I’ve written below about my admiration for the CDF scheme. I see enormous potential in it. There are two aspects that I particularly love about it. One is that it takes the resources to the mashinani (grass roots), thus circumventing one of the biggest issues that has plagued Kenya for a long time. The issue of political tribalism. For some reason, the peoples of Kenya are convinced that one has to have the presidency for development to come to their side of the world. Clearly a minister will not do because in independent Kenya, the big tribes and some smaller ones have always had representation in government. The much ‘maligned Luos’ have had a vice president, 2 foreign affair ministers and many more. The Luhyas have had no less than 3 Vice presidents etc. The CDF scheme elevates a member of parliament (MP), suddenly to a small president of their constituency. Some have argued against this and said the an mp should be restricted to making laws in the Kenyan parliament. I disagree, the MP as an individual who has to seek mandate every 5 years is exactly the right person to be the head of the scheme. Since most constituencies in Kenya are mono-ethnic, suddenly the fight for resources on ethnic lines becomes a moot point and the battle ground shifts from the national realm, to the constituency zone.
The second wonderful thing about the scheme, is the emphasis on transparency. The internet has made it possible, for any government that so wishes to be as transparent as they want to be. The data for the CDF scheme is available in the internet, and all aspects of it. The money distributed to the individual constituency and the expenditure of every constituency in Kenya. Even if false data has been put in, the mwananchi (common man) or Wanjiku as they say here can clarify that by visiting various projects in his or her constituency. Compare this to the murky way our local governments function. We know that they receive money from the government, through LATF but we have no clue as to how and where the money is spent. How much is collected through other means which, theoretically should be much more than money given by the government. How many people they employ, who is in charge of what etc. Local government, in Kenya meaning city, town, municipal and county councils affect the lives of the mwananchi more than national politics, yet there are few if any that even have a decent running official website. Not even the great cities of Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu and if they do, please show me.
The potential of the CDF, is if it were extended to serve all the needs of the communities within any given constituency. For what does a community need?
1. Infrastructure (roads and/or rail)
2. Services by which I mean water and electricity
3. Schools
4. Health centres
5. Centres which can accomodate things like shops, libraries, churches, hotels, restaurants etc. This are more the domain of private enterprise but space needs to be allocated by relevant authorities
6. Recreational areas for sporting activities. Parks, football fields, basketball courts. This are spaces generally missing from estates in Nairobi, although this are a very important to an area. The theory in Kenya, seems to be that if it can’t make money, then we won’t make it. Huge mistake, because this spaces contribute to the health and well-being of individuals and ultimately to a more motivated people.
Generally if all this aspects could be moved from the central government to the constituency level and from there to the cities and towns, then our country will, I’m sure, make huge strides ahead and ultimately be more stable and peaceful for it.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Mr. Prime Minister
The clamour is on in Kenya for a shift to a parliamentary system, as if that will cure all our ills. I am no fan of this system of government especially with the inherent imperfections that exist in the Kenyan parliamentary system. None the less, Should we go this route and it is true that there are a number of successful countries like Britain and Germany, which use this system, then a couple of things will need to be addressed. The biggest issue is for us not to have two centres of power. Should we adopt the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister basically runs the show, where he/she hires, fires and drives government policy, then the presidency should be either abolished or made completely ceremonial, where the Kenyan people are not called upon to vote for the holder of that office. He/she can be suggested by the various parties in parliament and voted in by them. It would be the most pointless of exercises to elect the holder of an office who wields little or no power. In other words, lets not do things half half. If it's a prime minister we what then lets go all the way.
The other major issue is the question of representation. Not only for the premiership, must we come as close as possible to the principle of one man one vote but also in the distribution of funds like CDF. Looking at current representation per province one notices stark differences in geographical expanse and in MP per population. This two are key factors because, if we are to maintain the principle of one man one vote, then all constituencies should have an equal number of registered voters* and an equal geographical expanse, especially when we begin to distribute money in the form of CDF. Different regions show a marked difference between the number of registered voters and total population (total of registered voters and those not registered as voters). Nyanza province with less registered votes than central has a bigger total population than central. *So what do we base representation on. If based on actual population then here are the figures, calculated as population per given province divided by the number of constituencies in the province.
1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 120 545 people
2. Central 1 MP represents on average 135 307 people
3. Coast 1 MP represents on average 141 686 people
4. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 147 844 people
5. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 155 778 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 171 792 people
7. Western 1 MP represents on average 172 958 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 355 675 people
This list looks starkly different when you now consider registered voters per province and remember only these count in an election in any given democracy.
1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 28 705 people
2. Coast 1 MP represents on average 56 120 people
3. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 63 802 people
4. Western 1 MP represents on average 65 195 people
5. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 65 966 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 68 538 people
7. Central 1 MP represents on average 75 411 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 159 430 people
These differences are not insignificant. For Example in the first set of figures if The Rift Valley gets an equal representation as Nyanza then they would have 5 extra seats in parliament. Similarly in the second set of figures representing the registered voters, were Central province to have the same representation as Nyanza, 5 extra parliamentary seats would emerge. This I do by simply taking the number of persons eg. In the last example, 2 186 936 (source, ECK) divided by 63 802, which is the number that 1 MP represents in Nyanza. The result is 34, which is 5 more than the current number of seats in Central province of 29 (source, ECK). Such kind of differences will produce distorted results as compared to a direct presidential vote, where the only disadvantage is the unregistered voters. Remember though that the number of registered voters is much more reliable data. The second problem with disproportionate representation is that areas with more people will require more services. For Example more schools, more health centres, more commercial and social centres. Thus they will require in a word more money. This can of course be solved by simply calculating the amount of money to be distributed per person, then getting the total amount by multiplying with the number of people living there. This would be an open and shut case were it not for the second component of representation as we’ll see below. Geographical expanse.
The second aspect of representation in Kenyan politics has to do with geographical expanse. This is especially important when it comes to distribution of CDF money. The important thing here is that, if the CDF money will eventually be increased to cover most of the amenities (schools, health facilities, social facilities, roads and/ or rail, water and electricity) of any given community, then constituencies with huge geographical expanse will be at a disadvantage, as the costs of building roads, will be much more than in a constituency with lesser geographical expanse. The same applies with the coast of providing piped water to all constituents. Cost including the costs of laying pipes per kilometer. Again I’ll make a relative comparison at the provincial level, since going to the constituency level would be tedious.
1. Nairobi An average constituency covers 85.50 square kilometers
2. Western An average constituency covers 348.38 square kilometers
3. Nyanza An average constituency covers 392.09 square kilometers
4. Central An average constituency covers 454.86 square kilometers
5. Rift Valley An average constituency covers 3 548.04 square kilometres
6. Coast An average constituency covers 3 981.10 square kilometres
7. Eastern An average constituency covers 4 441.42 square kilometres
8. North Eastern An average constituency covers 11 536.55 square kilometers
*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.
Another factor considered in the distribution of CDF money is poverty level,. I have no clue how that one is worked out. Clearly though, the 3 sets of figures above show the complexities involved, if we are to achieve equal representation. North Eastern province, where the average constituency is bigger than western province should be receiving the most money according to list 3 but the least according to list 1 and 2. The differences of course come about as a result of the differences in population density (population divided by area) between the various provinces. The following list shows how much this varies from province to province.
1. Nairobi 4 160 people per square km
2. Western 496 people per square km
3. Nyanza 397 people per square km
4. Central 297 people per square km
5. Rift Valley 48 people per square km
6. Coast 35 people per square km
7. Eastern 33 people per square km
8. North Eastern 10 people per square km
*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.
Clearly this are issues that need to be addressed. The presidential system offers the better option as far as one man, one vote is considered (only registered voters have votes). It also gives the electorate a much higher stake in the executive as the president is directly accountable to us and not through a secondary body like the legislature. If the arguments for the direct elections for mayors are to be heard, then it is strange to revert to indirect elections for the executive, where this have failed in mayoral appointments and where people are now asking to directly elect their mayors, so that they are more accountable to them. Where CDF money ids concerned, it would be better off distributed tas per the actual population living in a given area rather than registered voters living in it. Also revisions of boundaries need to be undertaken every so often, maybe every five or ten years, in order to achieve equal representation, across the board.
The other major issue is the question of representation. Not only for the premiership, must we come as close as possible to the principle of one man one vote but also in the distribution of funds like CDF. Looking at current representation per province one notices stark differences in geographical expanse and in MP per population. This two are key factors because, if we are to maintain the principle of one man one vote, then all constituencies should have an equal number of registered voters* and an equal geographical expanse, especially when we begin to distribute money in the form of CDF. Different regions show a marked difference between the number of registered voters and total population (total of registered voters and those not registered as voters). Nyanza province with less registered votes than central has a bigger total population than central. *So what do we base representation on. If based on actual population then here are the figures, calculated as population per given province divided by the number of constituencies in the province.
1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 120 545 people
2. Central 1 MP represents on average 135 307 people
3. Coast 1 MP represents on average 141 686 people
4. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 147 844 people
5. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 155 778 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 171 792 people
7. Western 1 MP represents on average 172 958 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 355 675 people
This list looks starkly different when you now consider registered voters per province and remember only these count in an election in any given democracy.
1. North Eastern 1 MP represents on average 28 705 people
2. Coast 1 MP represents on average 56 120 people
3. Nyanza 1 MP represents on average 63 802 people
4. Western 1 MP represents on average 65 195 people
5. Eastern 1 MP represents on average 65 966 people
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents on average 68 538 people
7. Central 1 MP represents on average 75 411 people
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents on average 159 430 people
These differences are not insignificant. For Example in the first set of figures if The Rift Valley gets an equal representation as Nyanza then they would have 5 extra seats in parliament. Similarly in the second set of figures representing the registered voters, were Central province to have the same representation as Nyanza, 5 extra parliamentary seats would emerge. This I do by simply taking the number of persons eg. In the last example, 2 186 936 (source, ECK) divided by 63 802, which is the number that 1 MP represents in Nyanza. The result is 34, which is 5 more than the current number of seats in Central province of 29 (source, ECK). Such kind of differences will produce distorted results as compared to a direct presidential vote, where the only disadvantage is the unregistered voters. Remember though that the number of registered voters is much more reliable data. The second problem with disproportionate representation is that areas with more people will require more services. For Example more schools, more health centres, more commercial and social centres. Thus they will require in a word more money. This can of course be solved by simply calculating the amount of money to be distributed per person, then getting the total amount by multiplying with the number of people living there. This would be an open and shut case were it not for the second component of representation as we’ll see below. Geographical expanse.
The second aspect of representation in Kenyan politics has to do with geographical expanse. This is especially important when it comes to distribution of CDF money. The important thing here is that, if the CDF money will eventually be increased to cover most of the amenities (schools, health facilities, social facilities, roads and/ or rail, water and electricity) of any given community, then constituencies with huge geographical expanse will be at a disadvantage, as the costs of building roads, will be much more than in a constituency with lesser geographical expanse. The same applies with the coast of providing piped water to all constituents. Cost including the costs of laying pipes per kilometer. Again I’ll make a relative comparison at the provincial level, since going to the constituency level would be tedious.
1. Nairobi An average constituency covers 85.50 square kilometers
2. Western An average constituency covers 348.38 square kilometers
3. Nyanza An average constituency covers 392.09 square kilometers
4. Central An average constituency covers 454.86 square kilometers
5. Rift Valley An average constituency covers 3 548.04 square kilometres
6. Coast An average constituency covers 3 981.10 square kilometres
7. Eastern An average constituency covers 4 441.42 square kilometres
8. North Eastern An average constituency covers 11 536.55 square kilometers
*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.
Another factor considered in the distribution of CDF money is poverty level,. I have no clue how that one is worked out. Clearly though, the 3 sets of figures above show the complexities involved, if we are to achieve equal representation. North Eastern province, where the average constituency is bigger than western province should be receiving the most money according to list 3 but the least according to list 1 and 2. The differences of course come about as a result of the differences in population density (population divided by area) between the various provinces. The following list shows how much this varies from province to province.
1. Nairobi 4 160 people per square km
2. Western 496 people per square km
3. Nyanza 397 people per square km
4. Central 297 people per square km
5. Rift Valley 48 people per square km
6. Coast 35 people per square km
7. Eastern 33 people per square km
8. North Eastern 10 people per square km
*Nyanza province, area minus the area covered by Lake Victoria.
Clearly this are issues that need to be addressed. The presidential system offers the better option as far as one man, one vote is considered (only registered voters have votes). It also gives the electorate a much higher stake in the executive as the president is directly accountable to us and not through a secondary body like the legislature. If the arguments for the direct elections for mayors are to be heard, then it is strange to revert to indirect elections for the executive, where this have failed in mayoral appointments and where people are now asking to directly elect their mayors, so that they are more accountable to them. Where CDF money ids concerned, it would be better off distributed tas per the actual population living in a given area rather than registered voters living in it. Also revisions of boundaries need to be undertaken every so often, maybe every five or ten years, in order to achieve equal representation, across the board.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Majimbo Debate
The majimbo system seems to be very popular with residents of certain parts of the country. The thinking seems to be that with this system all their problems will be solved. They'll have more money available to them as all most of the money will be going back to the mashinani (grassroots), at least thats what they've been told by their political leaders. Some maybe even the majority, especially in the Coast and Rift Valley provinces interpret it to mean that all 'outsiders(people from other parts of the country who've settled in this places)'will have to return to where they or their ancestors came from. The thinking being that once this folks go, their lives will be much better, never mind that our current constitution guarantees Kenyans to settle and own property in any part of the country. This is in fact one of the most basic rights contained in any modern state to its citizens.
Majimbo in its most favourable interpretation means a federal system of government. This is a form practiced in several states including very successfully by economical powerhouses USA and Germany. The federal republic of Germany probably has one of the most successful devolved systems of Govt. around. Anyone who's ever been there will know. It goes down to the regions, the cities and within the cities themselves. What one doesn't know though is that like in any other place there are rich regions like Bavaria and some poorer ones, especially in the former East Germany. Now in the German system, what is collected in Bavaria is not exclusively just forked back into Bavaria, but there's a sort of mechanism that goes to balance the money redistributed to the Mashinani (Länderfinanzausgleich), so that certain regions don't lag behind others. That means the people of Bavaria pay more than what they actually get from the federal system. In addition, till today, the citizens of Germany are still taxed towards bringing the states of the former East Germany to the same level as the former West German ones (solidarzuschlag). Translated into the Kenyan system, what does equitable distribution of resources mean? Will the people of Nyanza agree towards some of their hard earned monies being used in building the North Eastern Province, for example? Will the people of Rift Valley agree to their resources/money being used to shore up Western Province or central Province and vis versa as the case maybe.
A situation where province A generates 20% more income than province B and gets back the same money back will lead over time to a situation where the inequalities in the 2 provinces will be much greater than is presently the case. Our ultimate goal as a nation is to achieve as much equality in distribution of infrastructure, services and standard of life as possible. What ODM doesn't tell you is that in a true federal system the rich must drag along the poor. That in itself contains an inbuilt inherent unfairness, where some pay more than they receive. These however must bear the sacrifice for the greater good. It is important to note that even in a mature devolved system like Germany's people still grumble here and there, albeit quietly about this arrangements. The danger in the ethnisised Kenyan environment is a state of perpetual war as different regions (tribes) fight over resource allocations and eventually contemplate secession when it ends up that they are only propping other places up. Secession means all out War. A federal system of government requires a certain level of maturity in the electorate that frankly I don't believe we have achieved yet. As we seen before and after the general election, our electorate is easily swayed by demagogues. As much as we may try to ourselves that our electorate is more informed, I still don't believe they are well informed enough tom make the choices that were on offer during the last election.
A federal system does not exist without a strong centre. Left on their own, the states or provinces might develop into a situation best described by this parable in the bible. A man goes on a long journey and entrusts his workers with talents. To one he gives 5, to the next 2 and to the last 1. When the man comes back, he find that the first worker invested wisely and earned 5 more talents. The second one likewise invested wisely and gained 2 more. The last however buried his in the ground and when the master came back he had only his one to show. Basically, some states (jimbos or provinces) will invest wisely and move greatly forward, some will waste their money foolishly and thus lag even far behind. Who will carry the responsibility of bailing them out? Such misuse is already evident in the use of CDF funds, where some constituencies have invested wisely and improved on the lives of their residents, while in others the money has been misused through corruption and nepotism.
A further disadvantage of a federal system is creating a huge bureaucracy. A federal system of government involves the state having their own executives and legislative organs. In Germany some state parliaments have close to 200 members. Translated into the Kenyan context and the large salaries that our MPs earn, that would almost lead us into bankruptcy. Furthermore complicated laws have to be established as to the roles of the state and the federal government. Legislation takes longer to pass through the legislative bodies. Finally, at least in the US and Germany the parliament has two chambers, with the second chamber accommodating the states.
It is also not quite true that there doesn't exist a certain amount of devolution in our current centralized unitary system of government. The way our system works,the state collects its revenue through tax and customs and then allocates the funds to the various ministries. The ministries are then charged with the responsibility of distributing the funds to the various provinces. In addition to that since 1999 some funds have been allocated regularly to the local authorities through the LATF programme. In addition since the year 2003, a percentage of government revenue has been going back to the mashinani through the CDF scheme.
In conclusion, a fair amount of devolution can be achieved by by-passing the provinces and going directly to the constituencies as is currently being done. However there has to be a strong central organizing committee to make sure that the boards responsible for the funds in the constituency are professional and up to the task. The MP as the one who seeks a fresh mandate every five years and who in the end can be held accountable to the people spearheads the committee and guides its actions. Through this the people maintain leverage over the use of funds and who runs them. With time more funding and responsibility can be awarded to the CDF. They can then be charged with tasks of providing infrastructure, services (water, health, electricity, education ) etc.
Transparency within our present political structure can be achieved by making ministries completely accountable as to how the funds are allocated to the various provinces. The records should be readily available to the public. This would eliminate certain mundane and ill informed debates about how the least revenue is collected in central province and yet most of the government money is spent there. It would also form a more informed basis for the public to hold discussions. The government for its own sakes also needs to appreciate the need for keeping accurate statistics as to the amount of services, schools, health facilities and infrastructure available in every province or better yet constituency. This information also needs to be readily available, through the internet for example. This should be coupled by the plans currently under way of broadcasting parliament sessions live. There the general public can have access to the minister through their Members of parliament who can then question why province A gets so much money and why province B gets so little.
One area where there seems to be total lack of transparency and accountability is in the local government. In the city, town, municipal and county councils. As you can see they've gotten quite an amount of money through the LATF funds in addition to the revenue they collect themselves. How do they spend that money? Why is it that most don't have even a decent website in this day and age including the cities Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu? There really seems to be little change on the ground as far as these councils are concerned.
In closing retaining our current structure of government but increasing its transparency, with simple yet effective means as has been done in the CDF scheme is the better way to go. The Majimbo system carries with it quite a huge amount of historical baggage as well as increasing the overall level of bureaucracy. Our current light weight structure if improved upon will take us from A to B much faster, while holding the country together.
Majimbo in its most favourable interpretation means a federal system of government. This is a form practiced in several states including very successfully by economical powerhouses USA and Germany. The federal republic of Germany probably has one of the most successful devolved systems of Govt. around. Anyone who's ever been there will know. It goes down to the regions, the cities and within the cities themselves. What one doesn't know though is that like in any other place there are rich regions like Bavaria and some poorer ones, especially in the former East Germany. Now in the German system, what is collected in Bavaria is not exclusively just forked back into Bavaria, but there's a sort of mechanism that goes to balance the money redistributed to the Mashinani (Länderfinanzausgleich), so that certain regions don't lag behind others. That means the people of Bavaria pay more than what they actually get from the federal system. In addition, till today, the citizens of Germany are still taxed towards bringing the states of the former East Germany to the same level as the former West German ones (solidarzuschlag). Translated into the Kenyan system, what does equitable distribution of resources mean? Will the people of Nyanza agree towards some of their hard earned monies being used in building the North Eastern Province, for example? Will the people of Rift Valley agree to their resources/money being used to shore up Western Province or central Province and vis versa as the case maybe.
A situation where province A generates 20% more income than province B and gets back the same money back will lead over time to a situation where the inequalities in the 2 provinces will be much greater than is presently the case. Our ultimate goal as a nation is to achieve as much equality in distribution of infrastructure, services and standard of life as possible. What ODM doesn't tell you is that in a true federal system the rich must drag along the poor. That in itself contains an inbuilt inherent unfairness, where some pay more than they receive. These however must bear the sacrifice for the greater good. It is important to note that even in a mature devolved system like Germany's people still grumble here and there, albeit quietly about this arrangements. The danger in the ethnisised Kenyan environment is a state of perpetual war as different regions (tribes) fight over resource allocations and eventually contemplate secession when it ends up that they are only propping other places up. Secession means all out War. A federal system of government requires a certain level of maturity in the electorate that frankly I don't believe we have achieved yet. As we seen before and after the general election, our electorate is easily swayed by demagogues. As much as we may try to ourselves that our electorate is more informed, I still don't believe they are well informed enough tom make the choices that were on offer during the last election.
A federal system does not exist without a strong centre. Left on their own, the states or provinces might develop into a situation best described by this parable in the bible. A man goes on a long journey and entrusts his workers with talents. To one he gives 5, to the next 2 and to the last 1. When the man comes back, he find that the first worker invested wisely and earned 5 more talents. The second one likewise invested wisely and gained 2 more. The last however buried his in the ground and when the master came back he had only his one to show. Basically, some states (jimbos or provinces) will invest wisely and move greatly forward, some will waste their money foolishly and thus lag even far behind. Who will carry the responsibility of bailing them out? Such misuse is already evident in the use of CDF funds, where some constituencies have invested wisely and improved on the lives of their residents, while in others the money has been misused through corruption and nepotism.
A further disadvantage of a federal system is creating a huge bureaucracy. A federal system of government involves the state having their own executives and legislative organs. In Germany some state parliaments have close to 200 members. Translated into the Kenyan context and the large salaries that our MPs earn, that would almost lead us into bankruptcy. Furthermore complicated laws have to be established as to the roles of the state and the federal government. Legislation takes longer to pass through the legislative bodies. Finally, at least in the US and Germany the parliament has two chambers, with the second chamber accommodating the states.
It is also not quite true that there doesn't exist a certain amount of devolution in our current centralized unitary system of government. The way our system works,the state collects its revenue through tax and customs and then allocates the funds to the various ministries. The ministries are then charged with the responsibility of distributing the funds to the various provinces. In addition to that since 1999 some funds have been allocated regularly to the local authorities through the LATF programme. In addition since the year 2003, a percentage of government revenue has been going back to the mashinani through the CDF scheme.
In conclusion, a fair amount of devolution can be achieved by by-passing the provinces and going directly to the constituencies as is currently being done. However there has to be a strong central organizing committee to make sure that the boards responsible for the funds in the constituency are professional and up to the task. The MP as the one who seeks a fresh mandate every five years and who in the end can be held accountable to the people spearheads the committee and guides its actions. Through this the people maintain leverage over the use of funds and who runs them. With time more funding and responsibility can be awarded to the CDF. They can then be charged with tasks of providing infrastructure, services (water, health, electricity, education ) etc.
Transparency within our present political structure can be achieved by making ministries completely accountable as to how the funds are allocated to the various provinces. The records should be readily available to the public. This would eliminate certain mundane and ill informed debates about how the least revenue is collected in central province and yet most of the government money is spent there. It would also form a more informed basis for the public to hold discussions. The government for its own sakes also needs to appreciate the need for keeping accurate statistics as to the amount of services, schools, health facilities and infrastructure available in every province or better yet constituency. This information also needs to be readily available, through the internet for example. This should be coupled by the plans currently under way of broadcasting parliament sessions live. There the general public can have access to the minister through their Members of parliament who can then question why province A gets so much money and why province B gets so little.
One area where there seems to be total lack of transparency and accountability is in the local government. In the city, town, municipal and county councils. As you can see they've gotten quite an amount of money through the LATF funds in addition to the revenue they collect themselves. How do they spend that money? Why is it that most don't have even a decent website in this day and age including the cities Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu? There really seems to be little change on the ground as far as these councils are concerned.
In closing retaining our current structure of government but increasing its transparency, with simple yet effective means as has been done in the CDF scheme is the better way to go. The Majimbo system carries with it quite a huge amount of historical baggage as well as increasing the overall level of bureaucracy. Our current light weight structure if improved upon will take us from A to B much faster, while holding the country together.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The 2007 Kenyan General Elections
A lot has been said about last years elections but I have seen little analysis of the cold facts as presented. President Kibaki stands condemned of stealing the elections (Railas cow) by ODM and the international community at large. In typical kenyan fashion, much like the way the mobs ruthlessly deal with "accused criminals" in the streets of Nairobi, Kibaki has been stoned before his side of the story got a fair hearing. It has to be said though that the reason that the PNU side didn't get their story out is due to the ineptness of their PR department as well as being ill prepared for the ODM onslaught that was indeed very well choreographed and backed to almost a man by the international media and western governments. In fairness, PNU started well when they presented the case of how Kibaki won fair and square in the local dailies, but soon after they fell into deep slumber letting the highly discredited ECK fight their battles for them. The ECK at this point is like the boy who cried wolf too many times. Despite what they said making perfect sense, no one believes them any more.
Incidentally by refusing to go to court, ODM deprived Kibaki of this very fair hearing against the accusations leveled against him and the PNU brigade. ODM forced the whole debate into the public forum, where Mr. Salim Lone, outsmarted one Dr. Alfred Mutua in presentation of their case to the public.
Since the route to the courts was denied, the common mwananchi seeking to see through the maze of ODM propaganda is forced to do some own research of the commonly available data. I don't have access to the numerous infamous Form 16As, so the research I've done is based on the data available in the public domain. What are the facts and figures? First the ECK has finally published all the results on their Website, presidential, parliamentary and civic pertaining to the last general elections. However, I have noticed that at least one result has been changed over time. The parliamentary results from Embakasi. Initially there was a difference of 37 000 votes between the presidential and parliamentary race in that constituency, but with the updated version, the difference is only 5 000 votes or so. There is also a discrepancy with some numbers I've heard mentioned in the media and the results appearing on the ECK website. The total voter turnout for the parliamentary race in Nithi only adds up to about 78 000, while I've heard the figure of 95 000 being mentioned in the media. You'll remember that Nithi was one of the controversial results in the last election. Based on the figures provided on the site, it's possible to carry out a crude analysis by comparing voter turnouts in the 3 contests. Presidential, civic and parliamentary. The fact that there are significant discrepancies between the presidential and parliamentary tallies has been offered as proof of wide spread rigging by the Kibaki side. The fact of the matter is that when you go through all the results you'll find discrepancies on both sides of the divide including the following Raila constituencies where Kibaki got very few votes.
1.Kasipul-Bondo (3 055, Kibaki got 179 votes)
2.Kisumu Town West (3 949, Kibaki got 1,738 votes)
3. Kisumu Rural (3 941,Kibaki got 406 votes)
4. Rongo (3 158, Kibaki got 175 votes)
5. Nyatike (2 430,Kibaki got 321 votes)
6. Alego (2 980,Kibaki got 174 votes)
7. Migori (3 508, Kibaki got 1 533 votes)
8.Sigor (2 152, Kibaki got 1 625 votes)
and those are just the places where the presidential exceeded the parliamentary tally by more than 2 000 votes. There are a myriad of other Raila strongholds and where Kibaki hardly got any votes with discrepancies of 1 000+ votes. The common assumption is that the parliamentary tally is correct and the presidential tally was topped up at KICC. There are good grounds to doubt the accuracy of the parliamentary tally. Of the 3 races, presidential, civic and parliamentary, the parliamentary race was arguably the most competitive. Our MPs , graciously added to their salaries and this attracted a lot of contestants. Lots of contestants means a lot of agents in the polling stations and a lot of arguments and delays. There were quite a number of parliamentary races that were interrupted in one way or another, because apart from the heavy rewards, the contestants had spent quite some money in the race. Thus no one wanted to lose, especially in Nairobi where all the races were extremely competitive.
The discrepancies might also just be due to clerical errors. Not only were the last elections the most contested but the number of voters who voted rose by 4 million in comparison to the elections in 2002. Turnout was extremely high and the number of registered voters had also increased. One Analysis on the net that relies n the discrepancies to make a case for Kibakis rigging is one by KEDOF. Most of their analyis can be found here.
Finally the last case for rigging has been made by ODM which produced the evidence in one of the local dailies some time back. They claimed that results in 47 constituencies had been tampered with and provided information as to what results were announced at te constituency level and those read at KICC. Of the 47 constituencies, the number of constituencies IMHO, this evidence proves that there really is no evidence. It is highly lacking and questionable even by virtue of simple logic. Just a look at these 3 examples shows that ODM's case stands on extremely shaky ground.
JUJA:
ODM would have you believe that the turn out here was a mere ridiculous 33% and they back up with evidence which shows a form 16. The interesting thing is that the results shown on the form are from only 111 polling stations while JUJA: according to ECK has 231 polling stations.
Note there were 27 555 polling stations nation wide, which works to an average of 131 (27 555 Polling Stations (Info from ECK as well as European observer mission) / 210 constituencies) polling stations/constituency. The Average constituency has roughly 68 000 voters (14.29 million voters / 210 constituencies. Juja with 163 000 registered voters has more than twice the number of voters in an avereage constituency.
Results of Juja: Presidential Turnout 119 000 voters, Parliamentary Turnout about 114 000, Civic Turnout roughly 120 000.
KANDARA: According to ODM a turn out of 40%. Ridiculous. The Average turnout in Central province was about 80% give or take.
EMBAKASSI:
The difference between parliamentary tally and presidential tally here was about 37 000 (This has since been corrected and the magin has since reduced to anbout 5 000 votes difference. This is however the data that ODM was working with).
ODM argues that this difference was added to one Mwai Kibaki's total. They subsequently subtract this figure to bring Kibakis haul here to 34 000 votes. Note. The PNU and DP candidate had a combined total of 50 000 votes. Not to mention the myriad of PNU affiliates also running here (including David Mwenje).
Raila had 50 000 votes while the ODM man running here, one Melitus Mugabe Were (R.I.P)only had 35 000 votes. Clearly ODM wants to lower the votes coming from Central, and as Kenyans, our votes are no less important or valued than those in Nyanza. The idea is to weight the votes coming out of central which is nothing short of a subversion of democracy. One man one vote. ODM would rather have our votes count at only 50%.
In short when we dig deeper into the case of the all edged rigging we find nothing but rot. In the words of Jay-Z, We don't believe you, you need more people.
Incidentally by refusing to go to court, ODM deprived Kibaki of this very fair hearing against the accusations leveled against him and the PNU brigade. ODM forced the whole debate into the public forum, where Mr. Salim Lone, outsmarted one Dr. Alfred Mutua in presentation of their case to the public.
Since the route to the courts was denied, the common mwananchi seeking to see through the maze of ODM propaganda is forced to do some own research of the commonly available data. I don't have access to the numerous infamous Form 16As, so the research I've done is based on the data available in the public domain. What are the facts and figures? First the ECK has finally published all the results on their Website, presidential, parliamentary and civic pertaining to the last general elections. However, I have noticed that at least one result has been changed over time. The parliamentary results from Embakasi. Initially there was a difference of 37 000 votes between the presidential and parliamentary race in that constituency, but with the updated version, the difference is only 5 000 votes or so. There is also a discrepancy with some numbers I've heard mentioned in the media and the results appearing on the ECK website. The total voter turnout for the parliamentary race in Nithi only adds up to about 78 000, while I've heard the figure of 95 000 being mentioned in the media. You'll remember that Nithi was one of the controversial results in the last election. Based on the figures provided on the site, it's possible to carry out a crude analysis by comparing voter turnouts in the 3 contests. Presidential, civic and parliamentary. The fact that there are significant discrepancies between the presidential and parliamentary tallies has been offered as proof of wide spread rigging by the Kibaki side. The fact of the matter is that when you go through all the results you'll find discrepancies on both sides of the divide including the following Raila constituencies where Kibaki got very few votes.
1.Kasipul-Bondo (3 055, Kibaki got 179 votes)
2.Kisumu Town West (3 949, Kibaki got 1,738 votes)
3. Kisumu Rural (3 941,Kibaki got 406 votes)
4. Rongo (3 158, Kibaki got 175 votes)
5. Nyatike (2 430,Kibaki got 321 votes)
6. Alego (2 980,Kibaki got 174 votes)
7. Migori (3 508, Kibaki got 1 533 votes)
8.Sigor (2 152, Kibaki got 1 625 votes)
and those are just the places where the presidential exceeded the parliamentary tally by more than 2 000 votes. There are a myriad of other Raila strongholds and where Kibaki hardly got any votes with discrepancies of 1 000+ votes. The common assumption is that the parliamentary tally is correct and the presidential tally was topped up at KICC. There are good grounds to doubt the accuracy of the parliamentary tally. Of the 3 races, presidential, civic and parliamentary, the parliamentary race was arguably the most competitive. Our MPs , graciously added to their salaries and this attracted a lot of contestants. Lots of contestants means a lot of agents in the polling stations and a lot of arguments and delays. There were quite a number of parliamentary races that were interrupted in one way or another, because apart from the heavy rewards, the contestants had spent quite some money in the race. Thus no one wanted to lose, especially in Nairobi where all the races were extremely competitive.
The discrepancies might also just be due to clerical errors. Not only were the last elections the most contested but the number of voters who voted rose by 4 million in comparison to the elections in 2002. Turnout was extremely high and the number of registered voters had also increased. One Analysis on the net that relies n the discrepancies to make a case for Kibakis rigging is one by KEDOF. Most of their analyis can be found here.
Finally the last case for rigging has been made by ODM which produced the evidence in one of the local dailies some time back. They claimed that results in 47 constituencies had been tampered with and provided information as to what results were announced at te constituency level and those read at KICC. Of the 47 constituencies, the number of constituencies IMHO, this evidence proves that there really is no evidence. It is highly lacking and questionable even by virtue of simple logic. Just a look at these 3 examples shows that ODM's case stands on extremely shaky ground.
JUJA:
ODM would have you believe that the turn out here was a mere ridiculous 33% and they back up with evidence which shows a form 16. The interesting thing is that the results shown on the form are from only 111 polling stations while JUJA: according to ECK has 231 polling stations.
Note there were 27 555 polling stations nation wide, which works to an average of 131 (27 555 Polling Stations (Info from ECK as well as European observer mission) / 210 constituencies) polling stations/constituency. The Average constituency has roughly 68 000 voters (14.29 million voters / 210 constituencies. Juja with 163 000 registered voters has more than twice the number of voters in an avereage constituency.
Results of Juja: Presidential Turnout 119 000 voters, Parliamentary Turnout about 114 000, Civic Turnout roughly 120 000.
KANDARA: According to ODM a turn out of 40%. Ridiculous. The Average turnout in Central province was about 80% give or take.
EMBAKASSI:
The difference between parliamentary tally and presidential tally here was about 37 000 (This has since been corrected and the magin has since reduced to anbout 5 000 votes difference. This is however the data that ODM was working with).
ODM argues that this difference was added to one Mwai Kibaki's total. They subsequently subtract this figure to bring Kibakis haul here to 34 000 votes. Note. The PNU and DP candidate had a combined total of 50 000 votes. Not to mention the myriad of PNU affiliates also running here (including David Mwenje).
Raila had 50 000 votes while the ODM man running here, one Melitus Mugabe Were (R.I.P)only had 35 000 votes. Clearly ODM wants to lower the votes coming from Central, and as Kenyans, our votes are no less important or valued than those in Nyanza. The idea is to weight the votes coming out of central which is nothing short of a subversion of democracy. One man one vote. ODM would rather have our votes count at only 50%.
In short when we dig deeper into the case of the all edged rigging we find nothing but rot. In the words of Jay-Z, We don't believe you, you need more people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)