Kenya’s political crisis, who is responsible?

Before independence
In the murky game of politics, Kenyans’ indifference and mistrust as a country begun to play out way back even before Independence. Kadu, led by Daniel Moi and Ronald Ngala was formed to challenge Kanu and advocate majimboism, which was basically the sort of devolution Kenyans have today.
Kanu bitterly contested the emphasis given to regionalism during talks with the British, thinking of it as a policy designed to limit the power of the central government that it would almost certainly control.
As ably captured by Daniel Branch, assistant professor of African history, University of Warwick, the Kanu delegation to the London talks in 1962 agreed, in Jaramogi Odinga’s words, “To accept a Constitution we did not want”, on understanding that “once we had the government, we would change the Constitution”. The Independence Constitution was then, the party’s leadership told American diplomats, “a temporally document”.
After taking office, following the May 1963 election, Kanu set about dismantling the devolved Constitution agreed with Kadu. And this is where the rain started beating Kenyans.
Towards the end of June 1963, Odinga hosted a party in his house in Nairobi and in attendance were foreign envoys, Jomo Kenyatta, Achieng Oneko, Paul Ngei, Fred Kubai and Mwai Kibaki, among other high-ranking government officials at the time. The party was meant to celebrate the attainment of self-rule and at the same time, reticently pass a coded message that “we are the people who will control the government for the long haul”. That wish was in itself short-lived.
After Independence
Soon after Independence, Kenya got involved in the Cold War, as the capitalism and communism rivalry intensified. Kenyatta and Odinga drew themselves into one of the decisive antagonisms that would come to shape the Kenyan political landscape to date. Most renowned historians have since indicated the rivalry is bound to be a salient feature in Kenyan politics for eternity. The majority of Kenyans hope not.
Tom Mboya, a young pro-West trade unionist, was a key figure in the Kenyatta government. Kenyatta used him to finish Odinga politically. Mboya undertook this role without a second thought. To Mboya, a neutralised communist Odinga would also increase his chances of succeeding “Mzee”. Mboya naivety would be a fatal miscalculation, as time proved.
During the famous Limuru Conference, where a sham Kanu party election took place, Mboya orchestrated the election primarily to humiliate Odinga and his friends. Kanu created eight party vice president posts, weakening Odinga. Sensing mischief and malice in the process, Odinga left Kanu and formed KPU. The plan had worked out, or so Kanu thought.
The ruling regime went on to scuttle KPU and its affiliates. Odinga’s links with communists were cut to control its funding, KPU political rallies banned and most of its MPS lost their seats, leading to by-elections. Clearly, KPU couldn’t muscle the government of the day. The battle between Kenyatta and Odinga bore the marks of intellectual and ideological struggle to set the development agenda for the country. The recent developments in Kenya’s democratisation are not new to the country per se, just that events have been magnified.
Kenyan Politics Today
Today, they seem a deeply divided nation state. Their leaders cannot sit and agree on basic things as how to move the country forward. The only thing the political factions have perfected is to wash the country’s dirty linen in the eyes of the international community.
The reversal should be the practice, but Alas! Not in Kenya. Politicians may not notice this and if they do, they will most likely brusquely aside the view and label the citizens “idle middle class, misguided or gun for hire intellectuals”. This is how low politicians can stoop.
What they do not realise is that as time goes by; people get a sense of disillusionment. They loathe the system and begin to see nothing good in the political space. A significant portion of Kenyans have almost inborn non-interest in politics and this can partly be explained by the void of principles in politics and often negative rhetoric that dominate the conduct of political affairs.
 
The desire by otherwise selfish politicians to employ uncanny means to get to power has engendered the dislike of politics by most astute citizens, who would otherwise make very good leaders if given a chance. But this is not likely to happen any time soon. Because a clique of individuals who are still trying to settle past political differences pioneered by their fathers, dominates politics.
What this essentially means is that their camp will keep on attracting people who are ready to invigorate their political survival fight; however, detrimental it is to the greater good of the country.
On this, they miss out individuals of integrity and vision, bubbling with progressive ideas. Some of those ideas harnessed earnestly can steer this country on a path of great transformation on many fronts. But how many times have the nation missed such chances? And do the godfathers of politics care? Their way is the only way and citizens must follow without question. What kind of country are they really creating? Will the future generations be proud of the country after after 50 years?