Kenyans enacted chapter eleven of the Constitution establishing devolution against the backdrop of a national government that allocated resources based on political considerations. Upon the establishment of the 47 county governments, the Constitution empowered the people with the authority to govern themselves and participate in decision-making processes on matters that affect them directly without acquiescing the Nairobi mandarins that thrive in controlling resources for political and self-aggrandisement reasons. In summary, devolution remains the biggest achievement under the current constitutional dispensation.
Decades down the line, it’s disheartening that devolution is implicitly sabotaged by the powers that be in Nairobi. Governors have lamented about insufficient disbursement of funds to county governments. The most compelling lamentation came from Kisumu Governor Anyang’ Nyong’o who accused President William Ruto of taking the country “back to pre-devolution times of the Nyayo era.” The ODM Secretary General, Senator Edwin Sifuna, compounded these lamentations by accusing the President of being an “enemy of devolution.”
In my view, Dr Ruto’s political manoeuvres and governance philosophy illustrate a preference for a strong centralised system of government that controls public resources. This preference gives him substantial influence over administrative decisions, resource allocation, and policy implementation. Ruto’s inclination towards centralised governance can be attributed to his insatiable appetite to consolidate power, which he believes is essential for not only advancing his political interests but also for garnering loyalty among other political leaders, including governors and general populace.
Be that as it may, centralised government is detrimental to the people because it promotes bureaucratic inefficiency and wanton theft of public resources. When power is concentrated in a central authority, decision making is slow and cumbersome due to layers of bureaucracy, resulting in a disconnect between the government and local communities. Devolution has a better understanding of the unique challenges faced by their communities which are oblivious to the centralised authority.
Since time immemorial, national government has fostered corruption and mismanagement of resources as evidenced by a small group of individuals who hold power over significant resources, resulting in misappropriation and sheer theft. This risk is exacerbated by a political climate where loyalty is prioritised over merit as seen in Ruto’s strategy of attracting allegiance from various leaders through resource control. Such a dynamic not only hampers transparency but also diminishes public trust in government institutions.
In contrast, devolution promotes distribution of power and resources to devolved governments. Decentralisation of power and resources is a pathway to enhancing democratic governance, accountability, and responsiveness to the needs of citizens. The United States is a testament to what devolution can achieve. The US has historically leveraged its federal structure to promote local governance, which facilitate diverse economic strategies tailored to regional strengths and needs.
Furthermore, devolution enables local leaders to implement policies that directly address their communities’ specific challenges. For example, county governments can allocate resources efficiently to improve infrastructure, agriculture, and health care – key functions of the devolved government that have been systematically undermined by insufficient allocation of resources. With sufficient funds, local governments can adopt varied economic policies that attract businesses and investments, leading to job creation and improved standards of living. In contrast, Ruto’s preference for centralised governance imposes uniform policies that do not account for the distinct economic landscapes across counties, resulting in lost opportunities for growth.
By Jacktone Ambuka