Wikipedia defines Devolution as the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. Devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving areas a budget which was formerly administered by central government. However, the power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted.
Chapters eight, nine, ten, and eleven establish the structure of the Kenyan government. The government of Kenya consists of The Legislature, The Executive, The Judiciary, and The Devolved Governments.
Kenya is reeling from bad governance and unitary economic exploits that have been favoring individuals at the expense of the greater majority for 48 years now. The presidency has been very powerful and seen as a financial magnate to tycoons in search of favors and this has been a humble aboard for tribalism and nepotism. The political tensions that have been witnessed in Kenya are as a result of unequal distribution of natural resources which has contributed to high poverty levels amidst a high population increase in the country. Currently, the cost of living has sky rocketed behind a backdrop of high inflation rates. The situation has also been grim to the businessmen and women in the country as a result of the unstable shilling. The marginalization of other regions in the country such as the Coast and North Eastern provinces has reduced the residents of the regions to mere beggars and squatters in their own country. Bad governance has been a cancer that is eating up the country form Mandera, Malindi, Turkana and is now moving closer to the nervous system of the country Nairobi. The only way to trim this at the bud is through devolution in terms of political and economic decentralization to units at the grass root levels.
Before the constitutional referendum in 2010, there was much debate whether devolution will lead to a more equitable distribution of resources throughout the country. It was argued that a centralized, unitary system is more suited to equitable distribution and even development than a regional system, as the former collects and can distribute revenue and resources without the encumbrance of regional powers, politics and institutions. The practice, at least in Kenya, with the dominance of ethnic politics and of elites who fatten on state resources, does not bear this out.
According to Yash Ghai, former constitution review Chairman, Centralization had led to the concentration of economic activity in and around the capital city. A huge proportion of the GDP is produced in Nairobi, and a disproportionate expenditure and the consumption of goods take place there, certainly greater than the rest of the country put together. There has been little re-distribution to the poorer parts such as the North East Province (and potential of the development of economic activity, especially regarding the livestock industry, has been frustrated by favoring abattoirs further south). Nairobi continues to be magnet which draws investors and the unemployed alike.
In the absence of regional politics and institutions where regions can make them heard and taken notice of, the government and these elite have little reason to distribute resources away from their charmed circle. Both in the CKRC and Bomas, great attention was given to mechanisms of equitable distribution and even development through devolution—in the way taxation powers were allocated, the enunciation of principles of equalization and the design and functions of the fiscal commission with the primary responsibility for distribution. This scheme would have placed constitutional and legal obligations on the government to re-distribute state resources. The composition of the second chamber would have given regions clout in the central government through the representation of regional governments. The development of regional governments would exert pressures on the central government to pay more attention to the concern and aspirations of people outside Nairobi.
The redistribution that the scheme for devolution would promote is necessary not only in the interests of social justice but also for the promotion of a sense of nationalism. Nationalism is inevitably weakened or challenged if there are gross regional disparities. The people of the North East, who have suffered neglect or discrimination throughout the modern history of Kenya and consequently feel left out. Regional policies through devolution would integrate its people socially, economically and politically with the rest of the country.
Most recently, there is a push by some pockets of the legislature to weaken the devolution system tactfully by trying to put a motion to scrap of the senate due to its cost implications. Ironically, a good number of these MPs do not pay taxes as other ordinary law abiding citizens. From their spirited efforts not to pay taxes and to increase their salaries at will and wish, it is foolhardy to believe that these ‘honorables’ have the country’s interests at heart. I deliberately refuse to stick to such a discourse due to its myopic and gluttonous nature, instead take you through African states that have tried to embrace devolution.
Decentralized governance is increasingly being favored by many African countries as the most suitable mode of governance through which poverty reduction interventions can be conceived, planned, implemented, monitored and evaluated. Many hope that the process of decentralization will facilitate greater participation of communities in problem analysis, project identification, planning, implementation as well as oversight which in turn will increase ownership and the likelihood of sustainability of such initiatives.
In some of the African countries, the rationale behind devolution was in response to the political and economic problems in their history. For instance, in South Africa, promoting local governments was aimed at “rebuilding local communities and environments, as the basis for a democratic, integrated, prosperous and truly non-racial society” following the trauma of apartheid in the country. In Rwanda decentralization was to “provide a structural arrangement for government and the people of Rwanda to fight poverty at close range, and to enhance their reconciliation through the empowerment of local populations” following the trauma of the genocide of 1994. In Uganda decentralization is “a democratic reform, which seeks to transfer political, administrative, financial and planning authority from central government to local government councils and to promote popular participation, empower local people to make their own decisions and enhance accountability and responsibility ”following the brutal and ineffective regimes of Idi Amin (1971 -1979) and the Obote II regime (1981-1986).
According to John-Mary Kauzya, the Chief of Governance and Public Administration Branch -United Nation, Political empowerment, economic development, improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services, ownership of local programs by local people, participation of the people in planning and implementation of development activities as well as improvement in democracy and accountability are common household terms in the decentralization policy of the three countries.
Political leaders opposed to majimbo say that it would balkanize the country, promote ethnicity and ignite land clashes (which given their rhetoric, could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy). Moi now opposes majimbo, although his own rise to political power was tied to the advocacy of majimbo at independence and KANU proposed strong provincial government to the CKRC. He says that the people had rejected the Bomas draft; whereas the truth is that it was the Wako draft, bereft of the devolution provisions of the Bomas draft, that the people rejected—and perhaps for that very reason. Mutula Kilonzo, on this point at odds with his leader, says that federalism would tear the country apart.
It is should be instructive for those elements in government against or unsure about devolution, to heed to the call by Kenyans who overwhelmingly supported the new Constitution that they are ready to pay the price for devolution in Kenya. They should follow the spirit of the new Constitution to the latter.
 |
| Farmer picking tea in Nyayo |
Kenyan are aware that devolution can also lead to more rapid and more balanced economic and social development. The centralized system, with the concentration of all government institutions and decision making in Nairobi, leads to the concentration of economic activities in the capital city area. It leads, more generally, to uneven development and growing disparities of economic opportunities. This results in the impoverishment of many regions and communities—and the drift towards urban areas, particularly Nairobi. With regional and district governments spread throughout the country, there would be greater incentives and opportunities for economic and social development outside Nairobi, as these governments take their responsibility for the welfare and development of their constituents. There will emerge new centers of growth, in which people have opportunities of investment and employment.
