Some arguments are to the effect that the Kenyan situation has provided a typical example where a spade is not called a spade. Others think modern day democracy is just a façade of the 1800 dynasty rule. To me, the Kenyan crisis provides yet another example of our 'cherished' African culture that victimises the victim, and protects the bully.
You would therefore think that people should speak in unison against president Kibaki to the effect that he made himself susceptible to accusations of electoral malpractice and should therefore own up to pave way for a cleaner process.
Instead people are telling Raila to accept the position of opposition leader purportedly for the sake of peace! But why should it be Raila to sacrifice for the sake of peace and not President Kibaki? Just to rephrase the headline of Wanyeki Muthoni's article Can there be peace without justice? And how long can this peace last? (The East African, January 7-13).
Raila and Kibaki may be the same considering that they belong to the same old guards in the Kenyan political landscape, but people's wishes ought to be respected or else sitting presidents should stop wasting time and resources conducting elections if they are not willing to accept defeat and retire honourably.
Quotes from punishing the victim and protecting the bully by Margaret Wokuri.
I feel the article has parallels with Steve Karpman's drama triangle.
He says these roles operate to keep people in the illusions of power, and will go on as long as someone is willing to be victimised.
It is very clear to some Kenyans who the bully is in this crisis, but it does not look like someone is willing to be victimised at the moment.
Update:Related article Lessons from the election debacle.
Update two Related article : Stubborn Kibaki strides on regardless.
Weekend Cultural Event: Wikiendi Live is Back! - [image: Wikiendi Live Logo] As I was moving to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania many years ago, I remember reading in The Rough Guide to Tanzania that Dar es Salaam...
5 hours ago