Viewed from Washington DC, the just ending year was not momentous in Kenyan politics as far as the country's political history goes.

In many respects and despite the numerous controversies and shouting matches between the factions contending for power, the year was very normal.

That was not how the previous year ended or how the ending year started.

Government dysfunctional behaviour, compounded by what looked like its groping in the dark for solutions to ill-defined problems characterised that period.

There was genuine fear that the centre might not hold, and if by chance it did not give way, the resultant edifice would be heavily weighted toward authoritarianism of old. In the event, that did not happen.

The system is still fragile but lately it has evinced signs of going somewhere.

The major political question of the year that cast a shadow over much else was whether it was necessary to restructure the political system in order to level the playing field or to let stand the present arrangement.

On one side are the Government and its supporters who see little need for change because the status quo is tilted in their favour.

On the opposite side are those on the outside who want in and who are convinced that as good as their chances of capturing political power are, they would be enhanced by making levelling changes.

In other words, the ending year was all about power, which is the essence of politics. No surprises there.

Following the defeat of the Government side in the constitutional referendum, popular as opposed to structural power shifted to the Opposition under the banner of Orange Democratic Movement.

With referendum wind blowing in their sails, they pressed their advantage. Like a deer in the headlights, the Government was shortly parlayed, but it slowly staggered back to life even as it reeled from a series of mishaps, including the exposure of the so-called mercenaries and its ham handed response to new media for diligently exposing its misdeeds.

As with much else about politics in Kenya, the issues were reduced to personalities. Mr Raila Odinga personifies the Opposition, and internal affairs minister, Mr John Michuki, stands for the forces of ruthless reaction in both meanings of the word.

He carries the reputation of a hatchet man without much care. Calls for him to be fired have gone unheeded by President Mwai Kibaki, a politically astute move contrary to popular opinion. Michuki is the Government's flak-catcher and every government needs one.

Notice that President Kibaki somehow manages to escape blame. Even when mud is lobbed at him directly, it does not appear to stick for any length of time to cause him much discomfort. 2006 was no exception.

Kibaki slowly shed the image of a jaded chief executive with a penchant for ignoring details and for giving his subordinates too much discretion. After his government's rendezvous with the reality of political defeat, he changed tack.

He started throwing punches at his opponents and formed political alliances necessary for his survival. This caught many flatfooted.

Kibaki aim was and remains to realign the political landscape by shoving aside obstacles even if they happen to be his godchildren and by sowing confusion in his enemies' ranks.

He has not let up and he is unlikely to until he crosses the electoral finish line whenever elections will be held.

The opposing forces that have coalesced in ODM have an obvious advantage that they have exploited with uneven results.

They ceaselessly hammered at the Government's record and positioned themselves as bearers of an alternative and better vision.

It is far from certain that the other ODM hopefuls will graciously give way for Raila. The Kibaki crowd is hoping for that outcome.

As they say here in Washington, it helps to have an opponent you can easily define. Raila is easy to define. How well that will work depends on how ODM successfully counter-defines its opponents.

The one thing that seems to have worked in the Government's favour in the ending year was the improvement in the economy.

Toward the end of the year, Kibaki came out boldly to claim authorship and execution of whatever economic positives there has been.

However, riding on economic performance can be a very unsure thing politically.

Just ask President George W Bush. Few would deny that American economy has been expanding at a clip and yet a great many voters do not seem to think that the economy is that rosy.

It boils down to perception as well as how widely the gains are distributed. If the rising economic tide lifts only yachts, no matter how high the tide, those who are untouched by it are unlikely to find it funny.

Throw into the mix a recent opinion poll results and a murky picture emerges. On one hand, the Opposition had made tremendous inroad in painting the Government as a villain that deserves to be thrown out by the electorate; on the other, Kibaki seems to be rising above the antipathy.

Likely voters are sending a very sophisticated political message to power elite, a message that is lost to some: we do not trust either of the main groups to which you belong to take care of our interests, but in the absence to clear alternatives, we shall make it doubly difficult for you to have your way to our detriment.

That electorate may be taking a stand that does not conform to the either/or political paradigm is unsettling to many who fetishsise taking inflexible stands for or against. Sometimes the middle road is the wisest.