State wastes your sweat, asks for more

The task force that conducted a socio-economic audit of the 2010 Constitution has just released its interim findings. The audit was ordered after Treasury's budget was cut by more than Sh5.3billion.These 'savings' were, apparently, redirected to finance MPs' mortgage and car loan schemes.

Before we get into the details of the interim report, prepared by the team chaired by the auditor general and convened by the National Assembly's Budget and Appropriations Committee, let us examine a few not-so-fun facts. Various ministries serving public interest had their budgets cut by significant amounts in order to finance a few individuals' hankering for a comfortable existence, at the electorate's expense.

The cost of the audit was Sh80 million, which will only turn into a farce if the report is shelved, applied arbitrarily or used for suspect initiatives as is wont to happen. Already, there are ecstatic proclamations of the findings, influencing the call for an addition of funds to the counties. I'm not one to reject calls for devolution of more funds, especially when the intentions are to serve the public better. However, I abhor wastefulness and profligacy with every fibre of my being. While the naysayers continue to battle the eternal optimists on the efficacy of devolution thus far, a few things are clear.

Devolution has brought with it some gains in different sectors, by making certain services more accessible to the populace. However, and I could shout this from the rooftops with utmost conviction, the gains are considerably removed from the financial resources that have been expended in this initiative.

Far from increasing accessibility to the country residents, devolution has become a hot bed for anyone who has ever wanted to make a quick buck to take advantage of the kinks in the system. The most recent report that showed unused Sh288 billion development cash lying idle, backed by assertions of unsatisfactory ministry performance, only proves our misgivings right.

Further, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission rated devolution at four out of 10, citing more effort going to supremacy battles and politicking than to service delivery. At the heart of it, the overwhelming attention to personal remuneration has continued to take centre-stage, with demands for higher pay being made even before positions are taken up.

I recall not too long ago when it was proposed that certain conditions be fulfilled before the release of additional funds for initiatives. Of course, a predictable lack of buy-in put paid to an arrangement which would have made it possible for the public to be conversant with the real progress of devolution. The non-existent culture of servant leadership aside, I know of no institution on earth other than government (well, governments of developing countries) where being ineffectual is rewarded with pay rise, perks and the power to lead.

The report, at the behest of Parliament, recommends the laying off of 145 MPs, 1,110 MCAs and 60,000 government employees. It apparently recommends giving those who are left in service a hefty pay increase to create a lean and well paid public service. That assertion is as funny as it is mythical. What are the chances that the lawmakers who demand more money before commencement of work will actually pass the marching orders for their own dockets?

Second, here is a lesson in HR 101. Firing staff and subsequently ordering a hefty pay rise for the remaining staff does NOT create a lean or performance-based culture. Money does not come before a demonstration of capability and stellar performance. It makes more sense to rationalise the pay for the remaining staff as well as putting them on strict performance-based contracts. For those pontificating that firing 60,200 civil servants will create more unemployment, yes I do agree on that count.

However, continuing to maintain an inefficient, bloated workforce is a disservice to the larger public and promotes wastage of resources that could be put to better use. Another proposal that receives my wholehearted support is that which bars individuals with integrity issues from contesting for elective posts. However, it will be imperative that 'integrity issues' are clearly defined and the parameters cast in stone.

Without this, there is a possibility that the norm in Africa where insufficient evidence and inadequate investigations create too many grey areas to support any real action. While this proposal calls for the EACC to be allowed more powers to enforce compliance, the anti-graft agency has become tainted by its own improprieties and is fast losing public trust.

Other proposals the task force made include affirmative action by boosting gender balance to improve governance participation, the abolishment of direct election to certain positions and allowing presidential candidates to vie for other slots concurrently. All in all, the good news is that the findings of the interim report have been released to the public and, even though the team is reluctant to draw parallels, we as the populace are smart enough to read between the lines.

The bad news? I have doubts as to which of these proposals will be passed into law. Does anyone think otherwise?