Former Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s decision to chair a high-stakes ODM National Executive Council meeting this week is a timely intervention that demonstrates both political foresight and leadership under pressure.
As internal dissent brews over ODM’s cooperation with President William Ruto’s UDA, Raila’s move was not only necessary—it was critical to preserving party unity and maintaining the relevance of the opposition in a rapidly changing political landscape.
At the heart of the disquiet is Secretary General Edwin Sifuna’s outspoken defense of the ODM-UDA collaboration, which has triggered fierce backlash from both within and outside the party.
By allowing Sifuna to front the party’s position after the meeting, Raila effectively reaffirmed his trust in the embattled SG while cooling rising temperatures among ODM loyalists.
The announcement that ODM will set up a technical committee to work with UDA counterparts on implementing their agreement is a step in the right direction.
It signals a shift from rhetoric to action and injects a much-needed dose of structure into what many feared was a vague and politically risky arrangement.
Yet, the tensions exposed by this episode raise broader questions: Can ODM remain a coherent political force while openly cooperating with the ruling administration?
Is the spirit of political détente with Kenya Kwanza a genuine pursuit of national unity, or a veiled surrender of the opposition’s watchdog role?
Sifuna’s own admission of internal disagreements reflects a party grappling with its identity. ODM has historically been defined by its opposition to the establishment.
Now, with its leader championing collaboration with Ruto, the party risks alienating a core segment of its base that still views the Kenya Kwanza administration with suspicion.
To be clear, national stability and development require cross-party cooperation. But such cooperation must not come at the cost of accountability, transparency, and genuine representation of the people’s voice.
The NADCO report, youth empowerment, peaceful protest rights, and the fight against corruption—all listed as priority issues—should not be reduced to talking points but must form the backbone of this new political experiment.
Raila’s decision to reaffirm support for county funding and devolved functions was a strategic reminder that ODM still champions key governance issues. However, this message must be amplified at the grassroots, lest the party loses its historical image as a pro-people movement.
In the end, Raila has once again played the role of political mediator—an elder statesman trying to unite conflicting factions while keeping ODM politically relevant.
But unity built on silence or suppressed dissent is temporary. If ODM is to chart a meaningful path forward, it must embrace internal democracy, allow divergent views, and engage its supporters with honesty about its evolving role.
The storm may have calmed—for now—but the road ahead will test the resilience of ODM’s new-found unity and the credibility of its political choices.