Sifuna and Kang'ata on paper seem like such a dream pairing. Ideologically, though, they are quite different. If they ever became president and deputy, they would need a concrete priority plan on nation building. If you read Kangata's articles, there is an emphasis on capital accumulation, productivity, manufacturing and building large Kenyan corporations capable of competing globally. Very Kibaki-esque. He also has rather socially conservative views. Sifuna, on the other hand, emphasis is on constitutionalism, the rule of law, accountability, reducing government wastage and relieving the economic burden on ordinary citizens. If you listen closely, infrastructure and economic development mean little if citizens cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, afford basic necessities or access functioning public services. Like a young James Orengo. Kang’ata seems to be more interested in how the country creates wealth. Sifuna is more interested in how the state wields its power, manages public resources and serves its citizens. I think both men mean well for the country, but those differences become important when you move from political philosophy to actual governance. They have a priority problem. A nation needs both the capacity to create wealth and institutions that prevent that wealth from being captured by a few. Agreeing on what kind of Kenya you want is the easy part. The kizungumkuti is agreeing on what must be sacrificed, funded or postponed to build it.