From: Mark Kirario


Forget naysayers, majimbo is an idea whose time has come

Story by ANYANG' NYONG'O
Publication Date: 10/18/2007 

DAILY NATION - Thursday

 

THE DEBATE ON WHETHER or not a majimbo (federal) system of government is suitable for Kenya is good for the country. The struggle for independence was about annihilating all forms of discrimination and disenfranchisement that were the hallmarks of colonial rule across Africa.

The founding fathers of this nation fought for an equitable and just society in which all individuals and groups of citizens could lead a decent life and bequeath prosperity to the successor generations. The question is how to achieve this within various structures and institutions for socio-political and economic organisation of our people.

There are those who argue that majimboism had been tried in 1963, it failed, and must be forgotten. But many political thinkers and legal experts concede that the 1963 majimbo experiment was a hastily conceived, clumsily crafted and badly presented variant of federalism.

In any case, the powerful presidency of the time (as it is today) was never enthusiastic about the idea. Asked whether the Kanu government would honour the independence majimbo constitution at a speech he gave at the Alliance High School, Mwai Kibaki, then Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development said categorically: “We shall break it!”

ODM HOLDS THAT MAJIMBO IS about taking resources and power to the people organised in various sub-national jurisdictions of public affairs management.

The Bomas Draft Constitution carefully worked out these jurisdictions in terms of regions. It is the reason we have consistently used the term interchangeably with an easily comprehensible one — devolution.

We don’t think that the natural consequence of this is ethnic animosity and/or tribal clashes or the expulsion of people from certain parts of the country.

Devolution can only be implemented alongside other laws that protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, including their right to live in any part of this country, whether or not those places are their ancestral homes.

Under a devolved system of government, resources are distributed equitably regionally and not on the basis of tribes or ethnic identities.

Kenyans have lived together in peace ever since we attained political independence. Tribal clashes and ethnic cleansing in this country have been orchestrated and financed by politicians who believed in a highly centralised presidential system to address their own fears.

Given a free choice, Kenyans will advance ethnic co-operation rather than exclusion and the devolution of power and resources will not necessarily lead to the emergence of ‘‘tribal states’’ in Kenya.

Some people have even expressed fears that Kenya could experience the kind of ethnic animosity that led to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Such simplistic and alarmist arguments do not help.

Rwanda was under a central governance system at the time of the genocide. Indeed, the grievances of the warring sides revolved around the exercise of the centralised power under a presidential authoritarian regime.

Another criticism of the idea is that regions ‘‘without any resources’’ will suffer marginalisation and economic decline. We do not have any such thing as ‘‘resourceless regions’’. Every part of Kenya has a distinct potential for productivity. In fact, a number of the so-called marginalised areas are actually sitting on gold, in some cases, literally.

It must not be misunderstood that a devolved system leaves no space for the central administration of socio-political and economic affairs of the nation. No. The distribution of the centrally controlled resources will be based on a formula that takes into account the particular needs of the various regions.

Is devolution/majimboism expensive? Properly done, it is actually cheaper and more developmental than the waste-prone presidential system.

At the moment, we have ministries based in Nairobi with provincial, district, divisional and even locational and sub-locational arms. We are certain that giving semi-autonomous status to the regional units will cut the cost of managing public affairs to levels much lower than the current.

Granted, there are sticking points that we need to think through together as a nation in our preparations towards a majimbo system. For instance, the uniformity of policy on issues such as marriages, divorce and liquor across the regional units given the diversity of cultures among our people.

More thinking needs to be directed to the resolution of matters such as these rather than empty opposition to an idea whose time has come.

AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE debate around majimboism in as far as economic and socio-political policy is concerned, is the competition among different policy approaches.

In a centralised system, there is very little scope for competitive experiments in policy. Under majimbo, regional units acting within the same macro-spectrum could experiment with different sets of development policies. The more progressive units could, in principle, become role models for the others.

With clear roles and responsibilities for every level of government, an elaborate mechanism for resolution of conflicts between and among the levels of government, and a leadership truly committed to the political and economic empowerment of the people, majimbo promises peace and prosperity in a just and equitable society.

Prof Nyong’o is the secretary-general, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM)