Kenya's Opposition at a Crossroads: One Year Without Raila Odinga's Guiding Hand

Nairobi, Kenya – A year after the passing of Raila Odinga, the political movement he spearheaded for decades is grappling with its future direction. Within the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), a significant dispute concerning cooperation with President William Ruto has brought to light internal divisions regarding the party's identity and its autonomy. This struggle prompts a question that transcends ODM's leadership: Can Kenya's opposition maintain its relevance and effectiveness without the figure who largely shaped it?

Raila Odinga's death was met with widespread tributes, celebrating a political career marked by a consistent fight for multiparty democracy, constitutional reforms, freedom of expression, and social justice. However, the current rifts within his party underscore the challenge of sustaining a political movement centered around a singular, dominant personality. While his legacy continues to inspire, it has also become a focal point of disagreement over ODM's core values and its approach to wielding power.

At the heart of this internal conflict lies ODM's evolving relationship with Ruto's administration. The recent removal of Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna, who had voiced opposition to closer ties with the president, has escalated into a major point of contention in the broader debate about the party's trajectory. This disagreement is not merely about individuals; it questions whether ODM can engage with the government while preserving its capacity to provide critical oversight.

For many years, Raila Odinga was a central figure in Kenya's reform movements, consistently challenging governments and advocating for political change. His supporters viewed him as a symbol of resistance and the promise of a more accountable political system. Yet, his profound influence also meant that the opposition's unity often relied heavily on his personal authority, extensive political networks, and his skill in mediating diverse interests.

Political analyst Professor Herman Manyora observes that Raila Odinga's absence has created a significant void that the opposition has found difficult to fill. "One year after Raila’s death, he is larger than life. I think there’s a way in which people thought Raila was not going to die. We had immortalised Raila," Manyora stated. He further argues that the opposition has yet to identify a leader capable of unifying its disparate factions. "The opposition is in disarray. There isn’t a figure that people can rally around," he added. This assessment highlights a challenge that existed even before Odinga's passing but has become more pronounced since: a movement can inherit a leader's legacy without necessarily inheriting the authority that held it together. The extent to which this vacuum becomes a lasting weakness will depend on the ability of other leaders to foster trust, establish a shared agenda, and organize effectively beyond individual allegiances.

Raila Odinga's decision to engage with President Ruto in 2024, amidst nationwide protests against the Finance Bill, remains one of the most debated aspects of his political career. These protests, largely driven by young Kenyans, evolved into a broader expression of discontent regarding taxation, governance, and political accountability. As pressure mounted on the government, Odinga's shift towards cooperation with Ruto raised questions about whether dialogue could yield substantial change or if it risked aligning the opposition closer to the establishment it had long opposed.

Manyora interprets Odinga's intervention as a critical moment for Ruto's administration. "What happened then was that Raila came to the rescue of President William Ruto because, had he not come to rescue Ruto, I think the government would have collapsed," he commented. While the political ramifications of this alliance are subject to debate, Manyora's perspective underscores the significance of Odinga's move: a politician long synonymous with opposition politics became a partner in an arrangement with the president, at a time when many Kenyans were protesting against him.

For some younger Kenyans, this alliance was perceived as a betrayal of the political struggle that had established Raila Odinga as a symbol of resistance. The Gen Z-led protests emerged largely outside traditional political structures, fueled by demands for accountability and frustration with established political elites. Many protesters rejected the notion that their movement should be subsumed into negotiations among familiar political figures. Joshua Okayo, a lawyer and human rights activist who identifies with the Gen Z generation, expressed feeling betrayed by Odinga's decision. "As a Gen Z, I recognise the kind of politics he fought for. I recognise the years he put into fighting for social justice, democracy, rule of law, constitutionalism, and many good things. But I also have a spot in my heart where I feel he betrayed the generation," Okayo stated.

This criticism captures the central tension in the debate surrounding Raila Odinga's legacy: whether his political compromises were a pragmatic effort to stabilize the country and advance reforms, or a departure from the principles that defined his career. Supporters of the cooperation argued that dialogue offered a path to address national challenges without prolonged conflict, while critics viewed the partnership as evidence that opposition politics risked being co-opted by the very establishment it was meant to scrutinize. The core question is not simply whether Odinga compromised, but whether the resulting arrangement yielded sufficient benefits to justify the political cost.

This debate now directly confronts ODM as it seeks to chart its course without Raila Odinga's guiding authority. His capacity to forge alliances and manage competing interests was instrumental in holding the party together. In his absence, disagreements over cooperation with Ruto have become more difficult to manage, exposing divisions over the party's identity and its role in national politics. The removal of Sifuna has brought these divisions into sharper relief. His opposition to closer ties with the president has raised questions about ODM's decision-making processes, whose interests its leadership truly represents, and whether the party can maintain its independence while collaborating with a government it once vehemently opposed.

Catherine Omanyo, identified as ODM’s new secretary-general and a Member of Parliament, contends that the party's cooperation with Ruto should be evaluated based on its concrete outcomes rather than the symbolism of the alliance. "ODM’s identity was never just a seat on one side of Parliament. It is democracy, devolution, social justice and the rights of ordinary Kenyans. Raila signed a 10-point agreement with President Ruto. That agreement, not personal loyalty, is the basis of our cooperation with the president," Omanyo told Al Jazeera. Her argument emphasizes whether the agreement leads to tangible benefits for Kenyans. However, the mere existence of an agreement does not inherently confirm that the partnership is advancing ODM's stated principles. Its commitments, implementation, and measurable results must be scrutinized alongside the party's willingness to challenge the government when those commitments are not met.

For a movement whose identity was forged in opposition, the challenge lies in demonstrating that cooperation does not come at the expense of accountability. If ODM fails to show tangible progress or clearly articulate when and how it will challenge the government, it risks exacerbating concerns among supporters who fear the party is straying from its foundational ideals. This dispute also presents an opportunity for ODM to define its purpose beyond its relationship with the president. A credible political movement requires more than a history of resistance or the legacy of a revered leader; it needs clear policies, accountable leadership, and the resolve to defend its principles, even when doing so entails political risks.

The implications extend beyond ODM. Raila Odinga's passing has highlighted the difficulty of disentangling a political movement's principles from the authority of the leader who personified them. However, internal divisions within one party do not automatically signify that Kenya's broader opposition has lost its capacity to hold the government accountable. Such a judgment depends on whether alternative political forces can effectively organize, articulate coherent policies, and respond to the demands of citizens.

One year on, the critical question is not merely who can succeed Raila Odinga. No single successor can replicate his political journey or command the same level of loyalty. A more significant question is whether the movement he built can uphold its principles without relying on one individual to define them. For ODM, its relationship with Ruto will ultimately be judged not by the rhetoric of cooperation, but by the tangible results of that cooperation. If the party can demonstrate progress on its commitments while maintaining its independence to challenge the government, it may justify its decision as a continuation of Raila Odinga's pragmatic political approach. Conversely, if it cannot, the alliance will lend credence to the argument that the opposition he helped to build is losing its way.

The true test of Raila Odinga's legacy, therefore, lies not in how often his name is invoked, but in whether the political principles he championed continue to guide decisions in his absence. "Cooperation that cannot speak up would betray Raila’s legacy. Cooperation that delivers for Kenyans honours it," Omanyo concluded.