Could Kenya Have Secured a Greater Advantage at the AU with Uhuru Kenyatta Over Raila Odinga?
Was Raila Odinga the right candidate, or would former President Uhuru Kenyatta have given Kenya a stronger edge on the African stage? Read more.
Kenya’s political scene is buzzing with debate over who should represent the country in the upcoming African Union (AU) elections. Many people believe that former President Uhuru Kenyatta would have been a better choice for the AU role than Raila Odinga, who is currently in the race. There are several reasons why Kenyatta might have been a stronger candidate.
Firstly, Uhuru Kenyatta’s experience and connections give him an edge. After serving as Kenya’s president for 10 years, he built strong relationships with important leaders across Africa who will vote in the 2025 AU elections. He wouldn’t need to travel to gather support because a simple call or message to leaders like Paul Kagame or Félix Tshisekedi might be enough to secure their votes. Also, his experience in peacekeeping missions in places like South Africa and Nigeria adds to his reputation.
Keep Reading
Kenyatta’s contributions in diplomacy are another reason why many think he would have been a better candidate. He has led key peace missions, especially in the Congo, boosting his profile as a diplomatic leader. On the other hand, Raila Odinga, though serving as the AU’s Head of Infrastructure, hasn’t gained the same level of recognition. His work in infrastructure relies mostly on funding from individual countries, which makes it less personal and impactful in the eyes of other African leaders.
Another reason is Kenyatta’s status as a former president, which gives him a strong advantage. Running against an ex-head of state, who has spent years building relationships, would have discouraged other candidates, like Djibouti’s Foreign Minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, from entering the race. Kenyatta’s influence as a former president would have made him hard to beat.
Additionally, Kenyatta’s financial independence is a major plus. Unlike Raila Odinga, who reportedly needs a lot of financial support, Kenyatta would have required much less public funding. His close ties with many African leaders would allow him to campaign without heavily relying on Kenyan taxpayers. This would make his candidacy less expensive and more appealing to other African leaders.
Regarding the cost to Kenyan taxpayers, Kenyatta’s campaign would have been cheaper. Raila Odinga’s travel and lobbying efforts, as seen recently, have added financial pressure on the public. In contrast, Kenyatta’s personal wealth and connections would have made his campaign cost-effective, with little or no burden on taxpayers.
In the end, many feel that Kenya missed an opportunity by not nominating Uhuru Kenyatta for the AU role. His experience, connections, and financial independence would have made him a strong contender for the position. Although Raila Odinga has his strengths, time will tell if Kenya made the right choice. If Raila wins, the decision will be seen as justified. If he doesn’t, there may be regrets over not choosing a more experienced candidate like Kenyatta.
Read More:
What do you think? Was Raila Odinga the right choice for the AU post, or would Uhuru Kenyatta have given Kenya a better chance? Let’s discuss how Kenya can best position itself on the African stage.
What's Your Reaction?
