Last week was dominated by supporting and opposing views on the handshake between President William Ruto and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
But the detail in the agreement has already been forgotten, and we are now back to ‘development tours’, with Nairobi as theatre for populist promises to the people.
One day, we will get to ask two important questions.
First, to confirm that these development promises by Ruto are planned and budgeted for, and not just hot air.
Second, the expected value or return on these promises justifies the massive expense incurred in running around the country to make the pledges.
However, we do not know if the handshake would have happened if Raila landed the African Union Commission chair job.
We may not know if the UDA-ODM handshake deal was to recompense for the won, then lost, Azimio post-election parliamentary majority that might have shot down Kenya Kwanza agenda.
But we know that the handshake gives Kenya Kwanza administration ‘clear air’ to do what it wants till 2027 General Election.
Let’s take a brief walk on the wild side and imagine serious intent to implement the 10-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the handshake.
Not quite the formal implementation matrix we used to track Agenda 4 on long-term issues after 2007/8, but a speculative implementation view of what a working MoU might consider, beyond 2027 electoral politics.
The first item in the MoU is its most controversial — full implementation of the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) report which was tabled and adopted (as a report) by parliament before being subjected to detailed scrutiny by the respective justice and legal committees of both houses (National Assembly and Senate).
This is still a work in progress, but one suspects that we have a situation similar to the 2028-2020 Building Bridges Initiative (BBI), where we ended up throwing out decent policy, institutional and administrative proposals.
Arguably, the other nine points indicate work that should be happening.
Item six on assembly and protesters’ rights (plus victim compensation) protects the sovereignty of the people and promotes the rule of law and constitutionalism as covered by item 10.
Item two on inclusivity in all spheres of public life basically commits to equitable budget allocations across the country and equal opportunities in public jobs.
On budget allocations, we know that equitable allocations already happen at the county level .
What about equity in resource allocations at the national level of our devolved system of government, that is, the distribution/spread of national government spending across Kenya?
Thinking in extremes, is there a possible case for revisiting the 2025/26 budget framework to deliver this overall equity objective?
The issue of equal opportunity in public jobs would be just as interesting if applied to both levels of our devolved system of government.
Beyond basic questions of meritocracy, will we find from data that communities most excluded at national level are the same ones who are most exclusionary at county level?
Third, that the issue of marginalised communities that is still on the table is a serious indictment on how poorly the Equalisation Fund has been operationalised.
Item three is on protecting and strengthening devolution. Specific commitments are made to protect devolved function, increase county allocations and improve the timeliness and predictability of funds disbursement.
As a start, will outstanding devolved functions be fully transferred from the national government to county governments in the forthcoming 2025/26 budget? That’s the acid test.
Lest we also forget, this administration’s Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda resides in counties.
Items five, seven, eight and nine of the MoU can be grouped into a broad “good governance” rubric.
On leadership and integrity (item five) there are commitments to address bad behaviour (opulence and impunity) and conflicts of interest.
Commitments are made to audit past debt — which many see as odious — while exercising prudence, accountability and equity in future borrowing under item 8 (National Debt).
The fight against corruption under item eight will move from just fighting it to winning the war, part of which requires enhanced capacity in our accountability institutions.
Item nine calls for a new ethos in public spending that stops wastage and inefficiency and promotes austerity, justification and effectiveness.
The last thing we need in addressing these items is more policies and laws.
On the other hand, fatalistic as this may sound, there is no silver bullet to dealing with our bad governance, especially corruption.
This is an almost ‘back to basics’ issue, and the first place to start might be a proper diagnostic of where we are today.
Coincidentally, Kenya has just requested a Governance Diagnostic from the International Monetary Fund. Why can’t we do one for ourselves?
Finally, item four of the MoU commits to promoting and protecting the livelihoods of young people.
To be clear, we have talked about the ticking time bomb of youth unemployment for the past 50 years. Kenya Kwanza administration has spoken about its “deliberate jobs agenda” without actually explaining it.
In this latest answer in the MoU, mining, blue economy, agriculture and ICT are highlighted as sectors in which massive job-creating investment will be pursued.
We are further told that nationwide economic stimulus programmes will be initiated.
The silence on manufacturing, and wider industrialisation, even agro-led, is telling.
There are no easy answers but a jobs strategy and action plan (developed along the same lines as the governance one) is a great place to start. There is plenty of knowledge and know-how to get this done.
Back to the beginning. We are busy interrogating the politics of the handshake, and dismissing the MoU.
But what if its proponents are serious? Well, if they are, we should see immediate signs in the 2025/26 budget; in refreshed strategic initiatives and mostly, in simply “following the law”.