For years, Raila Odinga has been a polarising figure in Kenyan politics, particularly in the Mt Kenya region. When Raila needed their support most, from 2007 to 2022, the region’s voters, and many others across the country, largely withheld it. 

Yet today, some of these same critics accuse him of “betrayal” for engaging with political foes. It is time to confront these double standards and acknowledge that sidelining Raila serves neither Mt Kenya’s interests nor Kenya’s future. 

Mt Kenya’s reluctance to back Raila is often framed as a rejection of his policies or leadership. Yet this argument ignores history, and the recently surfaced truth. Royal Media chairman S K Macharia’s revelation last week that Raila has always been rigged out of victory in presidential elections forces a reckoning with the past. Raila’s bids for the presidency failed not because of a lack of vision or national appeal, but because of entrenched power structures, backed by the very political elites who now accuse him of betrayal. 

The notion that Raila has “betrayed” those who never supported him is illogical. If anything, it is Raila who might claim betrayal. His 2018 “Handshake” with Uhuru, which prioritised national unity over personal ambition, was met with fury by allies who felt he had conceded power. And now, the evidence of electoral manipulation revealed by Macharia exposes the depths of this betrayal, not just of Raila, but of the Kenyan electorate itself. 

Kenya’s ruling class, including Mt Kenya’s powerbrokers, have long vilified Raila as an “agitator” or “enemy of stability”. Yet when expedient, they are quick to seek his cooperation. The Handshake, which calmed the nation after the divisive 2017 elections, was brokered by the same Mt Kenya leaders who had spent years painting Raila as a threat. Similarly, President William Ruto, who built his career opposing Raila, embraced dialogue with him through the National Dialogue Committee. These elites weaponise Raila’s name to rally their bases, only to quietly court him when their grip on power wobbles. 

If Raila was truly unfit to lead, why did the system need to rig him out of office? This duplicity is actually a national disease. Raila is cast as a villain until his political capital is needed to legitimise controversial policies or stabilise governments. The Building Bridges Initiative, backed by Uhuru and Raila, was a classic example. A project suddenly hailed as “unifying” by leaders who had spent years stoking division. 

This hypocrisy breeds confusion. Leaders whip up anti-Raila sentiment during elections, framing him as a bogeyman poised to upend “their” government. When Raila engages in dialogue, he is accused of “selling out.” But the real betrayal lies with elites who exploit his name for votes, only to erase their collaboration once power is secured. 

Mt Kenya cannot claim to champion national unity while excluding a leader with a vast constituency. Raila’s enduring relevance is not a flaw in Kenyan democracy. His support base in Nyanza, Western and the Coast remains significant, and no government can achieve lasting stability without engaging these regions.  

Giving Raila a “break” is not about endorsing his politics. It is about recognising that Kenya’s cycle of crisis and reconciliation will persist until leaders, and voters, stop using him as a scapegoat. Mt Kenya, a region famed for its entrepreneurial pragmatism, should lead this shift. The focus should be on holding ‘all’ leaders accountable for their partnerships, not just Raila. 

Macharia’s revelations should prompt a national reckoning. If Raila was consistently denied victory through fraud, then Kenya’s political elite owe not just Raila but the Kenyan people an apology. Mt Kenya, by transcending old tropes and engaging Raila on issues, could redefine Kenyan politics. The goal should be a nation where no community is held hostage to the ambitions of a self-serving elite.  

—The writer is a PhD Student in International Relations