The Kenya Kwanza Alliance (KKA) has been evoking a perspective profoundly utopian in nature.
While they (KKA owners) appeared to be divesting the view of expanded government, it seems from what we now know, that their mind was not really far from that of the BBI.
Firstly, we need to pay heed to the fact that, the KKA, being a political entity, subscribes to politics 101: “who gets what, when, and how.” This is a political creed that the KKA cannot convincingly purport to disinherit.
It can be unequivocally stated that the KKA has been lying to Kenyans that they have little interest in creating positions, but instead only interested in espousing economic discourse.
At least for now, we do understand that this argument is teetering on the brink of untruth.
It is unravelling that “Who gets what, when, and how”, is not orthogonal to the socio-political nature of the KKA.
Secondly, the foregoing remarkably reveal the uttermost sad epiphanies and incantations that characterize the KKA. It is a political entity that doesn’t walk the talk. To capture it tersely, the KKA is an entity… “unpleasantly bright in colour.”
Political power is like a wild animal. Indeed, the pursuit of political power is like chasing of a wild animal, although in hot pursuit.
Wild Animal and the Rule of Capture
Hunters/politicians would be all desirous of capturing a wild animal [political power].
Rule of capture must, however, be entrenched.
The KKA has deployed hunters, albeit tough rules.
For the KKA, rules of capture are so punitive so much so that if you are assigned 70% and you fail to perform, then it becomes a zero-sum. This rule manifestly and outrightly reminisces exclusion.
Unless the hunter delivers 70 percent of the carcass, then he is automatically excluded from partaking in the meal.
The Rule of inclusivity would have it that whoever gets the animal mortally wounded must be ready and voluntarily willing to share the possessory interest, but not to have it to the exclusion of his fellow hunters whose luck diminished.
While the KKA purports to evince relevant cognitive style to political discourse, it is a mere token of wheels of deceit. It deserves sputtering with inconsolable disregard.
Dr.Boaz Were is a Constitutional Law Scholar (email@example.com)