(First published on savicltd.wordpress.com)
It is three years down
the line since the inception and operationalization of the aspect of devolution
following the promulgation of the New Constitution in 2010. Devolution is the
most notable tenet that is anchored in the Kenyan Constitution since it
presents a new frontier for socio-economic and political growth and development
through the 47 county governments. It was within the principle of creating and promoting
equality in the distribution of national resources(The National Cake) that
devolution was enshrined in the Constitution.
This week the third
devolution conference was held at Meru the home county of the current
chairperson of the Council of Governors, Peter Munya. The main objective of
this annual event is to evaluate the progress made as far as devolution is concerned
and at the same time reflect on the challenges encountered by the county
governments and if possible provide workable solutions to the challenges.
Majority of Kenyans are
discontented with the pace of devolution. They cite corruption within the
systems of the county governments as the root cause of their pessimism amid
other challenges. Others are just negative in their opinions because it seems
that they are masters of the status quo that centres and borders on centrality
of government.
I believe that
devolution is working and it will continue to work. Look at counties which were
eternally marginalized before the promulgation of the new constitutional
dispensation for instance, Turkana, Mandera, Wajir, West Pokot and others. At
the moment, the residents of these counties can be able to witness
infrastructural development as well as the development of social amenities
which in the medium-term and long-term will improve the socio-economic
conditions of the residents. Holistically, devolution has led to the
construction of roads in regions that had no single kilometer of tarmac roads
for five decades since attaining independence. In addition to the roads, health
centres have been developed albeit the challenge posed by the industrial
strikes by health workers.
The problem with some
of the Kenyans is that they are always negative and pessimistic. What occasions
devolution to appear as if it is a failure if not a disaster is the impatience
exhibited by such individuals. Many had the expectations that once
operationalized, the face of Kenya would instantly change due to the
percolation of resources from the national government to the county governments.
This is not the case
with economic development. The expectation of an economic miracle due to
devolution could not have happened for one single reason. There were no systems
and structures in place to warrant any momentous build-up of the necessary
economic firepower that could trigger instant socio-economic
transmogrification. One may present an argument basing on the now defunct local
authorities/governments as having set a foundation for the county governments
but the mechanisms on which the two operate are totally different.
In fact it may take
another seventeen years before the ‘real’ effect of devolution becomes not just
tangible but absolutely significant as well. This implies the period of time
from 2022 going forward. I am pretty sure that devolution will trigger an
economic spurt that will catapult Kenya’s economic trajectory from one based on
a vicious cycle to one that is anchored on a virtuous cycle. Patience is
therefore important.
In my opinion, however,
the most evident bottlenecks that are dragging devolution include the threats
posed by the scourge of corruption, the bureaucratic fiscal procedures in the
transfer of allocated funds from the national government to the county governments,
political bickering pitting the county chief executives and other elected
leaders and the structural and budgetary miscalculation made by the Governors.
There is no doubt that
corruption poses a very great risk to the foreseen economic take-off
orchestrated by devolution. Corruption in Kenya is intrinsic as well as
systemic. The governance situation which perhaps the policy makers did not
clearly envisage is the devolution of corruption. Effective systems were not
established to check on the possible trickling of corruption to the counties.
Even the county governments themselves have no pristine measures and mechanisms
to ward off corruption. This poses a great risk on the future of the state.
The transfer of the
allocated funds from the central government to the respective county
governments has been inefficient to a larger extent. This has been as a result
of the financial red tapes that are extant. These bureaucratic procedures have
stifled some of the devolved programs. The delay in the disbursement of funds
has contributed to the frequent industrial disputes between the health workers
and the county administrators. Other administrative activities have also been
affected by the shortage of funds created by the fiscal bureaucracy.
The endless politicking
pitting the county chiefs and other elected political leaders is also a threat
to the smooth operation and running of the county governments. The governors
have been embroiled in constant political battles with the Senators, Members of
the National Assembly, Members of the County Assemblies and sometimes even the
Executive of the national government. These leaders have often accused the
Governors of propagating maladministration and allowing malfeasance to persist
within the county governments. Some of the accusations may be true but also
some of the criticism is out of the need to gain political mileage and
political capital. This is outrightly true considering the declarations made
especially by majority of the Senators to vie for the gubernatorial seats.
The major hindrance
towards the prosperity of devolution is undoubtedly the structural and budgetary
misstep made by the county chiefs during the inception of the county
governments. All the Governors blundered by employing many individuals the
result which has been the allocation of more budgetary resources towards
financing the recurrent expenditure and relatively lesser amounts towards the
capital expenditure. In my opinion, there ought to have been the
institutionalization of a budgetary capping for the county governments so that
thresholds for the capital expenditure and recurrent expenditure are
stipulated. This would have laid emphasis on economic development other than on
reckless if not haphazard spending.
Devolution is supposed
to be a frontier for the promotion of inclusion, that is, economic inclusion,
social inclusion, political inclusion and spatial inclusion. The citizenry need
to question how the funds are used implying that transparency and
accountability are primordial. Most of the challenges that are facing county
governments apart from the delayed funding by the national government can be
dealt with by the Governors. This can only happen if they shun rewarding their
cronies, relatives and other associates with strategic positions and
administrative portfolios. They need to focus on getting on board effective and
efficient policy makers to help them stick to the fundamentals of economic
growth and development. But as Kenyans we ought to be optimistic about
devolution and relentlessly question about the use and misuse of funds as this
is one of the surest ways that we can be able to hold the county chiefs
accountable.