Once bitten, twice shy ...

Scenario:

Raila: "The President promised he would not run for a second term if we supported him in 2002."

Kibaki: "Some remarkable people got surprised to hear that I intend to complete the period for which I was chosen to complete and I intend to complete it. I have no intention of giving it up and I have never indicated to anyone that I had any such intention."

Raila: "What example is the President showing to the nation? He is a Christian and he must tell the truth. Let him swear on the Bible that he never made such a commitment.”


The Political Reality:

To make things interesting, let’s even assume that Raila is right, that Kibaki indeed made the commitment. A lot of things have been said about Raila the politician. No doubt he is powerful, cunning, and most definitely influential. His latest outburst however betrays a man devoid of political astuteness. I have always thought of Raila as a very smart politician and am therefore really surprised that he’d show such political naiveté. Why did he lack the shrewdness and discernment to figure out in 2002 what is now returning to bite his back?

The vital lesson that Raila, Kalonzo, Musikari Kombo and indeed all aspiring and budding politicians will have to learn is this:

“Ex-ante Political Commitments are not credible.”

A commitment by two or more parties (individuals, politicians, businessmen, etc.) can be regarded as a contract. So in this case, we can assume that Kibaki and his allies entered into a political contract – albeit verbal – in 2002. Mind you, even if the parties involved had made their contract in writing, my argument would still be material. Why?

Expanding my argument further:

“Ex-ante Political Commitments are not credible because they ARE NOT legally enforceable.”

Why?

“Because political contracts inherently endow first mover advantages that render legal recourse meaningless”

To substantiate my claims, let us consider for example, a business contract, say one that involves the exchange of a good. This kind of commitment is credible ex-ante (before the event) because it is legally enforceable ex-post (after the event). In fact, such contracts can even be executed anonymously. That is why we can comfortably go online and give out our credit card details to another party, 10,000 miles away, fully aware that if the other party does not honour his/her end of the bargain, the end outcome might be way costlier than what they initially aimed to obtain fraudulently from you. In a way, this property renders such contracts self-regulating … almost an invisible hand …

Now consider a political contract like:

“I will not run for a second term if you all help me get elected this term”

If I am to agree to such a contract, it’s either because:

i) I am the one making the pledge not to run the second time
ii) Barring that, I am a complete moron

In my opinion, I believe Kibaki made the pledge not to run a second term. I even believe he meant to stay true to his word. But, there is certain predictability about the nature of power … it probably would not matter if Jesus had made that pledge. He’d probably still want a second term. I mean, what is to stop anyone? Beyond two terms, legal enforceability sets in and you got to go. Trust me that is the reason the maximum of two terms has to be written legibly in ink, and engraved in the constitution in democratic countries. Imagine if countries relied on “goodwill commitments” or in Raila’s case, on the fear of God:

“He is a Christian and he must tell the truth. Let him swear on the bible that he never made such a pledge….” [LMAO when I read this ...]


The only truth is, they got played. Not only that, Kibaki being the first mover now controls the whole situation. The state mechanism is at his disposal. He is quoted in the Standard as saying:

"I am quite sure that I will...I will...anyway I have friends."

You better believe that not only did he mean it, but also that he intends to bring those friends into his service in the coming days. This development is so fascinating it should be a case study in Political Science and Game Theory classes in Universities. I just feel sorry for the desperate folks who are on the receiving end.

Now, if ODM was to agree, by consensus on which candidate to front in December, and assuming that they even won the election (I doubt it, but that makes things interesting), it will be déjà vu in 2012. One of Kalonzo, Raila, Uhuru, Ruto, and Mudavadi would have amassed power and used it, advertently or otherwise, to dish the same lesson to his erstwhile partners.

That is just the way the game ALWAYS pans out. If only people could learn ...