Why CRA proposal for County Cash is timely

The revenue allocation formula for funds to counties proposed by Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) is timely.

The formula, which adopts a sector-specific funding approach, takes care of a counties’ need to ensure equity and helps the poor ones catch up with the rest. It also takes into account the outcomes of previous investments.

The formula could not have come at the right time considering what has been happening since the inception of devolved units.

What makes the proposal even more enhancing is the fact that it focuses on enhancing service delivery, promoting balanced economic growth, and promoting and rewarding fiscal performance by individual counties; something which has been a real challenge.

There was a sigh of relief when the devolved system of governance came in under the new constitutional dispensation. Its aim was to ensure that decision making was taken to the grassroots.

However, with trillions allocated to the country’s 47 counties, the plunder of billions continues to be the new norm across Kenya. The widespread misuse of public funds through weak financial controls and failure to properly account for spent cash in the devolved units is a clear manifestation that we have not moved an inch.

Accumulated bills

It is not surprising then that reports indicate that counties have accumulated bills estimated at more than Sh100 billion. This is distressing and has negative repercussions on the entire Kenyan economy.

With this kind of scenario, every cash disbursement will have to go to debt repayment, leaving no money for normal operations, let alone capital development. Was this the essence of devolution?

If the current levels of thievery in counties is anything to go by, then we were mistaken to think  that devolution would bring services closer to the mwananchi and make life better for him. What we have instead is devolved corruption; an everyone-for-himself scenario.

The truth is that what we have been witnessing since the inception of the devolved system is the replication in county governments of many of the pathologies we have traditionally seen in the central government.

For example, there have been allegations of corruption and misuse of funds on unnecessary foreign trips that are only meant to collect allowances. We have counties spending money on useless purchases and services. There is also evidence in some counties of ethnic bias in the hiring of staff.

Instead of coming up with strategies to improve peoples’ lives, county officials are constantly travelling to workshops, training, conferences and ‘bench-marking’ visits that do not add any value but only create loopholes for siphoning money. The result is that general operational costs in many counties outweigh the development budget.

Checks and balances are abhorred where cronyism rules. Marginalisation within the counties is becoming rampant. Few residents participate in decision-making. There is also uneven representation by age, gender and social status. As a result, decisions at county levels have often reflected the values and needs of older, wealthier county officials instead of the population at large.

Procurement departments

Procurement departments have become conduits for shady deals where contracts are awarded to cronies and proxies of county officials and payments sometimes made for undelivered goods and services. This is unacceptable.

In this sense, devolution has not marked a change in how politics operates in Kenya, only in the level on which it operates. What comes out as a major source of the challenges associated with poor implementation of devolution, and specifically its people-centered-participation ideal, is the dearth of the spirit and working culture of servant leadership

In an environment where servant leadership is highly valued and practiced, holders of public offices determinedly put their best foot forward to fulfill their mandates as positive change agents.

This type of optimum governance situation is largely missing in our devolved units.

This explains why only a handful of the counties can be cited as examples of good governance and development.

To promote greater participation of people and reduce theft at county level, we must use technology to broaden public engagement, adopt participatory budgeting and reform planning processes.

All citizens must be actively engaged in policing these processes because they understand their needs better.

County leadership must assume a more active role to widen citizen participation in decision-making and encourage elected officials to be more responsive and in touch with the communities they represent. Oversight agencies must also play their role in ensuring prudent use of scarce resources.

Prof Mogambi, communication and social change expert, teaches at the University of Nairobi: hmogambi @ yahoo.co.uk