Rage against Odinga: How we betray ourselves

Actions constitute the best evidence of the state of human thoughts and actions. The general presumption that the consequences of actions directly correspond with an agent’s intentions holds so firmly, that without persuasive and elaborate exposition, no exception avails.

Indeed, derogations from this presumption are categorically exceptional including such extraordinary explanations as temporary or chronic mental derangement, intoxication, provocation, mistake or accident.

Through action, agents proceed beyond the private confines of abstract cogitation and fanciful contemplation, to render a graphic exhibition of the content of their thoughts and the intentions that colour them.

Our understanding of actions must extend to speech and, as a matter of fact, all utterances. Whereupon that ancient observation, “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” echoes with timeless resonance. Words constitute verbal actions; discourse must never be construed as an aimless or sterile enterprise by any means.

What is uttered is intrinsically powerful in the sense that it empowers audiences to engage with the facts within the psychic experience and decode the contents and processes of thoughts.

At the beginning of every year, many a household are plunged into turmoil on account of the disruptive actions of notoriously undervalued yet indisputably indispensable members. Depending on the relational dynamics between principal and agent, the unwelcome news of disengagement, desertion, or unilateral constructive termination of employment by the household operations personnel or domestic managers, will be submitted in different ways, and register with diverse impacts.

Ingratitude and treachery

Most disruptive, of course is outright desertion, followed closely by the furnishing of notice after the fact or with no opportunity for the principal to renegotiate terms or enlist alternative personnel in time to get the household to operational optimum for the return to school and work.

Many an agent will casually embark upon their new ventures without a thought for the former employer, often merely texting moments before their expected date of resumption to advise of the material change in circumstances. The gravamen of their utterances at such points is that they have found other positions, pursuits or even status in keeping with their ambitions and, thus, more preferable than the now former situation.

Beyond understandable dismay at the turn of events, many employers often express further outrage at perceived ingratitude and treachery on the part of the deserting staff, whose actions they infer to be calculated, malicious and perpetrated with the sole intention of victimising them.

Granted, it takes herculean fortitude under such circumstances to summon the goodwill to congratulate departing personnel on alighting upon greener pastures, whatever they may be, or upon assuming a desired status which effectively retires them from service and to be fair, there is something to be said about the practice of spectacularly disruptive disengagement without any of the decorous protocols commensurate with the exigencies of the employment relationship.

That said, it is equally remarkable that many an employer infrequently deliver themselves of sentiments that deny the agency of the disengaging agent, as though taking the agents’ total subjection to their will for granted. Without excusing various manifestations of runaway conduct, it must be said that employer responses frequently leave much to be desired, outline the dynamics defining the working conditions, and explaining the disregard with which the deserting staff abandoned their post.

How persons are perceived dictates the way they are treated and therefore, interpersonal conduct is eloquent expression of esteem and the understandings of relative power, status and agency underpinning it.

Anti-government agitation

For a few months now, a radicalised, intolerant and vicious troop of online agents has arrogated upon itself the diabolical mandate of tormenting former Prime Minister Raila Odinga. The charge on which he has been indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced in capricious digital courts, is betrayal.

Before a jury of cyber-trolls, the particulars of the charge have been rendered, to wit, that in being implicated in the broad-based government arrangement, he has donated the formidable bandwidth of his political constituency to the government, and thereby not only deprived the forces of anti-government agitation of a significant degree of much-needed political firepower, but also made it significantly more difficult to dislodge government from power.

Firmly lodged at the core of this narrative is an uninterrogated presumption about Odinga’s purpose and destiny in the context of our democratic politics. Insofar as he is understood to be operationally configured exclusively for opposition politics, Odinga’s mandatory functions are twofold.

First, to maximise the benefits of incumbency for entitled insiders, is to stay out of government, and keep his expansive constituency likewise outside the margins of visibility with respect to inclusion and development.

Secondly, whenever such entitled insiders find themselves outside government, is for Odinga to assault, undermine, subvert, disrupt and sabotage government to the point of collapse, or until entitled insiders are appeased by way of accommodation.

The disregard for Odinga’s political agency is wilful and calculated to profile him and his constituency as perpetual outsiders whose best contribution is cacophonous mayhem and discord. It is insult packaged as outrage, and it deserves to be betrayed.

The writer is the Secretary, Policy Messaging and Speechwriting, The Presidency