Transparency, participation and accountability in Kenya

Think piece by Rose Wanjiru

Rose is a development practitioner, policy analyst, researcher, capacity builder, participatory budgeting expert and Director of the Nairobi-based Centre for Economic Governance.

Transparency, participation and accountability (TPA) are core elements in a democracy. The three are foundational principles that uphold a democratic system’s efficacy and growth. If you were to consider democracy as a cappuccino, then TPA would be the espresso, milk and water that make the brew.

This analogy points to the fact that these three core elements underpin democratic systems and also suggests that the three do not operate individually or independently; they are dependent on each other. If one is not well promoted/developed, then the others also suffer. Operationally, the three can be equated to a three-legged stool. It would be useless with only two legs and unstable if one leg was shorter than the others.

Similarly, transparency, participation and accountability are fundamental to the success of a democratic system. Whether through general elections or civic engagements in policy and budgeting processes (and many other governance processes), all three fundamental values must be pervasive and well-employed for these governance/democratic processes to be in accordance with acceptable standards.

Now that we have underscored the pivotal nature of transparency, participation and accountability, what do they mean in practice, how are they applied on a daily basis, and what successes and challenges do democratic systems experience in their application?

Devolution put the spotlight on participation

In the Kenyan context, the promotion of these principles has undergone a major boost due to the roll out of the devolved system of government since 2013. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 clearly articulates that the three are part of the national values and principles of governance that have to be upheld by all state and public officials when executing their mandate.

In further accentuating the constitution, all the devolution laws clearly articulate how the three are to be upheld. For instance, the Public Finance Act 2012 provides for transparency, participation and accountability to be applied in various processes and outputs of the government. Transparency is to be upheld through publishing and provisions for access to information. Participation, through clear provisions on when and how the public should be involved in the budgeting process. And accountability, through the release of quarterly and annual reports to the legislatures, Office of Controller of Budget, Auditor General and to the public.

It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure these principles are upheld and promoted: citizens and government alike. Citizens’ demands for these principles is critical and the government’s leadership in promoting them ensures they are well infused in governance systems, culture and processes resulting in their national proliferation.

Public participation is the deliberative process by which the communities, civil society organisations and private sector and government actors are involved in decision-making in governance. While this is a principle that is both familiar and called for in the Kenyan context, issues about how best to promote and implement public participation are regularly raised.

For instance, questions on numbers, such as ‘what is the right threshold in a public participation forum?’, are frequently raised. While this may be a valid inquiry, it is difficult to come up with a numeric threshold, floor or minimum for every possible public participation or citizen engagement process. Instead, every process calls for a good analysis on the issue being handled, who is likely to be affected and who is interested in engaging in that issue. Once this has been defined, identifying how to reach these groups would include determining the right threshold or representation. Therefore, the better question is: ‘what is adequate representation during the public participation process?’ Representation would consider geographical, gender, intergenerational, tribal and other distributive and differentiating factors in the administrative area where the public engagement is to take place.

Examples of effective participatory models across Kenya

One of the greatest participation models is participatory budgeting. It not only gives communities the opportunity to give their opinions or suggestions as to what they want (consultations), but also entails a process that leads to collective decision-making between government and communities on the budget allocation for specific priorities.

The deliberative process involved should not be considered one event, but a process where interests, needs and values are shared and contested until a position is reached. Seeing that, whenever government officials are in a process of decision-making, they hold several meetings and engage in intense discussions, I have often asked how a one day event can be called ‘public participation’. That is, at best, information sharing (referring to Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation): a low and inadequate engagement level. The point where real empowerment happens is where deliberations involve putting out initial ideas, allowing for adequate consultations and reviews among the communities, then follow-up forums where final decisions are made, based on incorporation of indigenous knowledge and technical information from the communities and government officials.

The role of communities/citizens in project management as an oversight model has not been well explored and is one of the unique aspects in the Makueni Participatory Budgeting Model. The project management committees do not implement the projects as one may think. Instead, their role is to provide oversight from a community perspective. They are furnished with relevant information such as the bills of quantities, the implementation plan, budget, details of the contractor and any other relevant information. They do rotational visits and must be informed when, for instance, materials for construction are being delivered on site so that they can ascertain the qualities and quantities as per the bills of quantities. These committees consist of members of the community, selected by the community, to oversee projects once they have been decided on during participatory budgeting forums at the ward level (the lowest administrative structure within a county). The power of these committees is even more distinct when they have authority to approve clearance certificates of completed work.

In April 2019, a participatory budgeting forum where communities were expected to present their development priorities for the next financial year’s ward-level budget was called off when project management committees for various water projects insisted that the dialogue would not proceed until they had been provided with adequate responses to some serious complaints they had raised about projects that had been initiated in the last 2–3 years. For an hour, the community leaders and chairmen of the various committees elaborated on the problems they had identified with regard to the contractors, materials bought, defects identified around the functioning of the projects, and the non-responsiveness of officials on the ground. They demanded that a higher authority attend the forum and provide answers to their questions before they could proceed with the selection of projects for the next financial year. This was responded to by the county government. The deputy governor and the minister responsible for water were present at the meeting that was held the following week. The minister had to apologise for the mistakes of omission and commission that he or his officials on the ground had committed. They had not been responsive and had not addressed issues raised by the project management committees in a timely manner. A commitment to address all the issues raised was made by the deputy governor and the minister responsible for water.

To me, this incident shows the full circle of participation when done well; when it empowers, when it leads to partnership, citizen control and ownership. Again, referring to Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation, it showed the three top tiers of partnership, delegation and citizen control. This kind of partnership between the county government and communities (in which communities are involved in day-to-day monitoring and oversight) exemplifies the highest levels of public participation in government-led project implementation. In this process the communities have delegated authority (for instance approval of certificates of completion), which will help prepare them for subsequent citizen control when the projects are completed and handed over to the communities.

In fact, failure to engage citizens in the oversight process leads to many white elephants. These are not only due to corruption, the syphoning of resources, and poor-quality works; they are also due to lack of ownership, which poses a big challenge when the government development projects are handed over to community groups. If the community was not involved in the original work, when the project is handed over to them they may lack knowledge of how to deal with basic maintenance, which can lead to abandonment. The project’s maintenance, the appreciation of who has the requisite capacity to lead, and other issues become a challenge that leads to either infighting within the community or abandonment of the project, facility or service. A progressive engagement in the implementation of the project allows the community to gain practical knowledge and facilitates continuous learning about the project (or service). It also allows for cohesion-building among community members and development of clear community commitments to usage and management of the project (some in the form of bylaws) once the project hand-over is done.

This case study of Makueni County’s participatory budgeting model is a good example of how the principles of transparency, participation and accountability interplay and promote development and the deepening of democracy.

For the most part, however, public participation processes within the counties in Kenya have been taken on-board grudgingly as just a fulfilment of the law, and many county officials have neither seen the need for it, nor been convinced of its efficacy in development planning and implementation. The practices have been as varied as the number of counties. Some counties would only hold five to six participatory budget meetings at sub-county level (higher administrative level than a ward) while others would hold 25–30 budget meetings at ward level. The fewer the meetings the fewer also are the opportunities for communities to engage in the budget, particularly the already marginalised communities, since fewer meetings would mean they were all held at urban centres, attracting largely urban and male crowds. Some counties, including West Pokot and Makueni, have chosen to hold a series of forums, from the village level upwards, which has allowed decisions to cascade upwards and be determined progressively from the lower administrative territories to the ward. This has enabled greater participation not only of communities in general but also of women and youths. A combination of open forums and use of delegates to cascade the dialogue upwards provides opportunities to achieve a collective position that, in turn, increases ownership and community cohesion.

When West Pokot decided to hold more meetings and reach out to the extremely marginalised areas, one of the key objectives was to ensure opportunities for women’s voices to be heard. This objective was achieved. In fact, data shows that compared to the 25 ward-level participation forums held in FY 2014/15, which attracted 349 community members and only 35 (11%) women in total, the 168 sublocation meetings held during the following year led to approximately 11,400 community members participating of which approximately 4,000 (35%) were women (data taken from a presentation by West Pokot in a participatory budgeting forum (2017)).The decision to increase the number of meetings provided increased opportunity for women’s participation since it reduced barriers, such as travelling distances, which women being caregivers at home could not work around.

Other counties, such as Elgeyo Marakwet, hold accountability forums at the end of the financial year to update communities of the projects and programmes that have been implemented and those that are ongoing. These forums are an advanced link between participation and accountability, especially as the communities report back on projects they were involved in identifying and making decisions about. They would not have been as equipped to provide input into the selection process of new projects had they been unaware of what and how much had been accomplished in the previous financial year. The accountability forums are not all without problem, however. The implementation challenges always lead to volatile forums, especially at the beginning, before an understanding emerges that roll out and project implementation are not usually straightforward due to unpredictable fiscal flows from the national government and slow procurement processes.

These accountability forums clearly indicate that one cannot have participation forums without intending to provide adequate accountability and feedback on what has been accomplished. They also show that one cannot plan for public participation and accountability forums without the intention of being transparent and ensuring access to information.

Cementing and rolling out good participatory practices

There are opportunities to make the different models that counties have tried in the last eight years under the devolved units become the national standards; permeating every governance system and processes. This can best be achieved through well-documented evidence of the successes, which can then be translated into policies, laws and regulations. These also can be further accentuated through counties and other institutions establishing centres of excellence that may provide opportunities for state and public officials, non-state actors and citizens to fully understand and be co-creators in promoting these principles in all governance systems.

The role of leadership in promoting these principles of transparency, participation and accountability is critical. None of the counties that have achieved success in upholding these principles have done so because of external pressure or requirements. Rather, it has been through the top political leadership’s deliberate effort to lead, as well as to provide the institutional systems and structures, and financial resources required to meet the expected standards. For instance, the establishment of the public participation directorate, appointment of relevant officials and allocation of finances to the department have gone a long way to ensuring success in citizen engagement. Nevertheless, the top political leadership at the level of governor has been found to be even more effective in signalling (to county officials) and facilitating effective public participation.

Non-state actors, particularly civil society organisations (CSOs), have been major contributors to the change achieved through the promotion of these three principles. The success of the county governments in espousing these principles were by and large due to the fact that the leaders in those specific counties were previously in civil society. Therefore, the long-term effect of supporting civil society in implementing and promoting these principles through well-organised programmes/projects is that, in the long-run, the change-makers permeate into the public governance systems where they can have greater influence and impact. That is in addition to the changes the CSOs themselves promote among citizens. The changes achieved both at the demand (citizen) side and supply (government) side progressively will ensure that democratic systems are strengthened in the nation.

The challenge, however, has been the dwindling resources to civil society organisations. There has been a reduction in support from bilateral donors and philanthropists to CSOs implementing governance programmes. There seems to have been a general feeling that the success realised through the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 was sufficient to address most of the existing democratic challenges, resulting in most donor resources being released towards strengthening the devolved systems with less attention to the demand side and a subsequent decline in funding support to CSOs in governance programmes. Yet, the risk of clawbacks by the government leading to constriction of the space and freedoms of citizens and CSOs is potentially high if civil society does not remain vigilant. This became eminent as attempts to silence and deregister some human rights organisations due to their position and their demand for accountability was experienced in 2016 and 2017.

The support to civil society organisations engaged in promoting transparency, participation and accountability is critical and must continue. The gains and impact of strengthening the systems of government and deepening of democracy through transparency, participation and accountability cannot be underestimated.

• Go to the Kenya’s snapshot
• Go to How can socio-economic divisions be bridged by TPA mechanisms in Senegal?
• Go back to the beginning