Kenya is still a viable project

A recent article by economist David Ndii suggesting it is time for Kenya to spin off its regions into independent nations was an interesting read. His analysis on how regions are so different and how they would prosper if independent was not convincing.

He conveniently left out the fact that they are interdependent and would remain so after their uhuru. He argued persuasively that the regions are so different that they have nothing in common, just like an incompatible couple would find refuge in separation.

Ndii’s suggestion was lopsided; he just focused on the newly-independent states in Europe, from Serbia to Croatia, born through bloodshed unlike Czech Republic or Slovakia that were born peacefully through the velvet revolution. It is an open question whether a separation in Kenya would be velvet or not.

His darling is Switzerland which still has regional differences based on languages. Swiss Cantons are not homogeneous but have learnt to live together and prosper. Singapore is another exception. Coming together, not separating makes more economic sense; evidence from history and common sense shows.

Here are some examples. USA had 13 colonies, when they got their independence from Britain in 1776. They got together and became USA, which later became a superpower. The colonies could have easily become independent states. I doubt if any would be a super power today.

Countries like firms benefit from economies of scale. The bigger the country, the cheaper it becomes to run. Think of Africa, with 52 States, all the armies and replicated institutions and the cost of running the continent. While many factors are blamed for Africa’s lack of progress, there is over governance and lots of resources go into unproductive administration. Are we not complaining of too many counties?

All the economic powers from China to Brazil are big countries. Even closer home in Africa, the two leading economies, South Africa and Nigeria, happen to be big countries.

Why didn’t Ndii suggest that Nigeria be chopped into smaller units, since it has more problems than us?

I think choosing Switzerland to show that small countries work was biased, there are lots of small countries that do not work, particularly in Africa. I do not need to name them out of respect. It is also paradoxical that Ndii suggests that Kenyan should be chopped up, when we are thinking of East African Federation.

Why did he leave out European Union, which is a case study of what happens when union replaces disunity? Interestingly, the new Balkan republics like Croatia all want to be members of European Union.

His argument seems to suggest that if nations are homogeneous, they would prosper. But Somali is very homogeneous in terms of language and religion. Devolution or its various variants like federation is supposed to manage these differences by giving regions some say over their resources and governance.

The problem of chopping Kenya into small uneconomical fiefdoms is that disagreements will not end. Are all couples happier after divorce? Did chopping up Sudan solve her problems? My fear is that the idea of spinning off regions will gain traction with discovery of oil.

The writer’s argument seems to have proceeded from our frustration with devolution which has not delivered on its promises in the shortest time possible. We had predicted that after devolution counties will look for another excuse for lack of economic progress. Suppose we gave devolution time before declaring it hopeless?

It seems to me that the framers of the 2010 Constitution, despite borrowing heavily from USA, which has handled diversity very well, foresaw Ndii and others and left out the explosive issue of secession. Forming counties was easier than making them grow economically. Marrying is easier than building a successful family.

There is no doubt that our differences are surmountable, Americans overcame them and Europeans are doing the same. Interestingly, our differences have created the energies that have widened the democratic space, driven competition and innovations.

The truth is that we never learnt to reduce our differences, like Americans who are so successful in assimilating newcomers. I’m sure you know a friend or a neighbour or relative who ‘disappeared’ in USA.

Luckily, forces beyond our control are addressing our differences from intermarriages to globalisation and capitalism. The affluent have no time to see our tribal differences. Were there any tribal clashes in Runda or Karen? In future, the counties that embrace diversity will prosper. Have you noted how Kenya is ‘browning’ with interracial kids?

I still believe that Kenya is a viable nation, build on our differences, which politicians exaggerate. Ndii’s observation was not unexpected with promises of devolution turning into frustrations.

Yet, devolution was never a magic bullet; the fundamentals have not changed much. Fifty years is long enough a period to forge a nation, but we have emphasised our differences so much that they have blinded us and blocked our road to socio-economic progress. We now think ‘reke tumanwo’ (let’s separate) is a viable solution. That is contestable.