Governance in Devolved Kenya I

GOVERNANCE IN THE DEVOLVED KENYA: PROSPECTS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY
Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .........................................................................2
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Background of the study..........................................................................................................................4
1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................................9
1.4 Research Questions...............................................................................................................................10
1.5 Justification of the study ........................................................................................................................10
1.6 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................11
1.7 Literature Review..................................................................................................................................12
1.8 Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................................................15
1.8.1 Devolution..................................................................................................................................... 15
1.8.2 Defining decentralization ................................................................................................................ 15
1.8.3 Dimensions of decentralization ........................................................................................................16
1.8.4 Forms of decentralization................................................................................................................17
1.8.5 Characteristics of a devolved government........................................................................................19
1.8.6 Devolution versus Majimboism........................................................................................................19
1.8.7. Devolution versus federalism ......................................................................................................... 21
1.8.8. Devolution under the 2010 Constitution ..........................................................................................21
1.9 Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................................................22
1.9.1 Democracy.....................................................................................................................................22
1.9.2. Conceptualizing public participation............................................................................................... 24
1.10 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 26
1.11 Challenges.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Page 1
1.12 Chapter breakdown.............................................................................................................................27
Page 2
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Constitution Implementation Oversight Committee (CIOC)
Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC)
Committee of Experts (CoE)
Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG)
Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC)
District Focus for Rural Development (DFRD)
United Nations (UN)
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR)
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Constituency Development Fund (CDF)
Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF)
National Rainbow Coalition (NARC)
Party of National Unity (PNU)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU)
Kenya African National Union (KANU).
District Focus for Rural Development Strategy (DFRD)
Page 3
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.1 Introduction
Kenya has been governed under a highly centralized system of government since 1964. This
situation was created by the abolition of the post of Prime Minister and the creation of the office
of the Presidency vide a constitutional amendment in 1964.1) It has been argued that the highly
centralized government in the Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki regimes and the bureaucracies built
around them dealt a major blow to effective public participation in the governance process in
Kenya. Democracy suffered during the one-party state regime under Kenyatta and Moi. Further,
the immense powers bestowed upon the presidency had the effect of making such presidents to
be authoritarian and dictatorial further impacting negatively on democracy, public participation,
the rule of law and governance.
Little democratic space was restored after the re-introduction of multi party politics in 19922) but
it soon became apparent that more needed to be done. This was so because power and public
institutions had been personalized, the public who were directly affected by decisions were being
left out and ignored on important decision making process, the presidency was too powerful and
authoritarian, there was poor governance in government departments and public officials and
leaders were unaccountable for their actions. These and many other reasons informed the
advocacy and fight for a new Constitution.
The search for a new constitutional dispensation was a long and bumpy one. It was characterized
by lack of consensus on contentious issues, allegations of political sabotage, and frustrations of
1)
Constitutional Amendment Act No. 28 of November 24, 1964.

2) Multi-partism was restored in Kenya in 1991 vide a constitutional amendment that repealed section 2A of the
Constitution. This happened due to pressure from civil society groups, donor organization and the public who
Page 4
demanded democracy.
the process at times.3) This long search for a new Constitution ended on August 4, 2010
referendum vote where over 67% of Kenyans ratified new supreme laws for Kenya.
Currently, the implementation phase is in progress. The implementation phase is poised to take
up to five years and shall be characterized by building of the relevant legislative, structural and
institutional framework in order for the new Constitution (herein referred to as the "2010
Constitution") to become fully operational. Only Articles of the 2010 Constitution that do not
require supportive legislation or creation of structures and special institutions are operational.
Two crucial implementation institutions 4) empowered to guide and drive the process of
implementation have been set up. These are the Constitution Implementation Oversight
Committee (CIOC) and Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC)5) . The
Constitution Implementation Oversight Committee is composed of Members of Parliament while
the Implementation Commission is made up of experts drawn from various fields. These two
institutions shall be responsible for steering forward the implementation process with the bulk of
workload being on the Implementation Commission. The Judicial Service Commission has also
been constituted for the crucial role of judicial reforms as per the 2010 Constitution.
The 2010 Constitution introduces many and far reaching changes in Kenya. This is evidenced by
the long implementation period, 6) numerous legislations to be enacted,7) and a huge proportion of
structural and institutional changes to be undertaken in the five year implementation phase.
3)
Collins Odote (2002) notes, "President Moi had continuously expressed his disinterest, nay strong opposition to
the Review Process, even to the extent of refusing to present his views to CKRC even after a date had been set for
him to give his views. It therefore came as no surprise when he dissolved parliament at the same time that the
National Constitutional Conference was set to commence deliberations on the draft Constitution." see Collins
Odote (2002) Too Near Yet Too Far: The State of Constitutional Development in Kenya available at
http://www.kituochakatiba.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=20&Itemid=27 (last
accessed on June 28, 2011)
4) The institutions are created by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
5) The CIC is chaired by Mr Charles Nyachae, a Nairobi city lawyer.
6) The implementation of the Constitution is to span up to a period of five years.
7) The fifth schedule to the Constitution of Kenya 2010 lists more than 49 legislations that parliament is supposed to
Page 5
enact within a period of five years.
This study looks in to the devolved system of government as entrenched in the 2010 Constitution.
Devolution as a system of government is a major shift from the highly centralized system that
Kenya has interacted with since 1964. This study interrogates the impact that devolution will
have on the governance process in Kenya especially as regards to public participation and
democracy.
Article 174 of the 2010 Constitution spells out the objects of devolution. One such object of
devolution is that it will aim to promote democratic and accountable exercise of power. 8) Another
objective of devolution is that it aims to give powers of self-governance to the people and
enhance the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the State and in making
decisions affecting them. 9) This study focuses on these particular objectives of devolution and
whether they are likely to be achieved.
Interrelated questions answered by this study include: will devolution promote and enhance
public participation in the governance process of the devolved government? Will such
participation be effective and meaningful? What of democracy: How will it be affected in the
devolved government structure?
1.2 Background of the study

"In line with the global trend toward democratization, the issue of citizen participation in
governance has gained increasing significance in both practical politics and academic
disciplines. The provision of such citizen participation in governance is essential for
enhancing public confidence in governing institutions, formulating state policies based on
people's needs, and receiving necessary feedback on people's reactions to such policies."
10)
Public participation has become a very crucial instrument in ensuring that good governance and
accountability is achieved at all levels of governance of public institutions. Public participation
8)
Article 174 (a) Constitution of Kenya 2010.

9) Article 174 (c) Constitution of Kenya 2010
10) M. Shamsul Haque (2003) "Citizen Participation in Governance through Representation: Issue of Gender in East
Page 6
Asia," International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 569-590.
stems from the basic principle that since the public is directly or indirectly affected by decisions
made by the government, public institutions and authorities, then it should be allowed to
participate in the decision making process.
In Kenya, a critical look at the history of public participation reveals institutional, legislative and
policy barriers to its effective achievement. The legislative and policy framework for public
participation in Kenya has not been comprehensive and authoritative. Public institutions have
over the years been personalized making it virtually impossible for the public to have a say in
decision making. The highly centralized government with a powerful presidency established
bureaucracies and systems that were impenetrable to those outside the system.
Kenya's Independence Constitution (also known as the Lancaster Constitution) provided for a
devolved system of government popularly referred to as the majimbo system. The system was
characterized by establishment of seven regional governments in Kenya.11) Devolution as a
system of government in the world is often associated with the prospects of democratic selfgovernance, public participation, nation and nationhood building, equalization and efficient and
effective delivery of services.12) Therefore, hypothetically, the majimbo system at independence,
being a devolved system, provided what seemed to be an appropriate design to promote public
participation in governance. Whether the system if it had fully been implemented would have
encouraged and promoted public participation is a matter of determination.
The majimbo system was soon abolished vide a Constitutional Amendment in 1964. Other
constitutional amendments were effected between 1964 and 1969 which had the effect of
creating a highly centralized system of government. By 1969, amendments to the Constitution
had consolidated immense powers on the institution of the presidency, powers which were solely
exercised by the president. Dictatorship and authoritarianism were the natural consequence of
such immense powers bestowed upon a single person. In an authoritarian regime the public has
11)
Section 91 of the Independence Constitution lists the regional governments as Coast Region, Eastern Region,
Central Region, Rift Valley Region, Nyanza Region, Western Regions and North-Eastern Region.
12) Dan Juma "Devolution of power as constitutionalism: The constitutional debate and beyond," International
Page 7
Commission of Jurists (Kenya-Section) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
no say, other institutions suffer and decisions emanate from one center. Scholars have expressed
the opinion that it is the 1964 amendment making Kenya a Republic that paved way for tyranny
and dictatorial rule by President Jomo Kenyatta and later by President Moi. 13)Charles Hornsby
(1989) thus notes that both under President Kenyatta and President Moi, Kenya was increasingly
dominated by the institution of the Presidency and the authorities of the other organs of
government were seriously weakened. 14)
Prof Anyang' Nyong'o (1989) gives an insight as to how presidential authoritarianism emerged in
independent Kenya. He notes that:
"Presidential authoritarianism is born when political power is so concentrated in the office of the
president that no major decision is taken within the bureaucratic or political process without
reference to this office, or when the legitimacy of bureaucratic decisions is derived from their
claim to have the blessing or backing of the president. The presidency becomes the biggest bureau
in terms of administration and policy-making; all other organs of government gradually begin to
bend to it and politicians stand in awe of the power of the president."15)
Such centralization of power had the effect of distorting public participation, democracy, and the
authority of other institutions.
Unaccountability and abuse of power by the sitting president and his close cronies and buddies
who held senior positions in government became the order of the day. The public was reduced to
being spectators in the governance process, participating albeit ineffectively during elections and
barazas. 16) It is during such times that many historical injustices were committed to the Kenyan
people. For example, an injustice like unequal distribution of resources leading to
13)
See Ben Sihanya (2010) "Reconstructing the Kenyan Constitution and State, 1963-2009: Lessons from German
and American Constitutionalism," Law Society of Kenya (LSK) Journal, Nairobi.
14) See Charles Hornsby (1989) "The Social Structure of the National Assembly in Kenya, 1963-83," in The Journal of
Modern African Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, at p. 275.
15) P. Anyang' Nyong'o(1989) "State and society in Kenya: The disintegration of the nationalist coalitions and the rise
of presidential authoritarianism," African Affairs, London, Vol. 88 No. 351.
16) Barazas were informal meeting convened by officials of the provincial administration at the lower level especially
the chief, sub-chief and village elder. These sessions were mainly used to communicate government policies to the
Page 8
people rather than the people participating in decisions making.
underdevelopment of certain regions is blamed on the highly centralized system of government.

Distribution of resources, planning of development, implementation of policies and important
decisions were made by the central government with the president almost having veto power. 17)
Therefore, bulks of the resources were directed to the president's home turf or "politically
correct"18) regions.
The Kenyatta and Moi regimes made various attempts to decentralize the Kenyan government.
Most of these attempts failed and ended up strengthening centralization. Measures to decentralize
and encourage public participation included establishment of Local Authorities, implementation
of policies like the District Focus for Rural Development, among others. The policy and
legislative blueprints for these programs still maintained central authority for key decisions.
The one party system of government did not help the democratic situation of Kenya.
Participation of the public in elections was only to legitimize the government in power. Elections
manipulation ensured the public did not determine who won elections. Further, systems like
mlolongo19)were seriously defective and encouraged commission of election irregularities.
Even after the introduction of multi party politics the situation did not change much. The multi
party democracy still could not help facilitate and promote public participation in governance.
Gyimah-Boadi thus notes:
"On the whole, A frican parliamentary systems have yet to marry multi partism (which stresses the
representative elements of liberal democracy) with the grassroots participation and engagement
that all-inclusive single parties or mass movements sought to stimulate in an earlier era. The
multiparty legislatures of A frica today suffer from inadequate links to rural society and inadequate
17)
Relevant ministers who were presidential appointees made important decisions regarding distribution of key
resources in the country. This was as per the budgetary allocations to the ministries. But Ministers in the Kenyatta
and Moi regimes had to be very loyal to the president in order to continue serving. Therefore, their decisions had
to be approved by the president especially on development issues. Parliament as an institution was weakened by
the existence of sycophants of the president. Also, the one-party system ensured there was no opposition in
parliament.
18) "Politically correct" regions were regions that had supported the president in the elections or where his close
cronies and buddies hailed from.
Page 9
19) Mlolongo system entailed voters queuing behind the candidate that they supported. Voting was in the open.
citizen involvement in the period between general elections. But legislatures in no-party, singleparty, or "movement"-based systems suffer from a crippling lack of engagement with city
dwellers and the well-educated, including the professional classes."20)
It is for these and many other reasons that Kenyans started advocating for constitutional change.
The issues of concern included: the highly centralized system of government, excessive powers
of the presidency, continued abuse of citizens' rights, lack of public participation in governance,
unaccountability of public officers, among others. Thus the beginning of a long constitutional
making process that finally ended in August 2010.
On August 27, 2010 a new Constitution of the Republic of Kenya was promulgated by His
Excellency President Mwai Kibaki 21) at the historic Uhuru Park Grounds. This came after
Kenyans had overwhelmingly 22) voted for the then Proposed Constitution of Kenya prepared by
the Committee of Experts 23) (CoE) and published by the Attorney General (AG) of Kenya, then
Amos Wako. The promulgation ended the long struggle and search for a new constitutional order
for Kenya. The struggle started with calls for re-introduction of multi-partism. This was realized
in 1991 following the repealing of section 2A of the then Constitution. 24) This was followed by
calls for minimum reforms prior to the 1997 general elections. This was to ensure level playing
field for opposition candidates and the incumbent in the general elections. The calls led to the
signing of the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) in 1997 between the then President Moi
and the opposition. In 2000, the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) was
established which was mandated with collecting views from the public and drafting a proposed
20)
E. Gyimah-Boadi (1998) "The Rebirth of African Liberalism," Journal of Democracy 18-31

21) Mwai Kibaki is the third president of the Republic of Kenya who was elected in 2002 and re-elected in the
controversial December 27, 2007 general elections.
22) According to the final tally of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) 6,092,593 Kenyans voted for
the new Constitution representing over 67% of the total valid votes cast. The document was also supported by at
least 25% of the votes cast in all the eight Provinces in Kenya. (Source: http://www.iiec.or.ke/archives/201008; last
accessed on November 22, 2010)
23) The Committee of Experts was mandated by Constitution of Kenya Review Act to draft a new Constitution for
Kenya. A new Constitution was the 4 th Agenda agreed by the Mediation team formed to mediate the post-election
stalemate in Kenya following the disputed 2007 General Election.
Page 10
24) The repealing was effected by the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Act. No. 12 of 1991
constitution for Kenya. The CKRC team collected views from across the country and then called
a National Constitutional Conference at Bomas of Kenya. President Moi, who had refused to
give his views to the CKRC team, purportedly disbanded it before the 2002 general elections. He
further frustrated the process when he dissolved parliament just before the National
Constitutional Conference kicked off. Parliamentarians were to form part of the delegates at the
conference. When president Kibaki took over power in 2003, he commissioned the CKRC to
continue with the National Constitutional Conference.
The Conference was turbulent and
characterized by lack of consensus, claims of sabotage and even at some point walk-outs 25) by a
section of delegates. Moris Odhiambo (2004) writes:
"Though the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) continued its sittings during the first
three months of 2004 at the Bomas of Kenya (what was referred to as "Bomas III" in subsequence
to two earlier sittings), prospects for Kenyans enacting a new constitution arguably became
dimmer on a backdrop of political squabbling and an elusive search for consensus on major
issues."26)
Despite all the challenges, CKRC succeeded in preparing a draft Constitution, famously known
as the Bomas Draft, which appeared to enjoy support from a majority of Kenyans. The Bomas
draft was subjected to changes by the then Attorney General Amos Wako at Kilifi. The changed
draft, popularly known as the "Wako draft" or "Kilifi draft", was then rejected in the 2005
referendum. The changes by Attorney General Amos Wako to the Bomas Draft are said to have
greatly contributed to the rejection of the Proposed Constitution at the 2005 referendum. The
Constitution making process was re-initiated in 2008 after the post-election violence that
followed the disputed 2007 general elections.
This study reviews the constitution making
process especially the element of public participation in the two-decade long process.
25)
On 16th March, 2004 a number of MPs and ministers, led by then Justice and Constitutional affairs minister Kiraitu
Murungi, engineered a walkout from Bomas of Kenya. See News from Africa at
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_8160.html (last accessed on July 12, 2011)
26) Morris Odhiambo (2004) "Constitutionalism under A "Reformist" Regime in Kenya: One Step Forward, Two Steps
Backwards?" in Lawrence M. Mute (2004) (ed) Constitutionalism in East Africa Progress, Challenges and Prospects
Page 11
in 2004 Kituo cha Katiba, Kampala & Fountain Publishers, Kampala
A notable feature of the 2010 Constitution is that it introduces or rather re-introduces devolution
in Kenya. The devolved system of government entrenched in the 2010 Constitution is
characterized by creation of forty seven county government in the country. A national
government to perform such functions as stipulated will remain in place.
Therefore, Kenya is faced with a typically new system of government. The expectations of every
person are that this new system of government will work out much better than the previous and
eliminate all problems associated with the 1969 Constitution. The question is will it? Will this
new system of government promote public participation? Will it enhance democracy? Will
governance improve due to the vigilance of the governed? This and other interrelated questions
are explored in depth in this study.
1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main aim of this study is to examine the extent in which devolution in Kenya promotes and
enhances democracy and public participation. The study further examines the effect of
devolution on governance. Devolution brings the government closer to the people. It is believed
that in a devolved system of government, the public has a more realistic chance of participating
in decision making. Public participation is important given the fact that decisions made by public
institutions and authorities directly or indirectly affect the public. With public participation and
vigilance, leaders are bound to be more accountable. Democratic space alsoincreases and
democratic and accountable exercise of power then follows. This improves governance of public
institutions, authorities and the government.
This study thus looks at how the Kenyan devolution structures would be able to achieve all these
and ultimately promote democratic and accountable exercise of power in governance. In
particular, the study analyzes the relevant institutional, legislative and policy framework that
should be put in place to ensure democratic exercise of power and public participation is
achieved.
Page 12
1.4 Research Questions

The research questions of this study are as follows:
a) What are the prospects for democracy and public participation in devolved Kenya?
b) What will be the effect of devolution on governance in the devolved system of
government in Kenya?
c) How suitable is the Kenyan devolution structure designed to create a public participation
environment that will actively be involved in affairs of governance at all levels?
1.5 Justification of the study

A new Constitution has been promulgated and is in the implementation phase. The 2010
Constitution introduces a devolved system of government that Kenya interacted with vaguely at
independence. It is largely expected that this new system of government will enhance democratic
and accountable exercise of power. Citizens expect to have more access to the devolved
governments and participate more to the governance of the county.
This study is important in informing the formulation of policies, crafting action plans, proposing
of legislations, creation of structures and building of institutions of the devolved government so
as to ensure the devolved government is more democratic, accountable and participation of the
public encouraged and promoted.
This study examines the failures of the Independence (Lancaster) Constitution as subsequently
amended regarding public participation and democracy and examines how devolution can be
used to achieve the desired results. This will be important in informing the implementation team
and officials of the county governments to make more informed decisions when it comes to
creation of requisite mechanisms and structures for public participation at the county level and
national level.
It should be remembered that the system of government to be adopted was a very contentious
issue in the constitution making process. Whereas it appeared that majority of Kenyans seemed
Page 13
to be in support of devolution, disagreements arose as regarding the structure or design of

devolution to be adapted. Those who proposed the majimbo system as was at independence to be
reintroduced were met with fierce resistance by others who believed a majimbo system or a
federal system was a recipe for disunity and a catalyst for tribal conflict and violence. 27) One
remote reason why devolution was highly contentious although desired by a majority was that it
was closely connected to presidential power politics. Devolution meant that the powers of the
president would be greatly reduced. Therefore, close cronies to the president opposed a
devolution structure that they saw was directed at weakening the presidency. This study thus
analyzes all the historical perspectives, intrigues, and debates to help the policy makers come up
with the best approach in implementing the chapter on devolution. This is to ensure its
implementation is not sabotaged by those who had contrary ideas as to the structure of
devolution.
It is important that devolution does not sow seeds of negative ethnicity, cause ethnic strife, and
create inequality and regional polarization. Thus a historical consideration of the politics is
important in implementation to ensure unity is achieved and maintained.
1.6 Hypothesis
This dissertation tests the following hypotheses:
a) That devolution ensures public participation in the affairs of the government thus
ensuring improved governance and accountability.
b) That exercise of power is more democratic in a devolved system of government than a
unitary or centralized system of government.
1.7 Literature Review
27)
See church leaders' comments on the subject. For example, John Cardinal Njue, Bishop Dr. David Gitari among
Page 14
others.
This study uses the following literature in interrogating the main research questions. The listed
literatures are only but a selection of other numerous materials on the concept of devolution,
democracy and public participation.
a)
Devolution in Kenya: Prospects, Challenges and the Future28)
The book is a very relevant and useful resource to this study. It is of fairly recent publication
having been published in 2010 and thus the writers had a chance of analyzing the provisions of
the 2010 Constitution on devolution. The book looks at Kenya's devolution as entrenched in the
2010 Constitution and analyses the prospects, challenges and the future of this new system of
government in Kenya.
A contributor in the book, Annette Omolo, looks at the history of devolution and decentralization
in Kenya since independence. She assesses Kenya's efforts at devolution since independence with
particular focus on the majimbo system and the current local government system.
Another contributor gives a comparative study of devolution. He seeks to draw lessons for
Kenya's devolution from countries with varying forms of devolution. He particularly focuses on
South Africa, Nigeria, India, Papua New Guinea and Bolivia.
Finally, the book looks at the issue of fiscal decentralization and tries to answer the question
whether such decentralization fosters or retards national development in Kenya. The contributor
in this chapter examines the policy, constitutional and legal framework providing for
decentralized funds, including local capacity to handle the decentralized funds.
This study greatly benefits from the critical analysis provided in the book. The study particularly
benefits from the historical analysis, the comparative approach to the question and an analysis of
fiscal decentralization.
b)
Search for an Appropriate Decentralization Design in Kenya: Historical and

Comparative Perspective by Walter Oyugi29) :
28)
Page 15
Albert K. Mwenda (eds) (2010) Devolution in Kenya: Prospects, Challenges and the Future Institute of Economic
Walter Oyugi in the Search for an Appropriate Decentralization Design in Kenya: Historical and
Comparative Perspective analyses devolution as was proposed by the "Bomas Draft30)." Although
his chapter focuses on the Bomas Draft, it is relevant and authoritative. This study benefits from
Oyugi's historical analysis of decentralization to provide a clearer perspective on the history
behind the entrenchment of devolution in the 2010 Constitution.
Further, the new Constitution borrows heavily from the Bomas Draft. It should be recalled that
the Bomas process was a people driven process and thus the draft appeared to be acceptable to
Kenyans and the changes that were made to it by the Attorney General Amos Wako in Kilifi are
said to have contributed to the draft's rejection in the November 21, 2005 referendum vote.
Walter Oyugi's discussion on the independence Constitution or majimbo Constitution is in depth
and analytical and will be very helpful to this study. He analyzes the reasons why the majimbo
system failed at independence and blames the Kenyatta regime of prematurely killing the
majimbo system in order to consolidate powers to the president. He wonders whether the system
would have been desirable for Kenya had it been allowed to take shape.
On current devolution, Walter Oyugi is of the strong opinion that proper devolution is discernible
only where the devolved units have legislative power, financial independence and control of
human resources. He terms the Bomas Draft as nothing short of a reinforced local government
system. His study aids this dissertation in providing the background politics that have been
associated with the search of decentralization design and thus understand how the current one
was arrived at.
c)
Devolution: Reconstructing the Kenyan State by Yash Pal Ghai 31):
Affairs Research Paper Series No. 24, Nairobi.

29) Walter Oyugi (2005) "The Search for an Appropriate Decentralization Design in Kenya: Historical and
Comparative Perspective," in Kithure Kindiki's & Osogo Ambani's (eds) The Anatomy of Bomas: Selected analyses
of the 2004 Draft Constitution of Kenya Claripress Limited, Nairobi.
30) The Bomas Draft was the Draft Constitution that had been prepared by the Yash Pal Ghai led Constitution of
Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) and discussed at the National Constitutional Conference at Bomas of Kenya.
31) Yash Ghai (2007) "Devolution: Restructuring the Kenyan State," Lecture at the African Research and Resource
Page 16
Forum (ARRF) at the Kenya International Conference Center (KICC) Nairobi, 23 November 2007
Yash Ghai in "Devolution: Restructuring the Kenyan State," seeks to dispel the falsehood that
was being circulated regarding majimboism and devolution during the 2007 general elections
campaigns. Prof. Ghai's lecture is candid in that he raises issues with those he perceive as
peddling lies especially a fraction of church leaders, politicians and even a few scholars.32)
Further, it came at the height of the 2007 general elections campaigns.
Prof. Ghai, who was the chair of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC),
believes that the Bomas Draft had struck a reasonable balance between a federal and a purely
local government system and that it was the best mode of devolution that should have been
adopted by Kenya.
His idea of devolution is that it should start from the village or grassroots level. This he says
would increase participation of citizens in governance and their involvement in decision making.
Prof. Ghai's article also brings out an insightful analysis of Devolution and majimboism.
Although his point of reference was the Bomas draft, it is still very helpful and informative.
d) The Parliamentary Human Rights: Handbook on Devolution & Fiscal
Decentralization:
The Parliamentary Human Rights: Handbook on Devolution & Fiscal Decentralization33)is also
important in this study. Part One by Victor Odhiambo is entitled Legal Framework for
Devolution. The author looks at many interrelated aspects of devolution. He defines devolution,
looks at it as a limb of decentralization, analyzes its link to democracy and good governance,
looks at its relationship to elections and representation, points out its relationship to economic,
social and cultural rights and then goes further to give a brief analysis of devolution in Africa. Of
great importance to this study is the author's analysis on the link between devolution and
democracy. The author argues that devolution or decentralization provides a structured
arrangement for democratic government to be planned and executed at the community level. He
is also of the opinion that devolution enhances the concept of participatory governance.
32)
He particularly singles out Prof. Makau Mutua, John Cardinal Njue, and Bishop David Gitari
33) Parliamentary Human Rights: Handbook on Devolution & Fiscal Decentralization Kenya section of the
Page 17
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya), 2010.
Although, the publication is a handbook, the author's analysis on devolution is current and up to
date. That the analysis of devolution in the handbook is on the Constitution of Kenya 2010
makes it more authoritative and useful when it comes to this study. The other literatures on
devolution discuss the topic in different contexts, as practiced in different jurisdictions, or
provide hypothetical discussions of possible scenarios, but the handbook analyses what is
contained in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 regarding devolution.
1.8 Theoretical Framework

1.8.1 Devolution
This study is premised on the basis that devolution of government is an appropriate ingredient for
citizen participation in governance.
Devolution as a concept has been subjected to various definitions by different scholars. The
variation in definitions can be attributed to the existence of different natures or kinds or systems
of devolution. Most devolved governments are structured differently hence differing descriptions
attributed to them. Sometimes the term devolution is used interchangeably with decentralization
although the terms are not per se synonymous. In order for one to come to a proper definition of
devolution, it is imperative that one understands the term decentralization.
1.8.2 Defining decentralization

Decentralization is the transfer of powers from the central government to lower levels in a
political, administrative and territorial hierarchy.34) As such, in a decentralized system of
government power is transferred from the center usually the central or national government to the
regions or sub-national governments. The way in which such power is transferred differs. In one
form of decentralization power is transferred completely such that the regional governments
acquire power, in other forms of decentralization power is merely delegated with the central
government retaining control.
34)
See Elizabeth Linda Yuliani (2004) "Decentralization, Deconcentration and Devolution: what do they
mean?"Compilation of definitions used in papers presented at the Interlaken Workshop on Decentralization, 27-30
Page 18
April 2004, Interlaken, Switzerland
Thus, Dele Olowu (2001) states that decentralization takes many forms e.g. the delegation of
responsibility and authority to field units of the same department or level of government referred
to as deconcentration or the devolution of authority to locally constituted units of government or
special-purpose authorities.35)
1.8.3 Dime nsions of decentralization

There are three fundamental dimensions of devolution namely administrative, political and fiscal
decentralization.
a) Administrative decentralization is the transfer of responsibility for the planning, financing
and management of certain functions from the central government and its agencies to
field units of government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semiautonomous public authorities or corporations or regional or functional authorities. 36)
b) Political decentralization entails a movement away from a monocentric to polycentric
structure of political power and takes two forms, horizontal, where institutions that
promote separation of powers and accountability of the executive for its actions such as
the legislature and the courts are strengthened and vertical decentralization involving
assigning powers to local government structures. The main objective of political
decentralization is to promote greater citizen participation and higher levels of
accountability to citizens.37)
c) Fiscal decentralization is the transfer of financial resources from the central government
to autonomous local agencies. This is done through the assignment of tax powers to
facilitate decentralized agencies implement their responsibilities. 38)
35)
See Dele Olowu (2001) "Decentralization Policies and Practices under Structural Adjustment and
Democratization in Africa," Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 4 July 2001;
Page 19
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Generally, decentralization is of four types: devolution, delegation, delocalization and

deconcentration. Therefore, use of decentralization and devolution interchangeably as if they
were one and the same might be misleading.
1.8.4 Forms of decentralization

a) Deconcentration
Deconcentration refers to the process of administrative decentralization whereby the central
government designs a structure that enables its field agents and offices to work in close
proximity to the local people. 39) The District Focus for Rural Development (DFRD) is a good
example of deconcentration. 40)
b) Delegation
Delegation on the other hand is the transfer of responsibilities from central government to semiautonomous bodies that are directly accountable to the central government.41) Examples in Kenya
include the local authorities, parastatals etc. 42)
c) Delocalization
Delocalization is defined as the spatial distribution of central government socio-economic
development facilities and activities such as schools, hospitals, etc. in peripheral regions. 43)
d) Devolution
Devolution is a form of decentralization. It is simply defined as the process of transferring
decision-making
and implementation
powers, functions,
and resources to legally
Oloo A (2006) Devolution
and Democratic Governance:
Options forresponsibilities
Kenya. Nairobi IPAR
36)
37)
Ibid.
Ibid.
39) See John-Mary Kauzya (2005) "Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development," Discussion
Paper for Division for Public Administration and Development Management United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs.
40) Albert K. Mwenda (eds) (2010) Devolution in Kenya: Prospects, Challenges and the FutureInstitute of Economic
Affairs Research Paper Series No. 24, Nairobi.
41) Ibid.
42) Ibid.
Page 20
43) Ibid.
38)
constituted, and popularly elected local governments.44) This is the popular meaning of the term.
Other definitions are as discussed below.
Political scientists define devolution as a process wherein a higher body confers powers upon a
lower body, but retains the right to retract the conferred powers. 45)
Prof. John W. Forje (2006) defines devolution or decentralization of power as to entails the
transfer of authority or responsibility for decision making from central to peripheral units within
an institution or organization. He describes it as a mechanism meant to boost participation of
recipients of public services. Prof Forje (2006) does not see the need to distinguish
decentralization from devolution but rather uses them to mean the same thing. 46)
Prof. Yash Pal Ghai (2007) on the other hand sees devolution as a way to disperse state powers
throughout the country. He sees a devolved system to the village level or grassroots as the best
form of devolution.47)
Walter Oyugi (2005) describes devolution as to entail the transfer of power to elected subnational political entities.48)
Dele Olowu (2001) states that it is through devolution that the central government confers selfgoverning capacities on local communities.49) Critical attributes of local self-government include
44)
Ibid.
45) William D. Leach (2004) "Is Devolution Democratic?" Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University,
Sacramento
46) John W. Forje (2006) "Rethinking Decentralization and Devolution of Power within the African Context:
Challenges and Opportunities," paper presented to African Association for Public Administration and Management
(AAPAM) 28TH AAPAM Annual Roundtable Conference, Arusha, Tanzania 4th - 8th December 2006
47) Yash Ghai (2007) "Devolution: Restructuring the Kenyan State," Lecture at the African Research and Resource
Forum (ARRF) at the Kenya International Conference Center (KICC) Nairobi, 23 November 2007.
of the 2004 Draft Constitution of Kenya Claripress Limited, Nairobi
49) Dele Olowu (2001) "Decentralization Policies and Practices under Structural Adjustment and Democratization in
Africa," Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 4 July 2001; United Nations
Page 21
Research Institute for Social Development.
locality, representativeness, governmental character or responsibilities and institutional

autonomy.
Other scholars define devolution with an intention of distinguishing it from federalism. For
example, William Leach (2004)50) defines devolution as to mean a formal or de facto transfer of
authority or influence from higher levels of government to lower levels or from the public sector
to the private sector. Thus, in this way devolution is distinct from federalism, which describes a
political system having a constitution that assigns different sets of powers to federal and state
governments.
Devolution as contextualized to Kenya's state of affairs has been understood as an agenda to
redesign government where power and resources are shared equitably; often confusingly referred
to as Majimbo or federalism.51)
1.8.5 Characte ristics of a devolved government

Dr Adams Oloo (2006)52) gives the following as the core characteristics of a devolved
government:
First, in a devolved government, the local units should have autonomy and independence from
the centre. This includes political autonomy, economical autonomy and functional autonomy.
Second, the units ought to have clear and legally recognized geographical boundaries over which
to exercise authority and perform public functions.
Third, the units should be accorded corporate status and the power to raise sufficient resources to
carry out their functions. Economic independence is a very important aspect of devolution.
Without resources, such a political unit cannot survive and therefore the devolved government
should have ways to raise sufficient resources to carry out its functions.
50)
William D. Leach (2004) "Is Devolution Democratic?" ibid.

51) Caleb Opon (2007) "Towards an Integrated Decentralization Policy in Kenya," Study to review the policy
framework for Decentralization in Kenya; ActionAid International Kenya (AAIK) consultative meeting on
Decentralization Policy
52) Oloo A (2006) Devolution and Democratic Governance: Options for Kenya. Nairobi IPAR
Page 22
Lastly, the local governments should be perceived by the people as belonging to them.
1.8.6 Devolution versus Majimboism

The devolution debate in Kenya during the constitution making debate was always punctuated
with talks of majimboism. Majimboism is a feared concept in Kenya. Most politicians, church
leaders, activists and even some scholars have continually associated majimboism with
balkanization, ethnicity and disunity. People mistook the term devolution to mean majimboism
forgetting that devolution could be structured and designed in many different ways.
Majimboism is a form of decentralization or regionalism that was entrenched in the Kenyan
Independence Constitution. Debates revolving around majimboism during the constitution
making process (1990-2011) shaped the way the Kenyan devolution is structured in the 2010
Constitution.
Majimbo system has been defined as a form of regionalism where the government is structured to
permit the development of indigenous institutions and culture within different regions of the
same unitary state. It is said to involve delegation of political and legislative power to semiautonomous, regional or sub-national entities. Legal, political and fiscal powers are also
devolved to the subordinate entity yet at the same time the center maintains control over how
these powers are used.53)
The majimbo Constitution was the product of the outgoing colonial authorities who believed that
such a Constitution would address some of the teething problems that would confront the
emergent independent state e.g. the land question, the future of immigrant communities and their
vested interest.54) Also, some observers state that it was the push by the minorities who feared
dominance by the majorities that gave birth to the majimbo Constitution. All in all, the
independence government viewed the majimbo Constitution as an imposed Constitution and
53)
Ibid
Page 23
of the 2004 Draft Constitution of Kenya Claripress Limited, Nairobi
worked extremely hard to do away with it within the shortest time possible. The "death" of the
majimbo Constitution came barely a year after independence.
Both majimbo and devolution as entrenched in the 2010 Constitution decentralize power and
resources yet majimbo is still unacceptable to the Kenyan society at the present moment. This
study reviews the history of the majimbo system and brings to an understanding why it is feared.
A comparison of the majimbo structure and devolution structure under the 2010 Constitution is
important to understand why the current devolution is acceptable and to analyze what should be
done to ensure that success is achieved in implementation.
1.8.7. Devolution versus federalism

Federalism refers to a principle of government that defines the relationship between the central
government at the national level and its constituent units at the regional, state, or local levels.
Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and
local governmental units, such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it
can exercise, while other powers must be shared.
The term federalism is derived from the Latin root foedus, which means "formal agreement or
covenant." It includes the interrelationships between the states as well as between the states and
the federal government. The main distinction between devolution and federalism is that
devolution can be done away with. Federalism is a permanent arrangement that altering is nearly
impossible.
1.8.8. Devolution unde r the 2010 Constitution

Devolution as structured under the 2010 Constitution was a delicate balance of different ideas
proposed by Kenyans. There were those who were in support of a devolution similar to the
Majimbo Constitution, others wanted only devolution of resources or what came to be famously
known as ugatuzi 55), while others supported complete or total devolution of political power
characterized by stripping the president of the enormous powers he had and bestowing it on
55)
Ugatuzi was a term coined during the 2007 general elections campaigns to refer to decentralization of resources
Page 24
to regions of the country.
regional leaders. The Committee of Experts (CoE) had to delicately balance all this in coming up
with a structure acceptable to all. The Committee worked on the structure proposed at Bomas of
Kenya and as contained in the Bomas draft.
The government of Kenya is to have two levels: the national level and county level. Article 6 (1)
of the 2010 Constitution states that the territory of Kenya is to divided into the counties as
specified in the First Schedule. The first schedule lists a total of forty seven (47) counties.
Subsection 2 of article 6 states that the governments at the national and county levels are distinct
and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and
cooperation.
This study focuses on how the structures and institutions operating in the county government
ensure that public participation and democracy is achieved.
1.9 Conceptual Framework

The keys concepts under study in this research are democracy and public participation. This
section briefly describes these two fundamental concepts.
1.9.1 Democracy
Among the 193 countries worldwide that are recognized by the United Nations (UN), 123 are
said to be democratic.56) This might be taken to mean that more than half of those States have set
up a form of government that is viewed to be democratic by other states or regimes.57) Does this
then mean that 70 countries recognized by the United Nations are undemocratic? It should be
noted that a leader of any of these 70 countries would strongly claim that he/she is leading a
democratic government. Then what is democracy?
George Orwell (1957) states that in the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no
agreed definition but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides the defenders of any kind of
regime (will) claim that it is democracy58)
56)
Paula Becker and Dr. Jean-Aim A. Raveloson (2008) "What is Democracy," Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) with
Page 25
the collaboration of Friedel Daiber (University of Trier)
Afrifa Gitonga (1987)59) also believes that defining democracy is a hard task. He states that this is
due to the various meanings given to it by regimes around the world. Every regime will try as
much as possible to label itself democratic and non-whatsoever would admit that it is
undemocratic. Thus, understanding democracy as a term and concept largely depends on a
regime or government one believes in or is in. But then this would mean democracy has no
generally acceptable definition and that all regimes are democratic. Allowing all definitions to
be right would give rise to a false assumption that as long as a regime claims it is democratic then
it is democratic.
The term "democracy" is literally translated from Greek to mean Government of the People or
Government of the Majority. Thus democracy is generally understood to simply mean "rule by
the people."60) This understanding was further expanded by Abraham Lincoln who defined
democracy as "the rule of the people, by the people and for the people." This is the generally
acceptable definition of democracy and a regime that satisfies this definition is labeled
democratic.
The following have been identified as being elements of states that are organized under
democratic principles: fundamental freedom and fundamental rights, elections, rule of law,
separation of powers, parliament, democratic pluralism and freedom of the media. 61)
Devolution and democracy
Devolution is very useful for the consolidation of democratic structures. As earlier stated,
citizens become more accessible to the government and their level of participation in governance
increases. It also makes the access of the inhabitants to political decisions much easier. Further, it
increases the inhabitants' motivation to get involved in politics; and this political commitment is
probably greater than in countries with centralized organization.
57)
Ibid
58) George Orwell (1957) Selected essays Baltimore p. 149
59) Gitonga Afrifa (1987), "The Meaning and Foundations of Democracy" in Oyugi W.O. &Gitonga A. (1987)
Democratic Theory and Practice in Africa Heinemann Kenya.
Page 26
60) Ibid
Nevertheless, devolution does not mean that the central government is not important. It is exactly
the opposite that is true as the government must show enough political will and commitment to
be able to establish such a change. Devolution is not only an administration restructuring, but
also a political process of transformation. Apart from the administration, these changes affect all
the levels and all the sectors of society.
This is based on the premise that devolved governance provides a structural arrangement and a
level playing field for stakeholders and players to promote peace, democracy, and development.
Many countries are promoting devolution in governance as a measure for democratization,
people empowerment and poverty reduction.62)
1.9.2. Conceptualizing public participation

In a recently published report, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) notes that many
countries that are relatively more advanced and successful in the decentralization process than
Kenya, for instance Britain and China have succeeded in reducing regional inequalities through
better coordination, popular public participation and accountable and responsive governance. 63)
Public participation is thus viewed as an important element for development, improved
governance, and accountability. Further, public participation is said to be a key parameter in
enhancing public confidence in governing institutions, formulating state policies based on
people's needs, and receiving necessary feedback on people's reactions to such policies.64)
1.1.1.1 Defining public participation
61)
Paula Becker and Dr. Jean-Aim A. Raveloson (2008) "What is Democracy," Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) with
the collaboration of Friedel Daiber (University of Trier)
62) John-Mary Kauzya (2005) "Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development," Discussion
Paper for Division for Public Administration and Development Management United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs.
63) Harmonization of Decentralized Development In Kenya: Towards Alignment, Citizen Engagement And Enhanced
Accountability A Collaborative Joint Research report by the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)and Social
and Public Accountability Network (SPAN) December 2010.
Page
64) John Gaventa and Camilo Valderrama (1999) Participation, Citizenship and Local Governance Background
note27
Public participation is a concept that is widely recognized by both international and regional
legal instruments. For example, Article 21 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights
(UDHR) recognizes the concept of public participation as
democratic participation,' Article 25
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights provides for every citizen's rights to
take part in the conduct of public affairs and Article 13 (1) of the African Charter also provides
for public participation. 65)
Public Participation became fashionable following the failure of the top-down development
policies of the 1960s and 1970s. All over a sudden it was argued, in the 1980's, that development
could not be realized unless citizens participated in the politics of their countries. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and donors woke up to the fact that their projects often
failed because people were either not consulted or did not participate in the formulation and
implementation of those projects.66)
The World Bank Learning Group on Participation defines participation as a process through
which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions
and resources which affect them. 67)
From this perspective, participation could be seen in the level of consultation or decision making
in all phases of a project cycle, from needs assessment, to appraisal, to implementation, to
monitoring and evaluation. While these participation projects could be funded by the state,
participation within them was seen not as related to broader issues of politics or governance, but
as a way of encouraging action outside the public sphere. Moreover, the focus was often on
direct participation of primary stakeholders, rather than indirect participation through elected
representatives. 68)
1.1.1.1 Role of public participation
65)
V Hart (2003) Democratic Constitution Making available at http://www.usip.org

66) Nyangabyaki Bazaara (2002) Legal and Policy Framework for Citizen Participation in East Africa: A Comparative
Analysis Regional Report Centre for Basic Research 14 th October 2002
67) World Bank (1995), World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Environment Department Papers Participation Series
Washington D.C. World Bank.
Page 28
68) John Gaventa and Camilo Valderrama (1999) Participation, Citizenship and Local Governance. Op. cite
The role of public participation in economic and human development is enshrined in Article 7 of
the 1990 African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation. The
Article states:
"W e affirm that nations cannot be built without the popular support and full participation of the
people, nor can the economic crisis be resolved and the human and economic conditions
improved without the full and effective contribution, creativity and popular enthusiasm of the vast
majority of the people. A fter all, it is to the people that the very benefits of development should
and must accrue. W e are convinced that neither can A frica's perpetual economic crisis be
overcome, nor can a bright future for A frica and its people see the light of day unless the
structures, pattern and political contest of the process of socio-economic development are
appropriately altered." 69)
1.1.1.1 Modes of public participation

There are various forms or modes of public participation. These include: community-level
involvement in decision-making, opportunity to vote for or against major policy mandates, use of
informal means like the media to influence state policies, and direct representation of citizens in
politics and administration.
Community-level participation basically occurs at the lower level of state power. In Kenya a
good example is the village barazas.
Participation through electoral vote is an indirect way of participation whereby the people elect
representatives to represent them at the decision making level. Whereas these elected persons
might represent the wishes of the people, they might also make decisions for their own personal
benefit.
69)
Article 7 of the 1990 African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation
Page 29
Expression of individual opinions through the media is also a way of participation. The only
concern is whether such participation is effective. Can such participation influence decision
making? Further participation through the media is quite fragmented.
Authentic public participation that is, participation that works for all parties and stimulates
interest and investment in both administrators and citizens, requires re-thinking the underlying
roles of, and relationships between administrators and citizens. 70) This study reviews public
participation under the new constitution to determine whether it will be adequate, effective and
efficient and also reviews structures that should be established to ensure that participation is
promoted.
1.10 Methodology
This study mainly employs desk research methodology whereby it analyzes the available
secondary data as found in books, articles, journals, news reports and on the internet.
1.11 Challenges
The major challenge in this study is access to materials that have examined devolution as
entrenched in the 2010 Constitution. Materials that I relied on generally analyzed various aspects
of decentralization. The Kenyan devolution is peculiar in nature and structured in a delicate
balance. Therefore, to understand this kind of devolution, one needs to interrogate literature on
devolution of the Kenyan case.
1.12 Chapter breakdown

This study is broken down in to four chapters.
Chapter One: Introduction and Research Methodology
70)
Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey, Bridget O'Neill Susel (1998) "The Question of Participation: Toward
Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration," Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 4
http://www.jstor.org/stable/977561
Page 30
Chapter one is the Introduction and Research Methodology of the study. The chapter introduces
the study in the form of the background to the problem, research questions, hypotheses, objective,
literature review, theoretical framework and methodology.
Chapter Two: Historical analysis of public participation and democracy in Kenya since
independence
This chapter analyzes the history of public participation in Kenya since independence.
The chapter looks into the Lancaster (Independence) Constitution and whether it provided for
public participation. In reviewing the Lancaster (Independence) Constitution, the chapter
analyzes regionalism or majimboism as was entrenched in the Independence Constitution. The
study reviews public participation in the period between 1963 and 1964 especially involving
events that culminated to the abolition of the majimbo system.
Various attempts by Kenya to decentralize are also reviewed and analyzed in light of whether the
various attempts promoted democracy and public participation in Kenya. The chapter thus looks
into various structures like regional governments at independence, the provincial administration,
the local government and whether public participation existed or was encouraged under these
structures. The chapter further reviews various policy instruments like Sessional Paper No. 10 of
1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya,71) the District Focus for
Rural Development, Development Plans of the 70's, 80's and 90's, Constituency Development
Fund (CDF), Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF) etc.
The chapter concludes by reviewing public participation in the constitution making process. This
section reviews public participation in multi-party Kenya; participation under the Constitution of
Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) and Bomas Process; participation in the 2005 referendum;
and finally, participation under the Committee of Experts (CoE) process, and the August 2010
referendum.
71)
Government of Kenya, African Socialism and Its Application to Planning in Kenya, Sessional Paper no. 10 of
Page 31
1963/65 (Nairobi: Government Printer, 1965)
Chapter Three: The concept of public participation & governance in a devolved government:
provisions of the 2010 constitution
This chapter discusses the specific provisions of the 2010 Constitution on public participation
and interrogates how such provisions will promote good governance. The interrelationship
between devolution, public participations and governance are looked into in light with the
provisions of the 2010 constitution.
The chapter discusses various aspects of participation. For example, citizen participation in
decision making, resource allocation and governance; and group participation whereby groups
such as the marginalized, the minorities, and gender based groups among others participate in
governance.
Public participation as a concept is dealt with in depth in this chapter.
Chapter Four: Formulating proper legal and institutional framework for public participation in
the devolved Kenya
This chapter gives the proposals and recommendations as to the appropriate legislative and
institutional framework that should be adopted to promote public participation and democracy in
devolved Kenya.
Specifically, the chapter proposes factors to consider in formulating legislations and how
institutions should be built and structures established to ensure that participation and democracy
is achieved.
Page 32

Governance in Devolved Kenya I

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Governance in Devolved Kenya I

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GOVERNANCE IN THE DEVOLVED KENYA: PROSPECTS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY

1.12 Chapter breakdown.............................................................................................................................27

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Constitutional Amendment Act No. 28 of November 24, 1964.

1.2 Background of the study

Article 174 (a) Constitution of Kenya 2010.

underdevelopment of certain regions is blamed on the highly centralized system of government.

E. Gyimah-Boadi (1998) "The Rebirth of African Liberalism," Journal of Democracy 18-31

The Conference was turbulent and

This study reviews the constitution making

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.4 Research Questions

1.5 Justification of the study

to be in support of devolution, disagreements arose as regarding the structure or design of

1.7 Literature Review

Devolution in Kenya: Prospects, Challenges and the Future28)

Search for an Appropriate Decentralization Design in Kenya: Historical and

Devolution: Reconstructing the Kenyan State by Yash Pal Ghai 31):

Affairs Research Paper Series No. 24, Nairobi.

1.8 Theoretical Framework

1.8.2 Defining decentralization

1.8.3 Dime nsions of decentralization

Generally, decentralization is of four types: devolution, delegation, delocalization and

1.8.4 Forms of decentralization

locality, representativeness, governmental character or responsibilities and institutional

1.8.5 Characte ristics of a devolved government

William D. Leach (2004) "Is Devolution Democratic?" ibid.

1.8.6 Devolution versus Majimboism

1.8.7. Devolution versus federalism

1.8.8. Devolution unde r the 2010 Constitution

1.9 Conceptual Framework

1.9.2. Conceptualizing public participation

V Hart (2003) Democratic Constitution Making available at http://www.usip.org

1.1.1.1 Modes of public participation

1.12 Chapter breakdown

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi