Reading through the Standard Online story about Hon. Bett in connection with Miguna’s claim that there is a plot to kill him, which may or may not be related to an allegation he made before and which many, including yours truly said must be taken seriously in Miguna Has Made Serious Allegations That Must Be Investigated but we have not heard of what came of that investigation and now we have yet another claim of a plot to kill Miguna. Did police investigate the previous allegation and if so, what was the outcome?
Given we never heard again about is, one can assume police found no evidence of such threats or if they were, they were no more than ordinary crimes they deal with on any given day including people promising to kill one another when they actually mean none of it.
It’s from this perspective I believe what Hon. Bett has said and will leave it at that until any evidence is put forth to the contrary.
Many of us strongly support Raila and are called all manner of names for that but, speaking for myself, and I know quite a few of those close to Raila, there is not one person I know in that regard who would wish to see Miguna physically harmed; they all to a man and woman wish Miguna could heed counsel he has been given by many and not go down the path he is on but that’s about it.
I also know all of them are confident there is nothing Miguna can say or do that can alter the course the party is on; its more like a young chap on a family cruise aboard the Oasis of the Seas throwing tantrums and jumping up and down in demonstration of same but no amount of such jumping and noise making is going to stop the Oasis from reaching its destination.
Many of us have said many times and continue to say there are people who would believe anything bad said about Raila or ODM for that matter but, surely, even among those who hate Raila that much would agree certain things are just out of bounds and are better off left out of the political discourse.
Political assassination is one such thing and I would simply caution people to leave this crude weapon of days gone by to be just that, a closed chapter in our political history.
I distinguish political assassination from general political violence which unfortunately continues to be a part of our political life albeit less so.
The reason I distinguish between the two, namely political assassination and political violence is, even though political assassination is a form of political violence, the latter is the by-product of some people’s proclivity to engage or condone violence as a means of resolving conflict which is unlikely to be totally eliminated from society where political assassination has little or nothing to do with conflict but a means to preserve power illegally by those who engage in it or ensuring their wielding of such power is not questioned or messed with in any way, which ought to and one can argue, has been removed as a concern in our country.
In other words, while common violence between individuals, be it domestic, political or otherwise may be with us for as long it has been part of human life, targeted political assassination must be, and one would have to believe, is now a thing of the past.
To be sure, both general and targeted political violence eats the core of not just freedom but democracy we have fought for decades to enjoy its fruits and are yet to so fully enjoy but the former does it less so than the latter, which if unchecked or eliminated will ensure a society is permanently ruled by despots—something we have obviously demonstrated we have risen against and moved beyond return.
Having said that, it is important to note even in days when political assassination was a part of Kenyan life, targets were not your average Joe or Jane Doe; they were people who threatened the continued clinging to power by those who did not wish to have any of it questioned or messed with in any way.
No one in their right mind would make even a weak case that Miguna threatens people to even remotely that level for them to want to have him physically silenced; its enough they just ignore him or counter him if necessary and by that I mean, counter any evidence he may have–which many doubt he has–of wrongdoing.
Anything beyond that, especially anything that on the face of it is idiotic and nonsensical, look beyond top party hierarchy or headquarters for answers for it won’t be coming from there.
There is virtue in having a sense of proportionality in both assessing and applying information; if something doesn’t make sense at first blush, it never will.
The only exception is where something makes no sense for reason of lack of exposure because there is a strong correlation between exposure and one’s ability to define what makes sense.
There is virtue in having a good sense of proportionality in anything one does or expects in life and that includes how one dissects or should receive any news or information.
Some things just don’t make sense and that’s where they should be left for any dwelling in them or trying to figure them will never make sense.
Peace, Unity and Common Sense