New ministry can sabotage Devolution

By Dominic Odipo

Kenya: There are one, two or three things about the new Ministry or Department of Devolution and Planning, which we believe thousands, even millions, of ordinary Kenyans have not understood.

The first is its name. Why has it been designated as the Department of Devolution and Planning and not, say, the Department of Planning and Devolution? Is its core mandate meant to be devolving government to the counties, stifling and frustrating such devolved government or simply non-political national planning, if any such animal exists?

The second is the timing. Is this the best time for creating a Department of Devolution in the national Cabinet just when we are beginning to devolve government to our 47 new counties? Doesn’t a department of Devolution, ipso facto, create the impression that the national Government is trying to hold back devolution for one reason or another?

Starving counties

The third is the funding which will be available to this department. According to the official figures published last week, this department has been allocated just under Sh70 billion for the financial year which, incidentally, begins Monday.

To appreciate the magnitude of this figure, consider what the corresponding funding for some of our counties will be over the same period. The total amount of money which has been allocated to the whole of the former Western Province for this financial year is just over Sh20.56 billion.

Of the four counties in the region, the largest, Kakamega, will receive just over Sh7.35 billion while the smallest, Vihiga, will get just over Sh3.02 billion. Of the remainder, Bungoma will get Sh5.94 billion while Busia will receive Sh4.25 billion.

Meagre allocations

But the department of Devolution, remember, will receive at least Sh68 billion. The six counties in the former Nyanza Province will receive a total of just over Sh28.44 billion. This amount has been shared out as follows:  Siaya Sh3.97 billion; Kisumu Sh4.86 billion; Homa Bay Sh5.72 billion; Migori Sh4.76 billion; Kisii Sh5.82 billion and Nyamira, Sh3.31 billion.

Now take the former Coast Province. The six counties in that region have been allocated a total of just over Sh21.51 billion which has been shared out as follows: Lamu Sh1.60 billion; Taita Taveta Sh2.62 billion; Tana River Sh3.11billion; Kwale Sh4.02 billion; Mombasa Sh4.34 billion; and Kilifi Sh5.82 billion.

This means the total amount of money allocated to the former Western, Nyanza and Coast provinces, which constitute 16 of our counties, is just over Sh70.51 billion, roughly the same amount that has been given to the Department of Devolution, plus or minus only about one billion shillings.

What exactly is going on here? Why is so much money being allocated to a department whose core functions, prima facie, are supposed to be carried out by the county governments themselves? Is there some joker card here that the rest of us are not seeing?

From ancient to modern times, Cabinet making, at both national and regional levels, has always been a highly political process. On many occasions it has been used to destroy, not only high political personages but even higher political programs or agendas.

This is partly why this Devolution docket might turn out to be much bigger than it now looks.

History lessons

Most historians of Cabinet government trace its origins to ancient China which existed as a state in the modern sense of that word as far back as 250 BC under the Emperor Ying Zheng, later known as Qin Shi Huangdi.

By the year 5 BC, when China already had a population of 60 million and about 130,000 working in its civil service, its Cabinet had twelve portfolios including that of chancellor, counselor and commander in chief of all the armed forces.

In his latest book, “The Origins of Political Order”, Francis Fukuyama, the American political scientist, reminds us of this ancient Chinese Cabinet whose legacy, in whole or in part, has permeated almost all later cabinets everywhere.

“Among the most important officials were the superintendent of ceremonials, who was responsible for the rituals performed by the court; the superintendent of the palace, who controlled access to the palace and was responsible for the safety of the emperor and the superintendent of the guards, who commanded the palace guard and the military units in the capital.”

Then Fukuyama adds:

Rational bureaucracy does not necessarily have to serve rational purposes. Among the high offices under the superintendent of ceremonials were directors for music, prayer, sacrificial meats, astrology and divination. The director of astrology advised the emperor on auspicious and inauspicious days for holding events and rituals.”

Indeed, rational Cabinet making does not necessarily have to serve rational purposes. Might there soon be an anti-devolution directorate in the Department of Devolution and Planning but disguised under a more politically correct name?

Let’s wait and see.

The writer is a lecturer and consultant in Nairobi.

[email protected]