Karl Marx’s haves and have-nots and Kenya’s development planning

In the last few weeks, the media has been awash with accusations and counter accusations on which parts of Kenya are more developed than the others.

It appears there is jostling for more resources by leaders in favour of their regions. What the national government needs to do is fairly allocate resources to increase equity. In the early 1960s, immediately after independence, many Kenyans had no idea how planning in government was done.

There were no provisions for public participation, and most development plans by the government were drawn from the centre. Much has changed since then. Today, many Kenyans, including those in far-flung regions such as Turkana and Mandera, can easily access information and know what is going on. They will read and hear about billions of shillings looted.

Walking along corridors of power, I often hear whispers of how implementation of national projects is influenced by unscrupulous business persons who influence government bureaucrats to plan where and how projects are to be implemented.

All these insults and noise we make at each other have no impact on how business is conducted in matters related to development planning.

Most Kenyans, including elected leaders, have no idea how the Sh3 trillion in the national budget is spent and exactly who benefits from it. Clearly, there are extremely wealthy people who take home much of it at the expense of the majority.

The proletariat

This reminds me of Karl Marx’s dichotomy of the haves and have-nots. For example, there are people in Nairobi who are even poorer than their compatriots in Samburu County.

What we actually have in Kenya more than anything else is a clash of two classes-the haves and have-nots, or, as Karl Marx would have it, the proletariat (the working class who do not own any wealth) and bourgeoisie (wealth owners.)   

There is no doubt that poverty cuts across all regions, albeit worse in some areas than others. The bottom line is that the ruling class has always conspired to ensure the poor remain poor. The noise coming from politicians now arguing about which area is more marginalized than the other is therefore misplaced. Our challenge lies more in who controls the instruments of power and how fair he or she is.

Generally, Kenyans are captives of the political class. There is hardly any room for the majority of Kenyans to understand the complexity of their plight.

The perception of underdevelopment therefore comes from lack of sufficient dissemination of information to the public at the planning level.

The poor and those who have no access to the corridors of power are definitely marginalised. Northern Kenya is worse off because of its geographical distance from corridors of power. Having been absent from decision making structures, more than 50 years of exclusion makes the region even poorer.

Access

If the poor people in one region want to be included in decision-making processes at the national level, they need to form an alliance with poor people in other regions, including those in areas perceived to be better developed. Development, other than infrastructure and amenities, is also about access to affordable health care, clean water and quality education; it is also about empowerment and access to the right information.  

Majority of Kenyans have a challenge accessing these services and sometimes do not even know where to get them. While it is true that most of us share these challenges, the situation is even worse for the people in Northern Kenya.

As the national government starts the process of planning the next budgetary cycle, all marginalised Kenyans, regardless of their geographical location, need to join hands and start ways of actively participating in development plans. If this is not done, the danger of exclusion looms larger.

Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto said, ‘The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious Independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the intense majority.’ The poor in Kenya are facing a similar predicament.

They have no choice but to unite. Judging from the talk of plans to share power in the next general election and the entire concept of building bridges, the interests of the poor are obviously not catered for. The ruling class and its political dynasties and the plans to hold onto power means nothing much will change in terms of perception of poverty and marginalization.

Mr Guleid is the Executive Director of the Frontier Counties Development Council