Kenya fated to federalism despite ruling class pressure

By Samuel Abonyo

The ruling class is instilling in Kenyans fear of chaos, bloodshed and disintegration if Kenya adopts a federal system of government. The ruling class says, as if it were an extremist supporter of Doctor Pangloss, of Voltaire’s Candide, that a centralised government is for us the best of all possible governments.

But given her nature and history, the truth is that Kenya is fated to federalism. To build a foundation for peace and stability, Kenya should, in addition to reducing the socio-economic inequalities opt for federalism.

Federalism, according to William H Riker, an authority on the system, is "a political organisation in which the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions".

Conventionally, federalism is a territorial division of power in which regional governments are geographically defined.

The other characteristics of federalism, says Lijphart, are bicameralism, a written constitution, a decentralised government, the right of regional governments to be involved in amendment of the federal constitution but to change their own unilaterally and equal or strong disproportionate representation of the smaller regions in the federal chamber.

Like any other system of government, federalism has its vices and virtues. In federalism, smaller units are typically disproportionately represented in the legislature. But in a plural society, federalism gives autonomy to distinct sub-societies.

It is clear that, if a federal system was introduced distinct ethnic groups would get autonomy. A disadvantage of going federal would be overrepresentation of small ethnic units. Also, those who don’t belong to distinct ethnic groups would be denied representation.

Tribalism is a tormentor of Kenya, but that is not a sufficient argument for making ethnicity the basis of federalism.

And if the federalising process became ethnic, we would have to find out how multi-ethnic territories would be treated.

There are advocates of devolution without federalism, who argue we should devolve power but not federalise. It is possible to devolve power without federalising the country.

Dustbin of history

Devolution refers to the process of transferring power from central government to a lower or regional level. Giving more power to local authorities would be devolution. But that is not what Kenyans normally mean.

The political class has redefined devolution as giving "natives" the "licence" to evict those they define as "visitors", "strangers", "outsiders", "immigrants", "foreigners" and "sojourners". In our corruption, devolution is federalism, which, in Kenyan corruption, is ethnic cleansing.

Federalism is not ethnic cleansing and should be reclaimed from the polluting mouth of the political class and restored to its true meaning and purpose. Autocracy would substantially reduce and people would get cultural autonomy and control over resources in their territories.

Admittedly, federalism is in itself not a firm promise that autocratic power would be widely spread in all directions, should federalism be adopted. Nor would federalism be a guarantee that the people would truly get control over their resources.

But those would not be arguments against it. Nobody can guarantee that an institution, however carefully it is designed, will do exactly what it is intended to do. Crafters of institutions, for example, writers of constitutions, have only limited information. That is one reason why institutions are chronically monitored, revised and corrected.

It is perfectly possible to federalise without a drop of blood. It all depends on how federalisation is organised and managed.

We may postpone federalism, but our monolithic structure of government will surely be swept into the dustbin of the history of autocracies.

—The writer is a commentator on social and political issues