Acceding to new formula will undo important devolution gains
Senate deferred a vote on the new formula to share revenues among the counties until after a broad con-census is obtained among the members.
Some 18 counties in arid, semi arid and coastal parts of the country stand to lose Sh17 billion this year alone should the formula be adopted.
While we hope a level-headed approach will be taken to address the inequity in the proposed formula, we should not forget the lessons from the past that make the issue central to the lives of Kenyans today.
We are a construct of our imagination. Communities and whole nations are products of the guiding policies, ideologies and beliefs they hold dear.
Independent Kenya has largely stuck to market-driven approaches that put personal initiative at the heart of our economy.
To this end government has tended to put its money where the money is by investing in regions with high potential in production. This has had the effect of marginalising about two-thirds of the country.
Whereas the country attained lower-middle income status in 2015, the bulk of the population across a large swathe of the country languishes in poverty and under-development as a result of poor government investment choices in the past.
The much talked about Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 is credited with institutionalising the marginalisation of the coastal, north-eastern and northern Kenya regions by advocating for government investment in the so-called high potential areas.
That policy was not in anyway novel at the time. In reality it was a continuation of the policies of the colonial regime albeit without the veil of colour and race used to propagate colonialism.
In real terms the policy benefited the same regions that stand to gain from the new revenue sharing formula.
In a wicked twist, Nyanza, which was set to benefit from the policy ended up branded as low potential due to political machinations.
The vision of Tom Mboya who is credited with conceptualising the Sessional Paper came back to haunt his very own as politics over-ode good economic sense.
In many ways the policy merely gave legitimacy to the bad politics of marginalisation allowing government not to fulfil its obligations to all its citizens.
It is clear that the decision to allocate resources is driven by politics. If you want to fix the resource allocation formula you must fix the politics around it.
Whereas the Constitution calls for equity in resource allocation, it also advocates for equitable development across Kenya.
Article 174 sets out the objectives of devolution clearly and seeks to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and marginalised communities.
It requires the promotion of social and economic development and the provision of proximate, easily accessible services throughout Kenya.
These objectives can only be attained at a cost. The cost of making services accessible in Nairobi in terms of infrastructure required is definitely different from that in Turkana primarily because the two are starting from entirely different bases.
Therefore the idea that resources be allocated on a purely per capita basis will effectively marginalise the people of Turkana who have for years been excluded from infrastructure investment.
Equity demands that unto each it shall be given according to their needs. As such the needs of the people in historically marginalised counties must be met.
We will be pulling this country apart if we insist on retaining or reverting back to policies which, have riven us apart in the past.
Therefore as Senate sits to deliberate on the new formula, the question of how much should be taken away from the people of Turkana to meet the needs of the people of Nairobi should be off the table.
No county and no people should suffer so that another part of the country can indulge in its favourite pastime.
We are all Kenyans and we will remain so through equity and not marginalisation. - The writer is Mombasa County deputy Governor
