalition experience, yet he never converted opposition support into presidential power due to repeated election theft. Today’s opposition is more fragmented, ideologically incoherent and organisationally precarious.
The dilemma is therefore profound. Kenya may possess enough discontent to remove Ruto, but discontent without disciplined organisation is politically sterile. Ol Kalou proved that the government is vulnerable; Mbeere North proved that fragmentation can rescue it. Unless the opposition fields one candidate, constructs a common economic programme and develops a formidable vote-protection machinery, the presidency may survive—not because the people endorse its rule, but because those seeking to replace it remain imprisoned by ambition, regional bargaining and the politics of elite succession.
Okoth Osewe
About the Author
