Jaramogi Oginga Odinga’s rejection of the presidency in 1963 is a loaded topic, and it’s not as simple as principle versus tribal loyalty. Let’s break it down with some historical context and a bit of skepticism about the narratives we often hear.
Jaramogi was a towering figure in Kenya’s independence struggle, a staunch anti-colonialist who became Kenya’s first vice-president under Jomo Kenyatta.
But in 1963, when Kenya gained independence, there was a moment where Jaramogi could’ve pushed for the presidency. Some say he stepped back to let Kenyatta take the role, either out of deference or a belief that Kenyatta, as a Kikuyu, would unify the country better given the Kikuyu’s larger population and political influence at the time. Others argue he was pressured out of the role due to his radical socialist leanings, which clashed with the more capitalist, Western-aligned vision of Kenyatta and his allies.
Was it principle? Jaramogi was a known idealist—his later book *Not Yet Uhuru* screams his belief that Kenya hadn’t truly achieved freedom if political oppression persisted. He was a socialist who wanted land redistribution and less Western influence, ideas that made the British and Kenyatta’s inner circle nervous. Stepping aside might’ve been his way of avoiding a fractured independence movement, which could’ve delayed or derailed the whole process. That sounds noble, but it’s also a gamble that didn’t pay off for him or the Luo politically.
Now, the tribal loyalty angle. The Luo, under Jaramogi’s leadership, were a major force, but the Kikuyu had the numbers and the colonial favoritism that gave them more economic and political clout by independence.
Some critics argue Jaramogi’s decision was less about principle and more about a miscalculation—he might’ve thought the Luo could still wield influence through him as VP, but instead, he was sidelined, and the Luo were largely locked out of executive power for decades. His son Raila’s detention and struggles for power later on show how that exclusion played out. But calling it “short-sighted tribal loyalty” feels like a lazy jab.
Jaramogi wasn’t just a Luo leader—he was a national figure who commanded respect across ethnic lines, as his title “Ker” among the Luo and his role in KAU show. Reducing his choice to tribalism ignores the broader ideological battle he was fighting.
Here’s where I get skeptical: the narrative of “Luo lost power for generations” often comes from a Kikuyu-dominated historical lens that paints Jaramogi as either a saint or a fool. Both are too simplistic. Power in post-independence Kenya was a messy game of ethnic alliances, Cold War politics, and colonial hangovers.
Jaramogi’s socialism scared the West, who were bankrolling Kenyatta’s government. Maybe he didn’t “reject” the presidency so much as he was outmaneuvered by a system that wasn’t ready for his vision. And let’s not pretend Kenyatta’s crew played fair—opposition voices like Jaramogi’s were systematically crushed, Luo or not.
So, principle or tribal misstep? I’d lean toward principle with a dash of naivety. Jaramogi bet on a unified Kenya where his ideas could still shape the future, but he underestimated how ruthless the post-independence elite would be in consolidating power.
The Luo paid a price, sure, but pinning it all on Jaramogi ignores the bigger forces at play. What do you think—did he play the long game and lose, or was he just too idealistic for the dirty world of politics?
