Democracy seems to be the move and development that the whole world can ever be proud of as a way of adjusting to a fair procedure of putting new leaders into office or authority. However, the same democracy seems to be undergoing a life-cycle in way that deteriorates its meaning. It now emerges that through it, aspirants with more hooligans tend to emerge as the people to take up the offices. This looks more dangerous or a new form of camouflaged colonialism or dictatorship.
As time tickles towards the MUSO election many people are throwing themselves into the political arena to vie for different positions in the students’ organization. I guess some will soon realize that they chose the wrong dockets to contest for and others will realize that being too talkative doesn’t mean you qualify to be the comrades’ spokesperson.
There comes a time when a voter has to assess the aspirants as the date nears. How do you prepare or happily back up an aspirant who previously acted as the head of the hooligan group against other contestants? How does it feel when somebody who humiliated you in support of the opponent approaches you in your room in the evening and lowers his or her voice to make you appreciate the humility he has for you just in order to get your vote?
It becomes really ambiguous observing somebody backing strongly an aspirant not on the grounds of tribal alignment. It is not a sin backing your tribesman because I understand that charity begins at home and therefore all aspirants have to get backing from their home associations. But it is annoying to find people sticking together to support a candidate on grounds of tribal relativity. It sounds barbaric and only humans wallowing in a cocoon of ignoramus will embrace that kind of irrational and uncivilized way of doing things.
The era of blame game is withering. To hell with that aspirant who survives on blaming the opponent and spreading propaganda with the aim of ruining grounds for him/her. People of sober minds stand out with brevity taste their agenda and seek support from the comrades. Back doors are never the way forward and dealing with a scholar’s mind in that manner is very dangerous for any aspirants.
I know some will be proclaiming in CU testimonies that they have been saved in order to build their name with the church which is believed to carry a good basket of loyal votes. I wonder why they wait to be saved in the near future of elections and especially when they are in the race.
People who are directed by the agenda of the day or the opinions of the people are still dangerous to put in office. They reach there and keep on telling us “I am really trying, I wish you knew how hard it is to convince or deal with the dean, VC or major”. You just wonder whether they initially knew that; that is the task awaiting.
Entrusting people who turn you down is really betraying. Think of somebody who takes the office when you have fought to reduce the prices of fare from campus to town to a rounded off figure of KSh. 70 only to leave office when the fare is up by KSh. 30 more.
At times being too vocal, attacking anyone from any side does not in any manner suggest that you can do better. Many have come, many have promised and many have been vocal only to reach there and turn out to be soft betrayers.
Over hugging many people’s girlfriends on the highways will only but deny you a vote as you will only be developing more and more enemies with the male comrades in a misunderstanding that you are becoming more sociable to all. People who behave to be too radical are never people to trust with an office. At any time they can easily turn out to challenge their own office or even the people who mandated them.
A person, who cannot be trusted with small things, cannot be trusted with bigger things too.