Why Senators must ensure the law is upheld

The Senate’s fury is understandable and justified. The Senators must bite the bullet to claim their mandate slowly being eroded by the unholy trinity of the National Assembly, the Executive and the Judiciary. It is in the long-term interests of this nation that the bicameral institution is entrenched fully.

It was not created in vain; CKRC worked every part of this country and engaged all Kenyans in arriving at this decision.

Kenyans have a short memory; even without devolution, we wanted checks, sort of a quality control, on what many considered a rogue National Assembly, riding roughshod on the country. In most bicameral jurisdictions, that’s precisely what the Senate does in the legislative process.

But for our country, an even more imperative case is devolution that demands checks on the Executive too, to ensure counties get what is their right, and are not trampled upon. That’s why every county, irrespective of its size has one senator; this equality is common in all countries.

And the reason is easy to comprehend — to ensure equitable sharing of resources, including political appointments, revenue sharing and development programmes. In most countries, the mandate of the Senate includes vetting political appointments to ensure equity among all regions. They examine national budgets and programmes too, to ensure equitable development of all counties. When our MPs wrote our constitution, they selfishly conferred some of these mandates on themselves, and hardly do they execute them effectively.

The Senate should have strong powers in order to represent counties effectively. A weak senate cannot adequately represent the interests of the counties, and will ultimately lead to collapse of the devolved governments. I have been in Mexico and the imperative for a strong senate that owes its allegiance to the devolved units is undeniable. In 1957, they reverted to federalism with bicameral system after abandoning it in 1936. Reason — the centralised system denied the country equitable development. And the senate provided that voice at federal level that checked every law, policy or programme to ensure that interests of the devolved units are taken care of. Yet, decades later, the functions of payment of teachers salaries, and the procurement of medical supplies and drugs is being reverted to the federal government for a number of reasons. What would stop our Executive from doing the same through a subservient lower House if the Senate did not exist?

It is a pity that National Assembly members, some from underprivileged counties, are pennywise and pound-foolish even in resource allocation. Their utter indifference to the interests of their counties gives the Senate every reason to be assertive in their mandate to ensure that the interests of counties are not ‘mortgaged’ to the national government by these unwitty MPs. Many of these people do not appreciate the merits of a bicameral system, especially in a nation where roadside declarations and political patronage by the Executive is a rule rather than an exception.

There are many challenges our counties face, not in the least duplication of functions by a reluctant executive, and inadequate resource allocation by a bully National Assembly that thinks sending money to counties at all is a waste! And now, the same House would want to enact legislations that affect counties and their residents without their input. If the MPs had good faith, why resist the review of their bills by the senate?

The senate must take whatever action is necessary to protect the interests of counties, including protecting its turf at all costs. Going to the courts is a key step but is not enough. Flirting around with the Executive is not an option either because of political party expediency. Ultimately, the solution will be to strengthen the senate, and the bi-partisan opportunity is on the table, now. As senators, we owe it to posterity to go the whole hog!