Effective citizen participation and oversight key to better county development outcomes
In the just concluded third annual conference on devolution in Meru, delegates deliberated on the topic of public participation under the sub-theme of “Civic Education and its role in effective public participation.” Panelists had some very interesting views regarding this subject matter. One that elevated my curiosity was a statement by one of them, (also a senior county government official) who stated that in instances where they have held these forums, they have noted that citizens at the grassroots would ask them to prioritize specific projects which in their contrary view are not necessary or important. This left me with several questions: why would officials assume that they have better ideas for citizens? Why push something that does not feature in the citizens’ priority list? Do county officials really understand the Constitution?
One of the objects of devolution, article 174 (c) of Kenya’s Constitution spells out the key role of citizens in County decision making processes. It expressly gives powers of self-governance to the people and seeks to enhance their participation in matters and decisions that affect them. Article 201 is more specific on issues of public finance and puts emphasis on transparency, accountability and public participation. In totality, the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to participate at all levels of government. According to the World Bank Group, public participation, in a wider context referred to as Citizen Engagement means the two-way interaction between citizens and governments or the private sector that give citizens a stake in decision-making. It is done with the objective of improving development outcomes.
The support of citizens to devolution itself is not in doubt; it is overwhelming. According to a recent nationally representative survey by Twaweza East Africa, Sauti za Wananchi, 82% of the citizens in Kenya support devolution. In the same survey which was conducted between 15th December2015 and 6th January 2016, two out five Kenyans reported having participated in a county government meeting where development matters were discussed. They also expressed their understanding of public participation as “shaping the development agenda,” “participating in meetings”, and “participating in county budgeting processes.” There are two main concerns though. First is the quality of participation, arising from inadequate access to information for citizens on development processes. Some Counties might be deliberately limiting or delaying access to information to weaken citizen oversight and accountability. A cursory look at the websites of the 47 Counties is testament to this. Furthermore, very few Wananchi access the internet and local newspapers. The widest reach is through radio, which seven out of ten Kenyans listen to regularly. Vernacular radio stations essentially come in handy as far as this is concerned, unfortunately, they never seem to be top of mind.
Secondly, in devolution as a governance principle, what is considered acceptable level of public participation? Four things would suffice; timely access to relevant information, adequate time for participation, widespread representation, and feedback mechanisms to citizens by the Counties. Access to information is key to enhanced public participation. When availed on time and in simple formats, it can enable citizens to make quick choices on the development issues they would want their Counties to address. Citizens should also be given adequate time to reflect on the proposals by the Counties so that they give well informed feedback to the County executives. Rushed participation processes, which is prevalent in the Counties denies citizens the opportunity to scrutinize proposals and effectively, participate in development meetings. What has been witnessed in many cases are stage-managed processes where a few citizens are mobilized, they show up and sign that they took part in the process, of course with the promise of incentives thereafter. If you asked some of them what they endorsed, you would be met with blank stares. It is critical that the decisions made in the Counties include views from a cross section of Citizens, irrespective of gender, age, educational level, socio-economic status, political affiliation or clan. In addition, partisan leadership, limited resources, corruption, and poor management and planning inefficiencies might undermine effective citizen participation. The Twaweza survey had some interesting insights worth examining: close to half (47%) of the respondents mentioned Saturday as a preferred day for public participation, in the urban areas, this proportion is the same. Closest to this was Friday, mentioned by 15%. We know very well the implications of public officials working on Saturday. But citizens justify their lack of participation by stating lack of time as the main reason. About six out of ten said the meeting should not last more than three hours and the same number preferred early to mid-morning hours.
It is our hope that county governments are going to seriously think about the issue public participation, institute framework and pre-empt possible challenges that come with it. They should not make look like an expensive endeavor as some panelists seem to suggest, after all, chiefs and their assistants have done it through their barazas for decades now. Citizens are waiting.
