Yesterday will go down as another first for Kenya's fourth president, he was the first sitting president to be accused at the ICC for crimes against humanity and now has had his case dropped as the prosecutor could not find sufficient evidence to sustain a case.
But was Uhuru Kenyatta taken to ICC in the first place. Because no one believed that the Kenyan judicial system had what it takes to give a fair trial for those who bore greatest responsibility for the Post Election Violence of 2007 that left over 1300 persons dead and hundreds displaced. Thus six persons, including his deputy president, William Ruto, were charged. Four are now off the hook and only Ruto and Sang are left.
There has been celebration for those who support the president. While I am not celebrating, I am among those who are not convinced that the ICC process was the right way to handle the issue. Infact I tend to think that ICC was to achieve other goals and the PEV was just but a window of opportunity. That said, and holding that one is innocent until proven guilty, I think the president has a greater challenge. He is president of the victims and perpetrators of the violence. He thus must make sure that justice for both is achieved. Any celebration of his acquittal must be tampered with the sensitivity that there are many whose lives have been affected in ways that are difficult to comprehend. it would be in order that he is seen to make it his goal to ensure that the real perpetrators are brought to book.
This is a hard call, but there must not be created an impression that the means to power does not matter. It does and must always matter, I think.
Greatness is in using your own success to make others successful, and more using the privileges you have to privilege the less privileged.
Kenya shall be changed by ordinary people like you and I who are willing to venture into the uncommon, do things differently and inspire others in the process. Lets join hands in this exciting journey in service to God and Country.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Monday, December 1, 2014
Are we really different or is it a political prank?
I have spent my working life travelling across Kenya
doing research, training and giving talks on various aspects of public
governance. Have been brought up in the cosmopolitan town of Nakuru,
where I spent the first 18 years of my life, I was used to interacting with
persons of different cultures, languages and socio-economic classes. But
listening to people discuss other communities, I imagined that maybe they are
worse off than those they described. So I desired to see those places and
people when I grew up...Growing up I did and got the opportunity to go work in
Nairobi, Central, Nyanza, Northern Rift Valley, Coast and
literally all places.
I have made two observations
First in all the places, those who have means enjoy
the best there is in their place. It does not matter what language, religion or
even political ideology they belong too, they mingle freely, take their children to the same schools, shop in the same
places and patron the same clubs. They have same worries of whether their
wealth is safe and increasing, whether incase they are sick they will get the
best health facilities at their nearest place and whether they will remain in
places of influence. They compete to get a space in the upcoming suburbs where
they can live without disruptions. They are proud to have made it and wonder
why others are not making it. They are never troubled by who gets to power as
long as they have a surety that they will be safe.
On the other hand, the poor and those struggling all
looked the same. They were struggling to put food on the table, to pay rent,
and were engaged in hard labour (though in some places only the women and
children were working). But interestingly, some thought they were in their
situation because one of their own was not in power. But this could not hold in
central province where the current and former president came from, there I was
told that development would finally get to them as long as they ensured their
man remains in power. I wonder if this still holds with county governments
where each community more or less has their own as governor.
So when election 2013 came around, I volunteered in
one of the presidential campaigns and my observations were confirmed. On social
media and in the streets there were all manner of arguements for and against
candidates. To my amazement the candidates and their close allies seemed to
have nothing against each other, they mingled freely and would even spend
evenings making fun of each other’s campaign goofs and tactics.
So I ask, why do the supporters fight when the
contenders seem to be friends in a competition?
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Some Thoughts ob Organizing Public Participation in Kenya's Devolved System
A key promise and gain of Kenya's Constitution is that of Public Participation. The law requires that the public (people and their institutions of self organization) have a right to to access all public information and be consulted on all matters of public policy. But how easy is it to achieve this requirement.
At the onset it is important to acknowledge that participation is both in the National Government and County Government levels. Infact even the Judiciary should facilitate public participation in its work. In my work with various actors on public participation I have come to appreciate the complexity of making it a reality. questions such as what is participation? when can one determine that there is participation? and quality participation? whose view determines the effectiveness, the public or the government?
At this time when various state and non state actors are grappling with how to structure participation a few thoughts may be worth sharing.
1. There is need to appreciate the changed context of public participation. Before it was based on Ministry of Local Government guidelines, now it is in the constitution and the law. It is mandatory and will be enforced. A case in point is the recent judgement on the Kiambu County Finance Act 2013 that was nullified for lack of public participation in the process of its preparation.
2. There is need for an effective framework for ensuring that there is sufficient and effective public participation. The frameworks should be easy to access and use in terms of time, location and cost. While there may be value in making a law on the same in each county, basic administrative guidelines that apply what the Part VIII of County Government Act, 2012, Section 207 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 and the schedules of the Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2011 have already provided for.
3. Planning and Budgeting for public participation is equally important. This should be based on the above framework to ensure coordination. Adhoc and disjointed engagement will lead to public fatigue and wastetage of resources.
4. Access to Information, Public Communication and Civic Education efforts must be tied to the participation framework. Participation is futile without proper information, that is communicated timely and an in an easy to understand format and that the public has capacity to interprate.
5. The governor is required to report on participation by section 92 of the County Government Act. But how shall s/he be able to do so? Shall it be on number of forums organized, number of petitions made or the value added to the process. number of opportunities created for participation is important but what we need to know is what is the effect of such participation on the process. On quality of service? on Accountability and control of corruption? on equity measures? on allocative and spending efficiency? and on cost recovery.
That said, this first five years of devolved government are an experimentation stage. There will false starts, mistakes, successes and great stories. All this should be told and documented.
all said, are we participating in building our country?
At the onset it is important to acknowledge that participation is both in the National Government and County Government levels. Infact even the Judiciary should facilitate public participation in its work. In my work with various actors on public participation I have come to appreciate the complexity of making it a reality. questions such as what is participation? when can one determine that there is participation? and quality participation? whose view determines the effectiveness, the public or the government?
At this time when various state and non state actors are grappling with how to structure participation a few thoughts may be worth sharing.
1. There is need to appreciate the changed context of public participation. Before it was based on Ministry of Local Government guidelines, now it is in the constitution and the law. It is mandatory and will be enforced. A case in point is the recent judgement on the Kiambu County Finance Act 2013 that was nullified for lack of public participation in the process of its preparation.
2. There is need for an effective framework for ensuring that there is sufficient and effective public participation. The frameworks should be easy to access and use in terms of time, location and cost. While there may be value in making a law on the same in each county, basic administrative guidelines that apply what the Part VIII of County Government Act, 2012, Section 207 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 and the schedules of the Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2011 have already provided for.
3. Planning and Budgeting for public participation is equally important. This should be based on the above framework to ensure coordination. Adhoc and disjointed engagement will lead to public fatigue and wastetage of resources.
4. Access to Information, Public Communication and Civic Education efforts must be tied to the participation framework. Participation is futile without proper information, that is communicated timely and an in an easy to understand format and that the public has capacity to interprate.
5. The governor is required to report on participation by section 92 of the County Government Act. But how shall s/he be able to do so? Shall it be on number of forums organized, number of petitions made or the value added to the process. number of opportunities created for participation is important but what we need to know is what is the effect of such participation on the process. On quality of service? on Accountability and control of corruption? on equity measures? on allocative and spending efficiency? and on cost recovery.
That said, this first five years of devolved government are an experimentation stage. There will false starts, mistakes, successes and great stories. All this should be told and documented.
all said, are we participating in building our country?
Friday, March 14, 2014
Some Reflections on Kenya's Devolved System one year later
One year since the devolved system of government was established following elections on 4 March, it is important we ask some questions in self evaluation. In my work around the country I have met people who are extremely excited about devolution and also those who are not sure we needed it. But many are those who argue that it is too early to make judgements as to whether it is working or not. But while some are concerned at the speed at which counties are getting their acts together, I am more concerned about the direction. It is possible to run fast or slow but if the direction is wrong then all the effort ends in futility. But how do we gauge whether we are in the right direction? We return to the basics of why we choose to devolve governance in Kenya.
Why did we choose the devolution system? There are several reasons advanced but my reading is that we devolved for four reasons namely, To address the excesses of centralized government and especially an all powerful executive (read president); to enhance voice of the people in decision making; to take government closer to the people and hence improve service delivery and accountability; and to enhance equity in resource allocation.
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 establishes a devolved system that shares powers and functions between one National Government and 47 County Governments. Their respective functions are assigned by Art 186 and Art 187 and Schedule 4. Thus devolution has to do with shared mandates in appropriating the sovereign power delegated to the national and county governments.
Key questions is to ask,
1. Are both national and county governments working to reduce the excesses of the centralized system? or do we now have 48 "central" governments with the county one being the office of the governors? are we making laws and policies that ensure we are taking service delivery to the lowest level that is practical to do so?
2. is the peoples voice being heard and represented correctly at all levels? can we now participate better with access to information than before?
3. Are public actors accountable for their actions? and is there effort to make this the mode of operation in all levels of governance?
4. Is there equity in resource allocation and service delivery both between and within counties?
5. Are we encouraging innovation in public service so as to meet the needs of our people?
While we cannot see the full results of the this introspection we can by looking at how the national and counties are running, tell if we are headed to the right place. Where we realize all is not well, it may be in order to stop and reflect.
Why did we choose the devolution system? There are several reasons advanced but my reading is that we devolved for four reasons namely, To address the excesses of centralized government and especially an all powerful executive (read president); to enhance voice of the people in decision making; to take government closer to the people and hence improve service delivery and accountability; and to enhance equity in resource allocation.
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 establishes a devolved system that shares powers and functions between one National Government and 47 County Governments. Their respective functions are assigned by Art 186 and Art 187 and Schedule 4. Thus devolution has to do with shared mandates in appropriating the sovereign power delegated to the national and county governments.
Key questions is to ask,
1. Are both national and county governments working to reduce the excesses of the centralized system? or do we now have 48 "central" governments with the county one being the office of the governors? are we making laws and policies that ensure we are taking service delivery to the lowest level that is practical to do so?
2. is the peoples voice being heard and represented correctly at all levels? can we now participate better with access to information than before?
3. Are public actors accountable for their actions? and is there effort to make this the mode of operation in all levels of governance?
4. Is there equity in resource allocation and service delivery both between and within counties?
5. Are we encouraging innovation in public service so as to meet the needs of our people?
While we cannot see the full results of the this introspection we can by looking at how the national and counties are running, tell if we are headed to the right place. Where we realize all is not well, it may be in order to stop and reflect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Some thoughts on future of Universities and Scholarship
It was my pleasure to give input on this topic at the just concluded DAAD Young Scholars in Africa Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya. As one...
-
It was my pleasure to give input on this topic at the just concluded DAAD Young Scholars in Africa Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya. As one...
-
In April 2016 we will congregate in the Meru county for the 3 rd Devolution Conference. There we will reflect on what has become of our n...
-
Happy New Year!! At the beginning of every year I take time to reflect on the state of me. I reflect on who I have become in the past y...