OPINION: ODM can avoid disunity and build consensus on how to approach 2027 election

I listened to all the speeches during the celebration of ODM’s 20th anniversary and followed closely the subsequent statements by different leaders. Interestingly, there is consensus on most issues except one: at the core of the disagreement is whether ODM should join the opposition or remain within the broad-based government arrangement for the sake of the 2027 election.

Which choice will give ODM a solid grasp of power? In contrast to the past, this decision is critical to the party’s survival because, without Raila, ODM may not be invited into post-election coalitions. A commonly neglected reality is that it was Raila’s charisma and massive support base that forced previous governments to accommodate him after elections.

There are many views among ODM leaders and supporters on how to move the party from the margins to the centre of government. I observe that there are no major areas of disagreement, and that some of the fierce debate is justified and expected as part of the transition following the loss of the party leader. This means that ODM can easily find consensus on the one or two contentious areas. Therefore, unity within the party is possible.

In my analysis, the various opinions stem from a shared core concern: the desire for ODM to remain a distinct and strong party while working in coalitions with other political parties for the sake of the 2027 elections. Both sides also want a united ODM and oppose divisions within the party.

I interrogate the idea of working with the opposition and question how, under the shadow of opposition unity, ODM would be willing to negotiate with His Excellency Rigathi Gachagua, who has emerged as the natural leader of that team. I see more validity in ODM working with the broad-based government to achieve its goals, for the reasons outlined below.

In making a choice on which side to align with, ODM should not assume that its supporters are static. The decision must be made with the reality of a shifting political terrain in mind. The various projects and the 10-point agenda between the President and the late Raila have already led to some emancipation, dignity, visibility, and inclusivity, helping to change unfair structures that create and sustain inequality in perceived opposition zones.

One year of cooperation between President Ruto and Honourable Raila has already moved a majority of ODM supporters toward the broad-based arrangement. Therefore, this decision is not being made in a vacuum, but within a context where there is already significant alignment with the government. Any abrupt move back to the opposition may leave many ODM members behind.

The ODM Party should avoid historical mistakes that have repeatedly relegated it to the opposition. This is critical if the party is to avoid another misstep that condemns it to the political wilderness. ODM should not engage in opposition politics for its own sake. While being in opposition may not significantly affect the personal wellbeing of a governor like James Orengo, who continues to enjoy the benefits of office, it makes a substantial difference to the communities they serve. Canaan is a powerful metaphor for where the hearts of ODM members lie, but rhetoric without a concrete plan will not deliver them to Canaan.

The rhetoric of never compromising is convenient for a few leaders who resist adaptation. However, there is ample evidence to show that working with opposition parties as a pathway to power has not yielded much success for ODM in previous elections.

I therefore question the source of confidence among those who believe the opposition can capture power in 2027 and consequently make ODM part of the next government. I challenge supporters of the opposition route to demonstrate how their idea differs from past strategies and thinking within the party—strategies that have been shaped by traditional voting patterns and trends defining previous presidential elections.

Interestingly, both sides generally agree that they do not wish to remain in opposition after 2027. They also agree with Raila’s long-held vision that ODM cannot be a perpetual opposition party. It is therefore important to discuss the most viable path for ODM to be part and parcel of the 2027 government.

Working with the opposition is closely tied to ODM’s identity and self-image. For some, the idea of working alongside the government creates discomfort and anxiety, given decades spent as a formidable opposition party. Yet both sides readily agree that opposition politics has been a poor guardian of regional development interests. ODM strongholds have suffered economic, political, and other long-standing harms. There has been systematic damage at both individual and communal levels in areas traditionally considered opposition zones.

Attempting to join the 2027 government through an opposition alliance may fail and once again leave ODM trapped in opposition politics. There are other minor areas of disagreement within the party, but my concern remains the core disagreement. The party leadership therefore has a great opportunity to build consensus around the many areas of agreement and resolve the single major point of contention. Since all sides agree that the primary goal of a political party is to gain power, the key question becomes: which path is most viable, based on historical trends and past election outcomes?

The minority pushing the party to join an opposition coalition have yet to demonstrate how this route offers a clear path to forming the next government. Because a few leaders are opposed to working with the government, friction has also emerged around the question of party leadership.

However, the leadership issue flows from the core disagreement and is not a standalone problem. In my view, leadership transition is not a major area of contention. Indeed, it appears that both sides agree that Raila’s replacement should come from within the Odinga family. A few dissenters may not accept this reality and may eventually leave the party altogether. Ultimately, there must be a leader; not everyone can occupy the top position.

Even the question of whether ODM should field a presidential candidate appears to be more of a negotiation tool—a bid for leverage and counter-offers—rather than a deal-breaker. Much of the disagreement is focused on the short-term goal of the 2027 election, with little attention paid to long-term issues beyond it.

Of course, it would be naïve to assume that the debate around 2027 is not also a dress rehearsal for the politics of identifying the next kingpin after the demise of Honourable Raila Amollo Odinga. The good news is that the conversation around the next kingpin is not restricted to ODM alone and will ultimately depend on individual effort and political skill.

I suggest that the only way to make sense of the many proposals is for the various factions to sit together and define a common interest. That common interest must be clearly articulated. For example, what is the common interest of the Luo Nyanza people? This shared interest must be central to the debate, rather than individual leaders’ ambitions and survival strategies disguised as community interests and unity.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is no fundamental disagreement within ODM. Working with the government does not contradict ODM’s principles and values. Whichever choice the party makes could lead to its collapse, rebirth, or renaissance.

Like any great institution, ODM must continue to innovate, adapt, and avoid rigid adherence to traditional short-term strategies. I suggest that the party first map out its common interests and then identify the most viable path to achieving them. ODM may have differing views and ambitions, but it must place the interests and welfare of its members first if it is to survive as a significant political force capable of delivering economic justice and leaving no one behind—as articulated in the 10-point agenda between President Ruto and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.