For
several weeks now, we have been treated to a lot of pointless theatrics as the
so called honorable members haggle and bugle over the proverbial “national cake”
All that
has been happening in the name of “watu wetu”, our people.
Am
reminded of this street lingo. One man squanders his cash on Christmas holiday
and a few days later he has nothing for his house rent nor any idea how his
children’s tuition will be paid.
When he
meets a long lost friend who is well of financially in January, (supposedly the
longest month of the year!) the salutation
is an outright sellout and reveals his selfish intentions.
He says,
“Vipi Mkubwa?” Meaning, “how are you big man or tycoon?”
This
kind of conversation is common among folk whose only intent is to get something
from their perceived benefactors.
Most of
these predatory leeches mask their intentions with loud and bubbly chatter that
is meant to massage the brittle egos of their victims so they can cough out a
few quid.
These
conversations begin with words like “Chairman”, “Mzito”, “Boss”, and so on.
The law
indeed, empowers the Senate of the Republic of Kenya under Article 217 (1) of
the Constitution to every five years determine by resolution the basis of revenue allocation to counties.
Image from pexels.com
I
believe the reason why the Senate is thus empowered is because they have
mandate over the counties.
But most importantly, it’s because the factors that
affect revenue allocation as prescribed in the allocation formula by the
Commission for Revenue Allocation keep changing.
The
reality on the ground must therefore be addressed by a new resolution through a
bill in the Senate.
The crafters
of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 I believe, were well-meaning, intelligent and
sober people.
That said, any law that is made to empower a certain group of
people and to disadvantage others either because of their population, position
or perceived influence or lack thereof is a road down the wrong path.
Over the
past weeks, the revenue allocation conundrum has quickly shifted from a
Constitutional mandate accorded to the Senate to a village debate about “whose cow are we eating today?”
Added to
this confusion, is the fact that the Commission for Revenue Allocation is only
mandated by law to make recommendations to the Senate and the National Assembly
in case there’s a bill impacting finances to counties or allocation of such resources.
This is
where the rain began to batter us! The Auditor General and many other credible sources
have raised serious
questions in the past on the role of politicians in managing financial resources.
In my
considered opinion, politicians have neither the capacity nor the will to
manage resources for the benefit of “watu wetu”.
In cases where they have been
allowed mandate over financial resources meant for the very people who elected
them like the CDF, incidents of bias, nepotism, favoritism and outright mismanagement
have been commonplace.
Article 203(1) of the Constitution, lists some
of the criteria that shall be taken into account by the Senate in determining
the equitable share of resources among counties.
Some of
these conditions include:- The
national interest
- Economic
disparities within and among counties and the need to remedy them
- The
need for affirmative action in respect of disadvantaged areas and groups
In consideration of the above, the
cat-and-mouse games that have been happening at the Senate are an indicator of
a loss of vision and focus.
Image courtesy -pexels.com
It is not a consensus building
for “watu wetu” but an opportunity to get whatever one can get regardless of
the impact or repercussions it may have on one county or another.
Devolution is a good concept.
However, our perception of what it’s meant to achieve seems to be erroneous.
And you can imagine if those we elected to oversee such a noble idea are openly
displaying tendencies of bias and division what is the fate of the “watu wetu?”
The original drive towards a devolved
system of government was that the “National Cake” was not getting down to the
people. However, the current debacle over revenue has shifted the issue from a
national focus to a manipulative and divisive focus.
This is clearly seen even in the
way we handle our census results every year. It’s all about who is the most
numerous, which is the richest county and so on.
But what about looking at
ourselves as one nation first? What about acknowledging that we are all Kenyan
and that without any of the 47 counties we would be a lesser nation?
I do not agree entirely that
revenue allocation is purely about numbers. Because numbers do not add up if we
do not put value on the right things.
Both the richest and the poorest,
the strong and the weak, the least developed and most developed have nothing to
apologize for, for their status. In any case, status is a temporal parameter
that can be altered over time.
Therefore, “our numbers” should never
be used as a primary parameter for building a united nation. It is purely divisive, manipulative and immoral.
The major reason why this debate
cannot go the right way is because of political undertones. In as much as one
is elected to advocate for his/her people, it behooves every well-intended
Senator or MP to put the national interest before village interest.
The Kenyan Nation must take center
stage as far as devolution is concerned.
National interest in this case would
be to bring all counties at par economically in consideration of the existing disparities
among counties and with respect to disadvantaged areas and groups.
Additionally, the CRA should be
given constitutional mandate to determine the allocation parameters and rid the
process of political undertones and manipulation.
Revenue must be allocated to
counties, however the road by which it gets there needs to be less treacherous.
I rest my case.
PS: Please leave a comment, subscribe and share. Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment