Audio By Vocalize
As National Assembly’s Finance and Planning Committee conducted the first phase of public participation on the government’s proposed partial divestiture from Safaricom Plc, Kenyans asked deeper questions about fairness, trust, and whose priorities shape national decisions.
Across counties, two concerns emerged repeatedly. The first one was why proceeds from the divestiture should be ring-fenced for infrastructure projects widely perceived as Nairobi-centric, rather than distributed across all 47 counties using the Equitable Share Allocation formula. The second concern was why the government should prioritise long-term infrastructure financing when healthcare and education sectors, with immediate and tangible impact on citizens’ lives continue to suffer major funding shortfalls.
As a scholar of public trust in government, I would argue that such questions may sometimes be framed as resistance to sound economic planning, but that interpretation misses the point. Notably, what citizens are articulating is not ignorance of investment logic but a demand for legitimacy. In doing so, the citizens are rightfully questioning the rules of allocation and not necessarily rejecting development itself.
Safaricom is widely seen as a national asset and therefore its success has been built on consumers, workers, and even public infrastructure drawn from across the country. This is why citizens in counties far from Nairobi are asking why proceeds from its partial sale should primarily fund projects concentrated in the capital and its surroundings. A question of this nature also suggests a claim about belonging and citizens’ view of the Equitable Share formula as a constitutional symbol of inclusion, as opposed to simply a technical mechanism for allocating public resources. This is why some people might rightfully see a departure from the revenue sharing formula without convincing justification as a signal about whose voices count.
Another concern pertains to the proposed government plan to use proceeds from the divestiture to fund long-term infrastructure over urgent social spending. Here, households confronting overcrowded classrooms, understaffed hospitals and delayed medical supplies, might see the promise of future benefits from infrastructure as problematic.
This is where the debate shifts from economics to governance as public trust is not built by announcing rational policies alone. It is instead built through processes that citizens recognise as fair, inclusive and responsive to their lived experiences. Also, if citizens do not feel that their decisions can influence allocation of public resources or if outcomes appear pre-determined, any public participation processes can feel performative rather than meaningful.
This is also why calls to revisit the proposed 90:10 split between infrastructure funding and the Sovereign Wealth Fund, or to introduce a third allocation for social spending, should be understood in this light. It is also important to note that these are not demands for fiscal recklessness but are proposals for a more balanced social contract between the government and the citizens. This also reflects a widely held intuition that development must invest not only in physical assets, but also in people and therefore neglecting the immediate social needs undermines the very trust required to sustain long-term growth strategies.
Another point to remember is that Kenya’s constitutional commitment to public participation was never intended to reduce citizens to passive audiences. They are supposed to shape outcomes, not to simply legitimise already made decisions. Thus, when citizens question allocation formulas or spending priorities, they are simply exercising democratic agency and not necessarily obstructing progress.
Failure to consider citizens’ concerns therefore risks eroding citizen trust in government and can reinforce perceptions that participation is symbolic, or that development is something done to citizens rather than with them. Over time, this can also breed outcomes such as cynicism, or disengagement and resistance which can be costlier than revisiting an allocation framework or adjusting budget priorities.
This is why the Safaricom divestiture debate should be seen as an opportunity instead of an inconvenience. It also offers policymakers a chance to demonstrate that public participation matters, and that national assets are governed in ways that reflect national values, and that development is both an economic and moral project.
The government must show that it not only listens, but that listening changes decisions in line with the voices of its citizens.
Kimani is an Associate Professor at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
As National Assembly’s Finance and Planning Committee conducted the first phase of public participation on the government’s proposed partial divestiture from Safaricom Plc, Kenyans asked deeper questions about fairness, trust, and whose priorities shape national decisions.
Across counties, two concerns emerged repeatedly. The first one was why proceeds from the divestiture should be ring-fenced for infrastructure projects widely perceived as Nairobi-centric, rather than distributed across all 47 counties using the Equitable Share Allocation formula. The second concern was why the government should prioritise long-term infrastructure financing when healthcare and education sectors, with immediate and tangible impact on citizens’ lives continue to suffer major funding shortfalls.
As a scholar of public trust in government, I would argue that such questions may sometimes be framed as resistance to sound economic planning, but that interpretation misses the point. Notably, what citizens are articulating is not ignorance of investment logic but a demand for legitimacy. In doing so, the citizens are rightfully questioning the rules of allocation and not necessarily rejecting development itself.
Safaricom is widely seen as a national asset and therefore its success has been built on consumers, workers, and even public infrastructure drawn from across the country. This is why citizens in counties far from Nairobi are asking why proceeds from its partial sale should primarily fund projects concentrated in the capital and its surroundings. A question of this nature also suggests a claim about belonging and citizens’ view of the Equitable Share formula as a constitutional symbol of inclusion, as opposed to simply a technical mechanism for allocating public resources. This is why some people might rightfully see a departure from the revenue sharing formula without convincing justification as a signal about whose voices count.
Another concern pertains to the proposed government plan to use proceeds from the divestiture to fund long-term infrastructure over urgent social spending. Here, households confronting overcrowded classrooms, understaffed hospitals and delayed medical supplies, might see the promise of future benefits from infrastructure as problematic.
This is where the debate shifts from economics to governance as public trust is not built by announcing rational policies alone. It is instead built through processes that citizens recognise as fair, inclusive and responsive to their lived experiences. Also, if citizens do not feel that their decisions can influence allocation of public resources or if outcomes appear pre-determined, any public participation processes can feel performative rather than meaningful.
This is also why calls to revisit the proposed 90:10 split between infrastructure funding and the Sovereign Wealth Fund, or to introduce a third allocation for social spending, should be understood in this light. It is also important to note that these are not demands for fiscal recklessness but are proposals for a more balanced social contract between the government and the citizens. This also reflects a widely held intuition that development must invest not only in physical assets, but also in people and therefore neglecting the immediate social needs undermines the very trust required to sustain long-term growth strategies.
Another point to remember is that Kenya’s constitutional commitment to public participation was never intended to reduce citizens to passive audiences. They are supposed to shape outcomes, not to simply legitimise already made decisions. Thus, when citizens question allocation formulas or spending priorities, they are simply exercising democratic agency and not necessarily obstructing progress.
Failure to consider citizens’ concerns therefore risks eroding citizen trust in government and can reinforce perceptions that participation is symbolic, or that development is something done to citizens rather than with them. Over time, this can also breed outcomes such as cynicism, or disengagement and resistance which can be costlier than revisiting an allocation framework or adjusting budget priorities.
This is why the Safaricom divestiture debate should be seen as an opportunity instead of an inconvenience. It also offers policymakers a chance to demonstrate that public participation matters, and that national assets are governed in ways that reflect national values, and that development is both an economic and moral project.
The government must show that it not only listens, but that listening changes decisions in line with the voices of its citizens.
Kimani is an Associate Professor at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Danson Kimani