A POLITICAL SUBTERFUGE

 

The Subterfuge of Politics

The political landscape of Kenya presents a familiar yet troubling pattern: the cyclical emergence of "national dialogue" as a panacea for systemic crises. Raila Odinga's latest call for an inter-generational national conclave, announced during the July 2025 Saba Saba commemorations, represents not innovation but the sophisticated repetition of a well-worn script designed to manage, rather than resolve, the country's fundamental contradictions. This theatre of dialogue now unfolds against the backdrop of unprecedented state violence, where President William Ruto has ordered police to shoot protesters in the leg to incapacitate them, marking a dangerous escalation from political mismanagement to outright authoritarianism.

The Handshake Precedent: From Dialogue as Subterfuge to Violence as Policy

Raila's current call for dialogue cannot be divorced from his track record of previous "handshakes" and consensus-building initiatives, but it now occurs in a fundamentally different context where the state has abandoned even the pretense of democratic engagement. The 2018 handshake with President Uhuru Kenyatta, which birthed the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI), represented elite-driven dialogue that excluded radical voices while maintaining the status quo. The current moment reveals what happens when such elite arrangements fail to contain popular dissent.

The escalation to state violence represents the logical endpoint of dialogue processes that consistently fail to address structural inequalities. When the theatre of dialogue can no longer contain revolutionary energy, the state resorts to its ultimate tool: physical force. President Ruto's order to shoot protesters in the legs represents not an abandonment of the dialogue framework but its violent enforcement, a message that participation in "legitimate" political processes is mandatory, while alternative forms of political expression will be met with bullets.

The BBI process, despite its extensive public consultations and reform proposals, was ultimately about managing political tensions rather than addressing the structural inequalities that generate them. The initiative's failure which was struck down by the courts and abandoned by subsequent leadership, now reveals its true purpose: to exhaust public energy while elite interests remained protected. The current resort to violence demonstrates what happens when such energy cannot be exhausted through pseudo-democratic processes.

The Consensus Democracy Trap in an Age of State Violence

The current proposal for an inter-generational conclave falls into the same trap as previous initiatives, but with the added complexity of operating in an environment where the state has explicitly endorsed violence against political dissent. By framing the solution in terms of "consensus democracy" and "inclusive dialogue," Raila inadvertently legitimizes a system where revolutionary change becomes impossible, while simultaneously providing cover for a regime that shoots protesters.

Words are events that do things thus Raila's call for dialogue functions as a speech act that transforms the political landscape, feeding energy back and forth between desperate citizens seeking change and elites seeking stability. The very language of "national conclave" amplifies the illusion that Kenya's problems can be solved through conversation, even as the state demonstrates its willingness to kill those who speak inconvenient truths. These words transform both speaker and hearer: Raila positions himself as a statesman above the fray, while citizens are repositioned as participants in a democratic process that has already been militarized.

The call for dialogue in the aftermath of state violence serves multiple functions for the political elite. It provides a veneer of democratic legitimacy while the state continues its violent suppression of dissent. It channels revolutionary energy into manageable reformist channels while protesters literally dodge bullets. Most importantly, it creates the illusion that peaceful solutions remain viable even as the state demonstrates its willingness to kill to maintain power. The words "dialogue" and "consensus" become weapons in themselves, disarming opposition through the promise of inclusion while excluding the fundamental questions that drive people to the streets.

True consensus in a deeply unequal society inevitably means compromise that favors those with the most to lose from change, the wealthy and powerful. When these same elites are willing to endorse violence to maintain their position, the consensus becomes not just conservative but actively oppressive. The emphasis on representation from "all walks of life" sounds democratic but obscures the fundamental reality that some voices have been permanently silenced by state violence.

The Conservative Divide: Privilege vs. Desperation

Conservatism manifests differently among the privileged and the destitute, revealing a critical fault line in Kenyan politics, one that becomes even more pronounced in the face of state violence. The conservatism of the privileged seeks to preserve existing power structures, wealth accumulation patterns, and social hierarchies that have served the elite well. When faced with mass protests demanding accountability, this class not only resists redistributive policies but actively endorses violence to maintain their position. The casual endorsement of shooting protesters reflects a privileged conservatism that views the masses as expendable in the service of stability.

Conversely, the conservatism of the destitute emerges from survival instincts, a clinging to familiar systems and leaders, even when these very systems perpetuate their marginalization. The escalation to state violence paradoxically reinforces this conservatism, as the poor calculate that resistance might literally cost them their lives. Their conservatism is born not of comfort but of the fear that change might worsen their already precarious circumstances, a fear now reinforced by the reality of police bullets.

The Radicalized Middle Class: Scattered and Sectarian

The middle class, traditionally the engine of democratic transformation, finds itself caught between conservative poles in an increasingly violent political landscape. Economic pressures have indeed radicalized this demographic, but this radicalization has fragmented into sectarian loyalties rather than coalescing into a coherent revolutionary force. The reality of state violence adds a new dimension to this fragmentation, as middle-class citizens must now calculate not just economic but physical costs of political engagement.

The middle class oscillates between supporting populist rhetoric that promises economic relief and backing technocratic solutions that maintain their precarious position above the masses. However, when the state responds to dissent with bullets, even moderate middle-class voices are forced to confront the reality that their position offers no immunity from state violence. The death of protesters from all social strata in recent demonstrations reveals that the state's violence is indiscriminate, potentially radicalizing even conservative middle-class elements.

This fragmentation serves the interests of the political elite, who can manipulate middle-class anxieties to maintain power while avoiding the systemic changes that would threaten their dominance. The introduction of state violence as a tool of political control represents an escalation that may backfire, as it demonstrates to the middle class that their comfort and safety depend not on economic position but on political submission.

The Aboriginal Opposition and Protected Elites

The "political aboriginal opposition scions" have obliviously descended the country into a pit hole where opposition leadership has become hereditary, passed down through political dynasties that have lost touch with grassroots struggles. These leaders, despite their oppositional rhetoric, share more in common with ruling elites than with the masses they claim to represent.

This explains why dialogue processes consistently fail to produce transformative outcomes. The participants, regardless of their political affiliations, belong to the same class of political entrepreneurs who benefit from the current system's stability. Their disagreements are tactical rather than fundamental, concerning the distribution of power rather than its restructuring.

The subterfuge of politics lies not merely in the deception of promises unfulfilled, but in the systematic deployment of language and process to contain revolutionary energy within manageable channels. Each dialogue initiative, each handshake, each consensus-building exercise serves to redirect popular anger away from structural transformation toward elite-mediated reform. This sophisticated form of political manipulation ensures that the fundamental architecture of inequality remains intact while providing the illusion of democratic participation and meaningful change.