Picking from the previous post and still on public finances, accountability
in the use of resources was expected to be and has indeed been a challenge.
There have been cases of corruption in almost every county and sector. How do we ensure that the county leaderships do not run
the county accounts dry? especially as they prepare for next elections? What about those who do not expect to win the
elections and thus are trying to recoup their cash by whatever means. Yet the capacity and role of the
respective county assemblies to provide has not been as strong in dealing with
oversight issues. In a rising practice of perdiemocracy
(where all public engagements are reduced to what brings perdiem/allowances
i.e. travel, meetings out of duty station, unnecessary meetings) and tenderprenuership (the angling through
proxies for public contracts by public officials who should not benefit from
such) how do we ensure that the MCAs and key county officials rise above. Are
the County Assemblies as currently constituted able to execute their oversight
role? Do they have the necessary capacity? Do they have the necessary incentive
and public pressure to conduct their work without fear and favour? I hold the
view that one of the ways to address corruption is to reduce the premium placed
on elective and senior appointed offices in the public sector. That would
reduce the resources one has to spend to get to these positions. These are
critical questions that we need to reflect on as we enter into the fourth year
of devolved government. Finances will remain limited buts it’s the commitment
to get the most out of what we have that will see us develop our country.
At an operational level in
county governments, it was expected that there would be an urgent matter of clarifying
who was responsible for what. This was at different levels, between the county and national government ministries and
agencies, between county government and constituency development fund, and
between the county executive and county assembly. Coming from a regime where
legislators were actively involved in service delivery (through CDF and LATF)
and without clear information for those aspiring for this positions we foresaw a
conflict in at least four lines: between County Assembly Members and Governor; Governor and MPs (who
were likely to continue to influence CDF); Governor and Officers of the National
Government; and Governors and Non-State Actors who provide certain services especially
should governors want to exercise control over who operates in their
jurisdictions. Notably the intergovernmental frameworks in place do not bring on board MPs and NSAs in discussing devolution matters.
In what one can call a
system keen on putting enough checks and balances, the constitution of Kenya
created numerous institutions at national and county level. As such
coordination is proving to be a big challenge. We
have in mind the various commissions; will each of them have an office in each
county? Or how will they operate and who meets their costs? Secondly is the
coordination between County Governments and State Coorporations and Semi
Autonomous Government Agencies (SAGAs) in the various sectors whose core
functions have been devolved. For instance how will National Cereal and Produce
Board (NCPB) work with all counties to ensure that there is sufficient grain
reserve? And do counties decide how and where to sell their grains as well as
import if they so wish? This are the questions receiving silent treatment as each body seeks to maintain its former jursidiction and leading to county governments crying foul.
The awareness and capacity
of the public to effectively participate in governance of their areas remains
wanting. Not only is there inadequate information on devolution and the roles
of county governments and the elected representatives among the citizens is a
worrying concern. The process of rolling out a comprehensive civic education
programme has been long and patchy at best. With such a lacuna the public is
left to the mercy of sensational news items of all that is not going right.
This presents a challenge when it comes to demanding for accountability from
the elected leaders as the citizen can best demand for transparency and
accountability when they are fully informed and ready to engage meaningfully
with their county governments. I think not all persons in key positions want
the public educated as that would expose their true roles and hence greater
demands, but even then there must be action from those keen for a functional
system.
A final and in no way the
least challenge is around further decentralization within county governments.
While the main attention is on the transfer of power, functions and resources
from National to County Governments, there is a danger that we may have created
new “central governments” based at county headquarters. The County Government
Act 2012 and Cities and Urban Areas Act 2012 provide mechanisms for further
decentralization within counties. The persons responsible at these units are to
be appointed by the governor and County Public Service Boards. They also need
to be facilitated with enough resources to carry out their work. There is not
much we are hearing on this and yet it will determine how well services reach
the people at the lowest level. The process of establishing and gazetting the
units of further decentralization needs to be on top of County Assembly
agendas. Infact if the current county governments will be of value in posterity
then they should ensure they establish this mechanisms of moving services
closer to the people.
