The motion by Eddy Oketch seeking to de-whip and expel Edwin Sifuna has pushed the Orange Democratic Movement into a defining moment — one that goes beyond internal discipline and directly touches public trust, voter confidence, and the party’s future appeal.
As the drama unfolds, the biggest question may not be whether the motion succeeds, but how the public interprets the unfolding power struggle within Orange Democratic Movement.
Why Public Perception Matters Now
ODM has long positioned itself as a disciplined, people-centered opposition party. However, repeated public disagreements among senior leaders risk diluting that image. For many voters, especially those outside traditional party strongholds, internal wrangles are often seen as signs of disorganization and self-interest.
The attempt to expel a sitting Secretary General is rare and dramatic. While some view it as accountability in action, others see it as evidence of deep factionalism that could weaken the party’s national standing.
Youth Voters Are Paying Attention
Kenya’s youth population continues to play a decisive role in shaping political outcomes. Younger voters tend to be less loyal to political parties and more sensitive to leadership conduct, transparency, and unity.
Political analysts warn that visible internal conflicts may alienate young voters who already express skepticism toward established political parties. For this demographic, public infighting often signals a lack of focus on pressing issues such as unemployment, rising living costs, and governance reforms.
If ODM is perceived as consumed by internal battles, it risks losing relevance among a generation seeking issue-based leadership rather than personality-driven politics.
Supporters vs. Critics: A Divided Audience
The motion against Sifuna has split opinion within ODM’s support base. Some supporters argue that senior officials must be held accountable regardless of rank, and that enforcing discipline strengthens the party.
Others believe the move undermines internal democracy and targets a vocal leader who has consistently defended the party’s position in public. To them, the motion appears politically motivated rather than principled.
This division is playing out not just within party organs but also across social media platforms, where narratives can quickly shape public opinion.
The Risk of Normalizing Internal Conflict
One of the long-term dangers for ODM is the normalization of public internal disputes. When disciplinary matters are debated openly and repeatedly, they risk overshadowing the party’s policy agenda.
Voters may begin to associate ODM with internal drama rather than solutions to national challenges. Political rivals can also exploit such divisions to question the party’s readiness to govern.
Historically, parties that fail to manage internal conflict often struggle to present a united front during critical political moments.
Leadership and Crisis Management
How ODM’s leadership responds to the motion will be closely watched. A transparent, fair, and calm handling of the issue could reinforce confidence in the party’s internal democracy.
Conversely, a messy or prolonged dispute could deepen perceptions of instability. Crisis management, analysts say, is often as important as the substance of the allegations themselves.
The party’s ability to balance discipline with unity will likely influence how both supporters and undecided voters judge its leadership maturity.
What This Means for the Opposition Space
ODM remains a central force in Kenya’s opposition politics. Any internal weakening has ripple effects beyond the party itself, potentially reshaping alliances and opposition strategy.
If the dispute escalates, it could open space for rival parties to attract disillusioned supporters. If resolved constructively, ODM could demonstrate resilience and institutional strength.
Looking Ahead
As the motion makes its way through party structures, the political cost may be measured not just in leadership outcomes but in public sentiment. Trust, once shaken, is difficult to rebuild — especially among younger voters with many political alternatives.
ODM’s challenge now is to ensure that accountability does not come at the expense of credibility and unity.
Conclusion
The bid to expel Edwin Sifuna is more than an internal disciplinary matter; it is a test of ODM’s public image and political maturity. As voters watch closely, especially the youth, the party’s handling of this moment could shape its relevance and appeal in the years ahead.
Whether ODM emerges stronger or more divided will depend on its ability to resolve conflict without losing sight of the people it seeks to represent.
