If only for the fact that he didn’t implode, Mr Rigathi Gachagua might be seen to have bested Ms Martha Karua at the debate of deputy presidential candidates last night.
Indeed, if social media chatter is anything to go by, Kenya Kwanza supporters, who followed proceedings beamed on live television from the Catholic University of East Africa, were quite satisfied that their candidate had performed well.
He had approached the ground with low expectations, but had held his ground and even been mostly on the offensive against an Azimio la Umoja rival who was expected to wipe the floor with him.
Mr Gachagua has earned notoriety for verbal gaffes, outrageous statements and angry outbursts on the campaign platform, while Ms Karua has been the picture of reasoned, thoughtful, moderate and sober performances.
It was evident, ultimately, that Mr Gachagua was better prepared for a duel than Ms Karua. Even as the Kenya Kwanza campaign ramped up public rhetoric against participation up the final days approaching the campaign, it is now apparent that Mr Gachagua was being intensively rehearsed for the showdown.
By contrast, the Azimio team might have fallen for the ruse and neglected to have Ms Karua go through mock debate session with a team of hard-hitting interlocutors, including a stand-in replicating Mr Gachagua’s aggressive and garrulous mien.
Ms Karua is no meek debater herself. She has a well-earned reputation for being tough and forceful, never one to ignore any slights or letting pass the opportunity to strike a knockout blow.
The one on display on the debate platform appeared uncharacteristically hesitant to strike when required. It was as if she had been primed to project an image opposite of Mr Gachagua, remaining ultra-cool, ignoring provocation, and not raising her voice or appearing shrill.
In terms of demeanour, substance, respect for the rules, answering questions without evasion, articulating the party agenda, Ms Karua might have been the clear winner; but the end result was that she allowed Mr Gachagua to get away with his game plan, which was evidently to deflect all questions touching the Kenya Kwanza Achilles Heel, integrity, by instead pointing accusatory fingers at President Uhuru Kenyatta.
Seemingly against debate rules, Mr Gachagua seemed armed with talking points on a slip of paper, with the simple strategy that to almost any question, he responds with references to the outgoing president and repeats incessantly the ‘state capture’ mantra.
From the word go, it was both a slugfest and a battle of wits, with both Mr Rigathi and Ms Karua keenly aware their debate performances might have a bearing on the fortunes of their respective principals, Kenya Kwanza presidential candidate William Ruto and his Azimio la Umoja rival Raila Odinga.
The DP debate holds huge lessons for Dr Ruto and Mr Odinga. The former is a practiced debater, fast on his feet with a keen grasp of issues and facts and fingers on his fingertips. He will be exuding supreme confidence ahead of his showdown with Mr Odinga, who might not be as sharp and energetic as he once was. If the latter takes things for granted and does not go through some gruelling preparations, it could be a very long night for him.
Well-prepared on policy proposals
While both running mates last night were well-prepared on the policy proposals from their respective party manifestoes, Mr Gachagua was better rehearsed on the likely minefields, and the bombs likely to be thrown his way, and also better armed to put his opponent on the defensive.
Mr Gachagua was keen to turn into a Ruto versus Uhuru duel, part of the campaign strategy that seeks to depict Mr Odinga as a ‘project’ who will be mere puppet of the retiring president.
Ms Karua, on her part, focused on her and Mr Odinga’s reform credentials going back to the multi-party campaign, as opposed to the Ruto-Gachagua record in service of the one-party regime.
Corruption dominated the debate. But surprisingly, it was not Ms Karua who brought it up, but Mr Gachagua in an obvious strategy to deflect attention from Kenya Kwanza to the Kenyatta family. He brought up the issue of state capture, giving examples of the selective tax rebate given by the Treasury on the merger of CBA and NIC banks.
He also mentioned domination of the dairy sector by Kenyatta enterprises, and went on to add that the outgoing president’s support of Azimio is part of a state capture project by which he can continue to rule through a puppet regime.
Ms Karua, by contrast, did not counter by bringing in details of Dr Ruto’s own integrity issues that have been matters of public debate, with some even ending up in court.
From his opening remarks Mr Gachagua took a sly dig at Ms Karua by emphasising that he was a family man, a jibe at the fact that she is a divorcee. He went on hope that the debate would provide for sober discussion of the rival policy prescriptions rather than petty exchanges, but the first opportunity he went straight for the jugular.
He was quick to swing the debate from examination of his own credentials and the Kenya Kwanza manifesto to discussion on President Kenyatta’s record in leaving a broken economy, absolving Deputy President Ruto from blame on the basis that he had been excluded from government once Mr Odinga become the preferred partner.
He also dredged out incidents where Ms Karua had been mentioned adversely in corruption, listing reports of British American Tobacco cash infusion as well land grabbing in the Ngariama settlement scheme.
Ms Karua was not taking that lying down, explaining that the BAT money was a gift to her 2013 presidential campaign kitty, and that the matter had been investigated in Britain and nothing untoward established.
On the Ngariama land, she denied ever having land in the area, and invited any responsible government agency to investigate the manner and take her to court if found culpable.
As Mr Gachagua continued to harp on his state capture analysis, Ms Karua deftly moved in to ‘help’ him. She agreed that indeed state capture is a serious problem in Kenya, but it was not limited to the Kenyatta’s or any other family, but all the individuals who diverted public resources for private gain. She reeled of a list of government projects that had collapsed because of mismanagement and corruption, including some that linked to Dr Ruto such as the Kimwarer and Arror dams. On issues around the rising cost of food, she mentioned legendary corruption around maize and fertiliser as well as the Galana Kulalu project.
Ms Karua’s hesitancy in going for the kill was illustrated when she challenged Mr Gachagua on a recent public statement that the criminal charges he is facing would be dropped and his frozen bank accounts released once Kenya Kwanza takes office.
Mr Gachagua went into a long winded denial where he attributed such reports to falsehoods spread by social media activists hired by President Kenyatta to project him in bad light. It was an audacious untruth given that audio and video of his exact utterances have been widely shared. Ms Karua did not press her advantage, letting it pass.
On issues of governance, Mr Gachagua listed the experience that would make him a good deputy, but at the same time launched into Ms Karua for being a ‘quitter’, in reference to her resignation as President Kibaki’s Justice minister in 2009.
He opined that if she could not work with a gentlemen like Kibaki, she would hardly make a good deputy for anyone.
Resigned quietly without drama
Her response was that anyone who does not understand the concept of principle would not appreciate when one refuses to earn public money and privileges when not in position to deliver. She also pointed out that despite disagreeing with President Kibaki, she resigned quietly and without drama, and never resorted to hurling insults at him while dishonestly earning from the public purse. That was a sly dig at Dr Ruto’s continued stay in the Kenyatta government while complaining that he has been side-lined and has assumed the position of de facto opposition leader.
Beyond the exchanges on corruption and the other jibes, the two deputy president contestants did find time to expound on some of other policy positions of their respective platform.
There was not time to discuss much else, but both mentioned universal health coverage; support for agriculture, particularly fertiliser subsidies; and programmes aimed at supporting small businesses and the poor. What came out is that other than different slogans and taglines such as ‘Baba Care’ and ‘Hustler Fund’ and ‘Bottom Up’, neither Mr Gachagua nor Ms Karua could offer much to distinguish the competing prescriptions.
Ultimately, their closing words were both appealing for the vote not so much on specific policies, but from Mr Gachagua stressing the Kenya Kwanza change agenda; and Ms Karua highlighting track record of the Azimio ticket.
