WHAT DOES IT MEAN ONE MAN ONE VOTE ONE SHILLING
When i was a kind i used to act as a kind,and all i was doing in my own perspective i thought was right, But now am grown up able to distinguish between the do and don't, it ironical to say one man one vote count,let say about age,but on the other hand,its good to keep that in mind at this moment,same will argue the best will ever be, but our economy may all may not allow,when speaking about unity its good to look this in all dimension this may cost kenyans alot, for a country fighting and straggling for unity we need to keep this in mind.‘one man one vote one shilling’
THE STAR This reflects the Constitution’s emphasis on equality, and on affirmative action and equity as ways of achieving true equality.
If every part of the country was the same in terms of its existing state of development and services, and in terms of the challenges of bringing development and providing services, population would be a rational basis for sharing national revenue between counties.
But since neither of these is true, it would clearly be unconstitutional to use that basis alone for sharing funding. It is not treating people equally (or equitably) if you treat everyone alike regardless of their needs. That is not to say that population is irrelevant.
Would the political voices of former Central province accept that “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” and Nairobi be treated on the same basis as they wish to be treated?
Nairobi (according to the 2019 census) has about 9.6 per cen of the Kenyan people. Should it get 9.6 per cent of the money? No doubt our Central friends would say that providing services in Nairobi, where distances are small, and roads exist (even if not all are great) is easier than in some less densely populated areas, and that Nairobi has greater capacity than anywhere else to raise its own funds. Quite. In fact, this controversial Bill proposed about five per cent to go to Nairobi.
xxxBy the same token, it is clearly easier to prove kilometres of road: in Kirinyaga 506 and in Nyeri 322.
Now consider Garissa, where it is 18 or Isiolo where it is 11. Blanket figures are not very helpful – no doubt in towns in these counties people are close together and services may not be so hard to provide, while there may be some areas with no people to be served. But the point remains that governing a huge area — not just providing services to it — will cost a great deal more than doing the same things in a more compact area.
Then there is the question of the starting point. If our ultimate aim is equality (and who can deny that it is if they have any allegiance to the Constitution?) and our way to achieve it is equity, we cannot ignore the other realities of life in different parts of the country.
The Commission on Revenue Allocation (in its yet-to-be-adopted scheme on allocating revenue) has used a few of these differences as factors in recommending how much counties should get.
The proportion of people without health insurance, and number of people in need of access to clean drinking water are used as indicators of need. Above all, the extent of poverty in each county is a major factor in their recommendations.
These differences have various causes. But the factors contributing to unevenness of wealth, health and other differences in life experience have included – for Central - the very fact of having been the place of origin of the presidents who have served for 32 of Kenya’s 57 years of independence.
Not unrelated is government policy, including in Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965. Of this it has been said (by Daniel Sifuna and Ibrahim Oanda), “[it] promised equity and equal access to the benefits of development for every citizen, yet deferred government intervention in less developed areas, while blaming citizens for the levels of underdevelopment.”
By David Ndii
The Elephant - Speaking truth to power.As public finance advisor to the Committee of Experts (COE), I was the principal author of the “layman’s draft” of Chapter 12 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. On the matter of revenue sharing, the 2010 Constitution uses the word “basis” as opposed to “formula.” There is in fact no reference to “formula” anywhere in the articles on revenue sharing.
This is on purpose. The reason is as follows: There are two basic models of fiscal equalisation, namely the formula and the institution model. Systems that use formulas do not have standing institutions such as the Commision for Revenue Allocation (CRA). Formulas are developed by ad hoc technical teams and passed into law. When the law is due for revision, another ad hoc team is constituted to do so. Formulas are problematic for the very reasons that are playing out now.
Once enacted, they put the country in a straightjacket that it is forced to live with until the next revision is due. We were alive to the fact that the history of inequitable “sharing of the national cake” as we call it, is a highly emotive and divisive issue and, indeed, one of the core grievances identified in the Agenda 4 items of the National Accord.
We recognised that the country would be on a learning curve for a considerable period and, anticipating that the allocation process had the potential for exacerbating instead of healing ethnic divisions, we felt that we needed a credible authoritative team of “honest brokers” to navigate the country through the transition. The “original sin” of the current standoff is that the CRA adopted the very formula for which it had been envisaged as an alternative. The current dispute centres on whether to put more weight on population or on geography in the formula. This dispute, as far as the spirit and letter of the constitution is concerned, is completely misplaced.
BEING ONE COUNTRY
Article 174 of the Constitution says that one object of devolution is “to foster national unity by recognising diversity”. But this does not mean perpetuating injustice on the basis that it is the result of diversity. We have all heard the stories (if not witnessed the reality) of people in some parts of the country who would ask “How is Kenya?” when others came from Nairobi – so little did they feel part of the nation. And we have perhaps read how devolution has helped them feel part of Kenya. But that requires equal respect and equitable treatment.
Sharing resources is always a difficult topic. But national unity (another national value) depends on it. In the run-up to Independence, coastal Arabs and Swahili especially and some Europeans, favoured autonomy for the Coast, or even resisted the idea of the 10-mile strip being confirmed as part of Kenya, wanting reunion with Zanzibar. This was a minority view. But just before Independence, there were stronger doubts about Kenya in the North East.
A commission sent by the British to gauge the wishes of Somalis found overwhelming support for secession—but neither Britain nor Kenya later acted on it. You might say that Central province and its President refused to contemplate letting the North East go. Decisions, as they say, have – or ought to have – consequences.
There was never much enthusiasm for devolution among Central province politicians. If you believe you have some god-given right to rule, you are less willing to reduce the scope of your powers.
WHAT TO DO IF NO AGREEMENT?
It is a weakness of the Constitution that it does not satisfactorily explain what happens if certain financial legislation is not passed. It includes a statement taken from the previous Constitution: That the National Assembly may authorises the release of half the money budgeted for the financial year if the law needed to pass the full budget has not been passed. It is a pity that the drafters did not think, “But what about the counties?”
Recently the Supreme Court ruled about last year’s crisis: When the Division of Revenue Bill — which divides money for the year between the national government and the counties generally — had not been passed. The Court said that counties should receive half of what had been allocated to counties the previous year.
They do not seem to have considered this year’s difficulty: that before the share of each county is clear, the County Allocation of Revenue (CAR) Bill must be passed. But using their general approach we could say that each county should be allocated half what it got last year – or perhaps half of the least it would get, according to the rival drafts of the CAR Bill.
And the National Assembly should not resolve to make a provisional allocation between national and counties, without also allocating individual counties their provisional share.
Comments