“Kenyan media houses need to ignore, in the national interest, the public spat between the President and his deputy. It’s not just bitter and acrimonious; it’s very dangerous for the country” – Gabriel Dolan, priest, columnist and human rights defender.
Media coverage of President Kenyatta’s second term brings out a staggering contradiction: Whereas he was able to negotiate and work with his fierce rival in the 2017 election, ODM leader Raila Odinga who defiantly swore himself in as “the people’s president”, the head of state has failed to heal the resultant fallout with his deputy William Ruto. Why?
The President poured out his frustrations in a candid briefing with Nairobi news pontiffs on Monday, August 23. And didn’t the media grab big, juicy headlines without breaking a sweat! One point for Uhuru: His government is second to none in creating news. He said.
“The violence that broke out in some parts of the country [after the disputed 2017 General Election birthed the BBI idea]. We were in a very uncomfortable situation as a country between both elections, and actually all the way to January [2018]. I was seeing a possibility of another [political] crisis erupting similar to the one in 2007. I said: ‘This country doesn’t deserve [to take that route]’. I took it upon myself to speak with those who were opposing the election [outcome], led by the Honourable Raila Odinga.”
Why would a master strategist who took Raila and his battalions of loyalists off the streets and succeeded to hammer out a deal with him to pull the country from the brink, fail to iron out any differences with a buddy with whom he won two presidential elections? But such is the rough and tumble of politics that, unbeknownst to Uhuru, he was digging a hole to fill another.
The media celebrated the March 9, 2018 handshake with glowing headlines. But it has also kept a close eye on the yawning gap between Uhuru and Ruto since then. Every episode of the ugly drama has been documented in lurid detail. Last week, the President pointedly asked his deputy to resign. And it wasn’t the first time.
“It’s unfortunate. He is going against the same government that he serves,” Uhuru lamented. “In a decent, civilised society where people disagree, the honourable thing that leaders do is to say: ‘I disagree with the policies of this government and, therefore, I wish to disassociate myself from it’. I wish this is what people would do”.
The very next day, Ruto hotly told his boss he was going nowhere. “And for those who have a problem, I want to ask them for forgiveness and I want to tell them I am a man on a mission, I have no space to retreat and I don’t have the luxury to surrender,” he stated.
The Star online headline cheered, “No more shadow-boxing: Uhuru, Ruto in bare-knuckle combat”. Kimathi Street echoed Lion Place: “Gloves off”. Mombasa Road gave the President the tone of a tired and defeated husband in a failing marriage, “Uhuru: The problem with my deputy”.
Is the implosion of the Executive a threat to the nation, and how should the media report it? Should the media look way from this nasty fallout, as Fr Dolan and others have suggested?
The media loves conflict. That is not a criticism. It is a news value. Conflict is a permanent feature of society because of competing interests. It is the driver of human progress. The essence of civilization is to manage conflict, to minimise its potential for cataclysmic disruption, to transform it into productive energies. Or life would be nasty, brutish and short, as Thomas Hobbes described it. Conflict is why you have government, science, religion and art. Everything. It is entertaining, as well.
So, the Observer Ref waves: Play on!
