How safe is Ruto route to State House?

By DOMINIC ODIPO} SUCCESSION

Which would have been the safest and least expensive route for Mr William Ruto, the ODM Deputy leader and former Higher Education Minister, to take in his quest for the presidency?

Would it have been the route of publicly breaking with party leader and Prime Minister, as he has already done, or would it have been the alternative one of standing by him through the raging political storms and then emerging from his shadow at the very last minute as the most loyal, courageous and credible alternative leader?

If Ruto survives his pending criminal court case and whatever else the Hague-based ICC process finally throws at him, he could yet have to deal with the answer to this question.

In the practice of the art of politics, timing can sometimes be everything. The question of just when a leadership aspirant should finally dump the party leader and begin publicly opposing him or her can count for everything.

ablest, richest

Two examples form recent British parliamentary history could be specifically relevant to Ruto at this stage of his career. The first emerges from the 1980s, while the other one goes way back to the period just before the outbreak of the Second World War.

In the first case, Mr Michael Heseltine, one of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s ablest, richest and most effective Cabinet ministers, decided to take her on directly on what was then known as the Westlands Affair.

Disagreeing publicly with Mrs Thatcher on where certain Royal Air Force helicopters should be procured, Heseltine stalked out of the Cabinet and began challenging Thatcher for the leadership of the Conservative Party. That, in effect, marked the end of Heseltine’s political career.

He took on his party leader too early in the game over an issue which did not easily and loudly resonate with British public opinion. To compound the matter, he stalked out, leaving his most formidable political opponent there and with all the strings and trappings of power still at her command.

If Heseltine had remained at Thatcher’s side all the way to 1990 when her grip on the Conservative leadership began to fail, there is very little doubt that he would have succeeded her as leader, instead of the relatively colourless John Major, who went on to become the next British Prime Minister.

Heseltine was very rich, very clever, very handsome, very effective, both on a public platform and on TV. But, apparently mesmeriaed with these formidable assets, he did not know when to break with his party leader and, in the end, that lapse counted for everything.

The other lesson for Ruto goes way back to the beginning of 1940. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s grip on the leadership of the country was visibly slipping and senior people in government, and in his own Conservative Party, were publicly calling on him to resign.

But Winston Churchill, one of his ablest and most effective ministers, never joined the exalted ranks of those who were publicly calling for Chamberlain’s resignation.

He remained ostentatiously loyal to his leader to the very end when the war situation in France suddenly made it impossible for Chamberlain to continue as prime minister.

bad blood flowing

His eloquent and persistent defence of Chamberlain in the British House of Commons served him in two ways. It distanced him from the rumours of anti-Chamberlain plots which were rife at the time and, second, it amply advertised his political and parliamentary skills.

So it was that when Chamberlain eventually fell, Churchill easily stepped into his shoes as both Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party.

Even though almost everyone in the House of Commons, including Chamberlain himself, knew Churchill had been gunning for the leadership, there was no way of faulting the way he had done it.

No bad blood flowed between the fallen leader and the new one and, as proof, Chamberlain agreed to serve in the War Cabinet under Churchill who, until the day before, had been his junior.

Can all this be captured in two or three sentences? Indeed it can. To get to the top of the greasy pole, as Benjamin Disraeli, another former British Conservative Party leader and PM might have put it, loyalty to one’s political principals is a critical factor.

expensive route

It can nullify all the other major political assets including eloquence, intelligence, riches and Cabinet effectiveness.

The next message is that, when power starts to flow away from an individual, it can actually disappear altogether in a very short time. And, as power disappears, so does the loyalty of one’s comrades. The most intelligent and politically-savvy of these comrades, like Churchill, will stand by their principal until the very last minute, then abandon ship at the point when there is nothing the principal can do about it.

William Ruto may still make it to the country’s presidency but he has evidently chosen the roughest, most risky and most expensive route possible. He has not yet fully recognised and appreciated the true value of loyalty in these high stakes political games.

Come 2012, we shall all see for ourselves.

The writer is a lecturer and consultant in Nairobi.

dominicodipo@yahoo.co.uk