HOW TO CONCEDE DEFEAT IN AN ELECTION.

Granted, a concession speech is often performed as an awkward, perfunctory gesture at a time of devastating stress. A question arises then as to whether it is possible for one to concede an election defeat and at the same time succeed in burnishing one`s reputation? In my view, it is quite possible. First and foremost, one must elect to make an elaborate speech that converts the combative imagery of defeat into metaphors of sport, chivalry, and epic quest. It is instructive for the speaker to deliver a conceding speech that is crispy and brief.

Secondly and most important, such a speech must be couched in patriotism. In other words, even as one concedes, it is critical that the speech promises to bring down walls of mistrust between contestants in a manner that will enable them to see the possibility of harvesting shared advantages in years to come. Thirdly, even if one is smarting from a humiliating defeat, he is advised not to betray any emotions. One must keep his cool.

Finally, but most important is that the leader must actually concede defeat. This means that the he must not engage in sophistry. Furthermore, any attempts at scape-goating will negate the purpose of a concession. Instead it becomes a contestation. Unlike, conceding, contesting serves to further inflame passions.

Unfortunately, this is what I made of Honorable William Ruto`s press conference at the Bomas of Kenya. It (press conference) was meant to concede the referendum defeat. Instead, listening to the audio of his address we find that, contrary to our expectations, Ruto was not so much conceding defeat as he was contesting the vote outcome.

First, an obviously bitter Ruto blamed external interference for the referendum loss. Then he praised those who voted against the proposed constitution and called them “true gallant sons and daughters of this country who were not swayed by the government`s massive propaganda machine.” Let us stop here for a while and re-examine this statement in detail. Was Honorable Ruto in any way suggesting that the super majority that voted for the proposed constitution were cowards and weak kneed? Or is it my mind that is playing some dirty tricks on me?

You can also imagine my surprise when Ruto questions the legitimacy of the ratified constitution on the grounds that it fell short of the international threshold. We all know that over seventy one per cent of the eligible voters turned out to vote. Sixty nine per cent of those who voted endorsed it.

But even more serious, is when Ruto says that a team (from both camps) must be constituted with a view to dialogue over the contentious issues before the promulgation of the new constitution. I interpret this remark to contain a veiled threat whose intent is obviously to torpedo parliament’s attempts at legislating new laws necessary for the operationalization of the ratified constitution in the event that his wish is not granted. This seems to me an awfully strange and rather
counterproductive move not only to constitutionalism but to democracy as well.

But, going back to the tutorial on conceding defeat, does anyone out there think that all these rhetoric was necessary in Ruto`s concession speech? Absolutely not, if you ask me. He only succeeded in ending up not with an egg on his face but with an omelet.

I hope that he will find it prudent to call another press conference very soon so that he can concede defeat in a more diplomatic manner and speed up political reunification.

TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis