Sifuna Must Run Because We Did Not Order a Deputy, PERIOD. Its Either Sifuna, Edwin Or Watenya

Let me put our position on the table before somebody arrives with a seating arrangement: for those of us backing Linda Mwananchi because of Edwin Sifuna, the destination is the presidency. He is the reason we are here. Nobody should mistake our enthusiasm for an open cheque that can be quietly written in somebody else’s name. We came with a choice. We would appreciate it if the political caterers stopped trying to change our order.

We ordered a presidential candidate. Please do not bring us a deputy and explain that the kitchen has decided.

There is a serious argument beneath that little joke. Support belongs to the people who give it. It does not become the personal property of everyone who happens to share a platform with their preferred leader. A movement may have many speakers, organisers and ambitions, but an individual supporter is entitled to say exactly what brought them there. Our answer is Sifuna. No other person can simply step into that place and assume our consent has travelled with the microphone.

That does not diminish anyone else’s contribution. People can work hard, speak well and deserve respect without becoming our choice for president. We can appreciate the whole choir and still know whose voice made us stop outside the church. There is no offence in saying so. Indeed, it saves everyone the expense of rehearsing a song the congregation did not request.

For us, the call for Sifuna to run comes from the people who want him to stand. That is the point we want him, his colleagues and every enthusiastic arranger of political furniture to understand. We are asking him to seek the presidency because we believe he should offer himself for that responsibility. Our call should be heard in its own right, rather than translated into a bargaining position we never authorised.

Read Also: The Sifuna Test: Kenya’s Strange Panic When One of Our Own Dares to Rise

And if he says he would prefer to remain comfortably outside that contest? We shall politely disagree with impressive consistency. We shall make our case in public, write our appeals and invite him to explain his hesitation. We shall return to the conversation with the persistence of a relative who has discovered that you own a pickup and now considers every family move your constitutional responsibility.

When we joke that we will “force” him to run, that is the force we mean: peaceful persuasion, patient organising and an argument too serious to dismiss with a smile. His decision remains his. Our determination to persuade him remains ours. Nobody needs threats when they have a good case and enough persistence to make a polite reminder feel like a recurring calendar appointment.

Edwin, you are entitled to think. We are equally entitled to ask whether the thinking requires an entire geological era.

We understand that a presidential campaign is an enormous undertaking. It asks difficult things of a candidate, a family and everyone who helps to build it. Enthusiasm does not pay every bill, protect private time or solve the practical problems of organisation. Those concerns deserve honest answers. But they are reasons to discuss what would be required, not reasons to treat the people’s invitation as a passing noise outside the window.

If the concern is readiness, let us hear what readiness would involve. If the concern is the burden, let supporters understand the work they would need to carry. A serious public conversation would be more useful than leaving everyone to interpret every pause, photograph and handshake as though politics were an examination in facial expressions. Some of us would like to finish our tea without being told that the angle of somebody’s elbow has changed the entire future of the country.

The deputy presidency is a substantial office, and seeking it can be an honourable choice. Our argument concerns the role we want Sifuna to pursue. We believe he should lead the ticket, explain his programme directly to voters and ask them for the responsibility of governing. That is the invitation. Calling it by a smaller name will not make us forget what we said.

Imagine inviting someone to be the head chef because you believe in the meal they can prepare, then being told they will be allowed to stand near the kitchen and compliment the menu. You might reasonably have questions. You might even put down your spoon. Political participation ought to permit at least as much scrutiny as ordering lunch.

Those discussing alliances should therefore begin by listening. Cooperation can broaden a campaign and bring useful experience into it. But a discussion among leaders cannot automatically settle what supporters will believe, accept or vote for. Agreements need a public explanation. They need reasons strong enough to survive outside the room in which they were negotiated.

Votes have owners. Every voter has a mind, a memory and the freedom to decide. You cannot pack supporters into a coalition agreement like complimentary bottles of water and announce that delivery is complete. Some will ask where you are taking them. Others will read the label. We intend to do both.

Our message to everyone working alongside Sifuna is therefore straightforward: take this preference seriously. If you want our support for a different arrangement, you will have to persuade us. A photograph of smiling leaders will not do all the work. Neither will a solemn announcement that “consultations have taken place,” es