Power to make county leaders accountable lies in the hands of citizens

Members of the 12th Parliament during a State of the Nation address by President Uhuru Kenyatta on May 2, 2018. [Boniface Okendo/Standard]

Back in 2014, governors from seven counties in northern Kenya joined hands to form the Frontier Counties Development Council (FCDC). The aim was to build capacity and co-ordinate the development of a region that, to many residents, had been left behind (Turkana was the latest entrant in 2017). It was not going to be easy getting well-equipped hospitals, functioning maternity wards, running water, good schools and paved roads to a region that lagged behind in all development indices.

To many, the power to finally decide their destiny was ecstasy. The people now knew who to hold accountable if development slackened or didn't "arrive”.

Five years later, things are moving. The Northern Frontier is changing. The authority to lead came with huge expectations from the new office holders. Indeed, leaders in many counties had to grapple with exaggerated hopes. But internal rivalry for power and control soon became the new normal as rival sides sought to assert themselves and drive the agenda. This was exacerbated by a lack of skilled manpower. Over time, these two vices undermined accountability on deliverables.

Bad habit

Damning reports by the Controller of Budget and the Auditor General point to a trend where the bad habit of theft, corruption and mismanagement is finding a new home in the counties. Ultimately, what will make devolution work is the ability of the counties to demonstrate transparency and genuinely involve the citizens in county affairs. Leaders must be held to account not just for their actions, but also how they spend public money.

John Ackerman in his paper, ‘Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A conceptual discussion paper', defines social accountability as “a proactive process by which public officials inform about and justify their plans of action, their behaviour and results and are sanctioned accordingly”.

The justification of plans mainly targets citizens and target groups. Universally, there are various tools developed to measure the level of social accountability in the public sector.

A World Bank report, 'Social Accountability, Africa Practitioners Experiences and Lessons' provides several tools for social accountability process in the public sector. The publication shows democracy as a crucial medium to enforce integrity and make leaders accountable for their actions.

But democracy alone is not enough. Sometimes, citizens choose leaders not for their ability to deliver but using other parameters. But citizens are not always equipped to know who the best leaders are in terms of performance. Walter Lippman in his classic monograph published in 1930, 'The Phantom Public: A sequel to “Public Opinion”', explains the failure of citizens to choose the right leaders.

Social fabric

So to a large degree, the citizens are also to blame when bad leaders destroy the social fabric and their livelihoods. A lot of them hopelessly watch as the new crop of leaders supplant the call to service with repulsive arrogance and a sickening show of ostentation.

The role of making county leaders socially accountable happens in several ways. Whereas horizontally, the county assembly, Controller of Budget and Auditor General hold the counties to account, the citizens have a vertical control: They have the power to throw out those leaders who don’t deliver; they can also participate in the county planning and budgeting process and thereby influence key decisions on spending.

In the first phase of devolution - 2013-2017 - the situation looked chaotic and the counties were more involved in putting structures in place and struggling to learn how to interpret the law. The feeling across the country was that the friction was caused by those resisting the forces of accountability.

A number of counties were actually paralysed due to numerous court cases and never-ending conflicts between county assemblies and governors. Scenes of MCAs throwing chairs in the chambers became quite familiar.

Yet that didn’t make things unworkable. Progress was registered; the C-Section delivery in Mandera County in 2014 and a tarmacked road in Wajir County are two of the most notable firsts in northern Kenya.

What is remarkable now is that we are seeing less in-fighting. Have MCAs and governors learnt to co-exist, or has accountability ceased to be a pressing issue? Time will tell.

Mr Guleid is a governance consultant and chairman of FCDC