Inside the Power Chessboard; How Turmoil in Orange Democratic Movement Could Ultimately Strengthen William Ruto’s Strategic Advantage !

 Inside the Power Chessboard; How Turmoil in Orange Democratic Movement Could Ultimately Strengthen William Ruto’s Strategic Advantage !

......unrest within ODM is not merely about ideology; it is about succession, control, and future positioning.......

The cheerleaders of the disorder within ODM appear either unwilling or unable to see the broader political chessboard at play. Kenyan power brokers are not acting randomly; they are calculating. Their primary concern is a President who seems unbothered by noise, steadily focusing on economic stabilization and recovery. If the economic indicators continue trending upward under President Ruto’s stewardship, his critics risk losing the central plank of their opposition narrative. Performance neutralizes propaganda. And that, fundamentally, is what unsettles them.

The deeper fear is strategic; a structured rapprochement or merger between ODM and UDA would significantly consolidate political capital ahead of future elections. Such a union would not merely be symbolic; it would recalibrate national political arithmetic. Those resisting it understand that a Ruto–ODM alignment could create a formidable electoral machine, potentially eclipsing previous political formations in both reach and cohesion. Their resistance, therefore, is less ideological and more existential.

It is inaccurate to suggest that the turbulence began after Raila Odinga’s demise. The undercurrents predate it. Even while the former Prime Minister was alive, he had begun engaging President Ruto in open, structured dialogue. A formal committee was reportedly constituted to oversee aspects of cooperation and possible convergence. Yet even then, internal resistance was visible. Public dissent from senior party officials, including instances where the SG publicly distanced himself from official party resolutions, signaled fractures that were not accidental but orchestrated. Institutional discipline was already under strain.

The pattern is familiar,  weaken ODM from within while projecting the illusion of ideological purity. Over time, various political actors were floated, repositioned, or amplified in attempts to counterbalance or destabilize emerging alignments,  without achieving decisive traction. Meanwhile, some leaders have shifted toward rhetoric centered on incitement and ethnic profiling rather than presenting coherent governance alternatives. That approach may generate headlines, but it rarely builds durable political capital.

What is unfolding now appears less like spontaneous rebellion and more like the acceleration of an already existing strategy. With Raila’s absence, the internal guardrails have loosened, making ODM more susceptible to factional pressure. Individuals who were previously restrained by hierarchy have become more openly defiant. Yet institutional parties are sustained by structure, discipline, and strategic clarity, not perpetual press conferences.

The role of a Secretary General in any party is fiduciary and administrative, to execute party resolutions, safeguard unity, and maintain organizational coherence. Where irreconcilable differences arise, precedent and political ethics dictate honorable resignation, not public confrontation that erodes institutional credibility. Leadership transitions demand steadiness, not theatrics.

Dr. Oburu, as Party Chairman during this transitional phase, has projected calm continuity. Experience, institutional memory, and measured judgment are assets in moments of flux. Undermining such stewardship for short-term factional gain risks long-term structural damage to the party.

The contradiction is also striking, those who argue that ODM’s engagement with UDA is inherently flawed were largely silent when strategic cooperation occurred with Jubilee in previous political cycles. If coalition-building was pragmatic then, why is it heresy now? Political consistency demands that principles, not personalities, define positions.

Ultimately, the unrest within ODM is not merely about ideology; it is about succession, control, and future positioning. Some actors may perceive diminishing windows of opportunity whether to inherit regional influence, secure nominations, or redefine party direction. But weakening the institution to advance personal timelines is a high-risk gamble. If ODM is to remain relevant, it must prioritize structural cohesion over performative dissent.

In politics, noise is abundant. Strategy is rare. The question is whether ODM will allow noise to dictate its trajectory , or whether it will consolidate, recalibrate, and negotiate from a position of strength.