Devolution could be a great leap in political, economic development

By Anyang’ Nyong’o

As 2011 draws to an end, I would like to draw the focus of our readers to a subject, which is most likely going to dominate political discourse next year. This is the subject of devolution.

The main question in most people’s minds is whether devolution will make a difference to their lives in their own counties. Will it improve education, health, condition of roads, food on the table and so on.

Let me, however, put the question rather differently: will devolution create newer and better opportunities for the citizens of each county to have more say on how resources are used, decisions made and political power used? Will it therefore lead to newer and better opportunities for these citizens to participate in development, wealth creation and self- improvement?

Until the end of the 1990s the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, was governed as one country with all her four nations--England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales--all falling under the power of Westminster in London. The Parliament in London was the Parliament of the whole of the UK.

In 1997, 1998 and 1999 all this changed. The British Parliament passed laws establishing devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in those years respectively.

Since then the internal conflicts in Northern Ireland caused by demands of separatism have become a thing of the past. The rumblings of Welsh nationalism have been channelled into the local politics in the Welsh Parliament.

And the Scottish Nationalists are now more eager to ensure that Great Britain gives to Scotland enough resources to run local affairs rather than think of a break away republic which may not have enough resources to satisfy the demands of social welfare that the social union within the UK has generated since World War Il.

In fact, reading The Report of The Commission on Scottish Devolution, "Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the UK in the 21st Century," produced in June 2009, one gets the distinct feeling that "devolution" for these three nations was a great leap forward in the social, political and economic development of modern Britain.

One is left to wonder, however, when England herself will get devolved powers! It has to be remembered that the Parliament at Westminster is England’s Parliament as well as the Parliament of the whole of the UK. Hence the rather laid back position of the English over demands for devolution for their own nation. Whatever difficulties the three nations or territories have encountered since the devolution Acts of the late 1990s, few in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would like to turn the clock back on devolution.

The following stick out as significant advantages of living under devolved government in the three nations (for Kenya’s sake read "counties"):-

1. Democratic participation and accountability at the local level.

2. Policies passed by the local Parliaments in the three territories reflect local interests and address these interests more effectively.

3. Policymakers at the local level have better information on the local social and economic environment and have been able to stimulate "sleeping" local potential to contribute more to production and wealth creation.

4. Better lower coordination of policies and activities leading better bench marking of costs as compared to what would have been determined from London in the absence of devolved government.

There are, of course, problems that have arisen with local businessmen, for example, trying to throw their weight around so as to encourage some rent seeking behaviour among local officials in their favour. This has demanded better oversight roles by the devolved government authorities. In other words, corruption can easily be a debilitating menace if not prevented and guarded against right from the beginning.

As we embark on implementing devolved government in the new year, we have a lot to learn from devolution in the UK.

To begin with the problems that the UK has sought to solve through devolution are very similar to ours. Secondly, our system of government, derived essentially from British experience and history, has unfortunately stuck to some practices discarded in the UK.

With the new Constitution we intend not only to catch up with Great Britain in terms of democratizing the structure of the state and its governance practices, but we also want to ensure that the political economy of this change leads to a quantum leap in our development.

We won’t be able to do this unless we thoroughly understand how devolution works in practice and how our local conditions and experience can benefit from those who have travelled along this road.

Fortunately we have friends in the British Isles who will be more than ready to work with us. Take for example how devolved government in Scotland is financed. What lessons can we learn from this? Most of the Scottish Budget comes from a block grant from the UK Parliament paid out of taxes collected from across the UK, including in Scotland herself. This grant is calculated in accordance with the Barnett Formula.

For example, if Westminster increases the UK Health Budget by one billion pounds, it will increase contribution to the Scottish Health Budget by 85 million pounds that year. It is then up to the Scottish Parliament to decide how this money is used.

As we prepare for the work ahead, let us not degenerate into a nihilist discourse of which county is better; it will not help in crafting a healthy national policy on devolved government. We already have the concept of the equalisation fund.

In calculating the repartition of this fund, the National Statistical Authority will be at hand to help just the same way we used it when we were determining the criteria of distributing CDF funds in 2003. We accomplished this with little fanfare and a total embargo on nihilist politics. Let the same spirit reign this time around.

The writer is Minister for Medical Services