Yes, wider participation in planning would have made difference in Kwale

By Anyang’ Nyong’o
[email protected]

If only we were all faithful to the Constitution of Kenya we would implement devolution without much ado. At the moment, however, moments arise when partners in the governing of the republic of Kenya find themselves engaged in disagreements which amount to “much ado about nothing,” save for their ignorance and complete misapplication of powers granted under the Constitution. Why, may I ask, was the recent conference in Kwale organised without proper preparation and with complete lack of consultation among the partners in the devolved governance system?

Mark you, I am talking about the devolved governance system and not just one executive branch of that system headed by the governor. Article 6 (2) of the Constitution states that “the governments at the national and county levels are distinct and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation.” Nothing could be clearer. Article 10 (1) further states that “the national values and principles of governance in this Article bind all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them (c) makes or implements public policy decisions.” And Article 10 (2) lists these national values of governance to include, inter alia, “sharing and devolution of power as well as inclusiveness”.

The key partners in the devolved system of Government are, at county level, the following: the County Executive, County Legislature and citizens of the county. At the national level they are the following: National Government, the Senate and the Judiciary.

A conference organised to evaluate devolution one year after its debut ought to have been conceptualised, prepared for and executed by all the partners in the devolved system of Government. What happened, however, is that the governors did all the work and then invited their partners merely as participants in the conference itself, playing roles designated to them by the organisers. The principle of “inclusiveness” was sidestepped and partners reduced to the benevolence and paternalism of the governors. As a matter of principle and respect for constitutional governance we as Senators found this to be rather unpalatable. So what did we do?

First, the Senate was not invited to the conference as an institution: individual senators received individual letters, with the programme attached, to attend the conference.

We, therefore, proceeded to inquire from the Speaker whether his office had any knowledge of the conference in terms of its conception, preparation and execution.

The answer came in the negative.

We made it quite clear that such a conference should be based on the institutions that drive devolution and not any of us as individuals. We were also rather concerned about the absence of a conceptual framework for the conference stating the objectives, content and intended outcome. That kind of conceptual framework would have informed the nature of participation and the various issues and subject matters to be addressed.

Second, given the very short period of two weeks between when we received the letters and when the conference was to be held, we requested the Speaker to ask the conference organisers to postpone the event to allow for sufficient consultation among the parties involved, that is, the county governments, the national Government and the Senate.

This proved impossible as the organisers were determined to proceed with the conference as planned. We, therefore, decided that the Senate would not add much value to the conference given our profound dissatisfaction with the conceptualisation, content and intended outcome of the conference. A consultation with the organisers prior to “going ahead with the conference” would have helped tremendously.

That never happened. Third, editorials and media commentaries on the conference have tended to blame non-attendance by some partners as indicators of their indifference to devolution.

Speaking for myself in particular and the Senate in general, I will emphasise that the manner in which that conference was organised precluded our participation ab initio. I am used to attending conferences, local and international, which take participation as an important part of success and not simply as a ritual.

The success of this conference should have been based on the buy-in by all the partners right from the beginning when it was conceptualised.

Fourth, it turns out now that the organisers gave premium to “ownership” and “claim to credit” as perhaps having been more important than inclusiveness and a “win-win” outcome. From the conference success should have been based on a more shared platform on understanding the problems of devolution, a corporate approach to problem solution and synergy in the implementation of the diverse strategic plans of the counties which could as well require regional synchrony rather than county solo approaches.

But such outcomes could only have been broached were they to have been conceptualised earlier while preparing for the discourses at the conference.

But let us not cry over spilt milk. Where do we go from here? I suggest, first, a meeting of all the governors and senators in the not-too-distant future, most preferably before June. There are burning issues we have been pushing under the carpet while a few engage in shadow boxing.

I also suggest a small team from both sides to sit down and conceptualise the content, participation and intended outcome of such an encounter before it is held.

Let it not be a boring ritual but a real working encounter. This will then be followed by a serious meeting with the National Executive prepared in a similar serious manner.

That does not, however, mean we shall sort out all the differences and controversies in one sitting. But we shall at least agree on a framework and process of handling such differences and conflicts, which is what governing is about. In any case, the Constitution itself has ingrained in it some of these contradictions.

We need to jointly discuss them and know how best to implement devolution under such circumstances.