Kenya’s journey towards devolution is deeply rooted in its colonial and post-colonial history. For decades after gaining independence in 1963, Kenya operated under a highly centralized government system, a legacy of British colonial rule. This centralized structure concentrated power and resources in Nairobi, the capital city, often at the expense of other regions.

The centralized system was characterized by a strong executive presidency and a unitary state structure. Under this system, the national government held sway over all major decisions, from resource allocation to policy implementation. Local governments, though they existed, had limited autonomy and relied heavily on the central government for funding and decision-making.

This centralization led to several challenges:

1. Regional Disparities: Resources and development projects were often concentrated in certain areas, particularly around Nairobi and other major urban centers. This led to significant disparities in development across different regions of the country.
2. Ethnic Tensions: The concentration of power at the center often meant that the ethnic group in power could disproportionately benefit its own communities, fueling inter-ethnic rivalries and tensions.
3. Inefficient Service Delivery: The distance between the central government and local communities often resulted in inefficient and ineffective service delivery, as local needs were not always well understood or prioritized.
4. Limited Political Participation: The centralized system limited meaningful political participation for many Kenyans, especially those in remote areas.

Despite these challenges, the centralized system persisted for decades, with various attempts at decentralization achieving limited success. The Local Government Act of 1963 established local authorities, but these remained largely under the control of the central government. The District Focus for Rural Development strategy, introduced in the 1980s, aimed to decentralize planning but did not significantly alter the power structure.

2010 Constitution and Introduction of Devolution

The push for devolution gained significant momentum in the early 2000s, driven by a combination of factors including growing dissatisfaction with the centralized system, increased democratic space, and the aftermath of the 2007-2008 post-election violence.

The violence that erupted after the disputed 2007 presidential election exposed the deep-seated issues within Kenya’s governance structure. It highlighted the dangers of concentrating power at the center and the need for a more inclusive system of governance. This crisis served as a catalyst for comprehensive constitutional reform.

The process of drafting a new constitution involved extensive public participation and negotiations. After years of debate and refinement, the new Constitution of Kenya was promulgated on August 27, 2010, marking a watershed moment in the country’s history.

Key aspects of the 2010 Constitution related to devolution include:

1. Establishment of 47 Counties: The Constitution created 47 county governments, each with its own executive and legislative branch.
2. Division of Functions: It clearly delineated functions between the national and county governments, assigning specific responsibilities to each level.
3. Revenue Sharing: The Constitution mandated that at least 15% of national revenue be allocated to county governments.
4. Principle of Subsidiarity: This principle, enshrined in the Constitution, requires that functions be performed at the lowest level of government possible.
5. Intergovernmental Relations: The Constitution provided for mechanisms to manage relations between the national and county governments.

The introduction of devolution aimed to address several long-standing issues:

• Equity: By ensuring resources reach all parts of the country, devolution sought to promote more equitable development.
• Efficiency: Bringing government closer to the people was expected to improve service delivery and responsiveness to local needs.
• Participation: Devolution aimed to enhance citizen participation in governance and decision-making processes.
• National Unity: By giving all regions a stake in governance, devolution was seen as a tool for promoting national unity and reducing ethnic tensions.

The implementation of devolution began in earnest after the 2013 general elections, which saw the first crop of county governors and assemblies elected. This marked the beginning of a new era in Kenya’s governance, with power and resources being distributed more widely across the country.

However, the transition to a devolved system was not without challenges. Issues such as capacity building at the county level, disputes over resource allocation, and resistance from some quarters of the national government marked the early years of devolution.

Despite these challenges, devolution has been hailed as one of the most significant and transformative aspects of the 2010 Constitution. It represents a fundamental shift in Kenya’s governance structure, moving from a highly centralized system to one that distributes power and resources more equitably across the country.

Structure of Devolved Government in Kenya

Kenya’s devolved system of government, established by the 2010 Constitution, represents a significant shift from the previous centralized structure. This system aims to promote democratic and accountable exercise of power, foster national unity, and enhance public participation in governance. The structure consists of two main levels: the national government and 47 county governments.

A. National Government

The national government retains overall responsibility for the country and plays a crucial role in the devolved system. Its structure includes:

1. Executive:

• Led by the President, who is both head of state and government
• Cabinet Secretaries head various ministries
• Responsible for national policies, international relations, and matters of national importance

1. Legislature:

• Bicameral Parliament consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate
• National Assembly represents constituencies and special interests
• Senate represents counties and protects their interests

1. Judiciary:

• Independent arm of government
• Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and subordinate courts
• Interprets the Constitution and resolves disputes between national and county governments

The national government is responsible for matters of national importance, including:

• Foreign affairs and international trade
• National security and defense
• Immigration and citizenship
• National economic policy and planning
• National statistics and data
• Intellectual property rights
• National transport and communications infrastructure

B. 47 County Governments

Each of Kenya’s 47 counties has its own government, mirroring the structure of the national government:

1. County Executive:

• Led by a directly elected Governor and Deputy Governor
• County Executive Committee (equivalent to a cabinet) assists the Governor
• Responsible for implementing county legislation, managing county public services, and implementing national government policies

1. County Assembly:

• Unicameral legislature composed of elected ward representatives and nominated members
• Enacts county laws, approves budgets and expenditures, and oversees the county executive

1. County Public Service:

• Implements county government policies and delivers services at the local level

Counties are responsible for:

• Agriculture
• County health services
• Control of air pollution, noise pollution, and outdoor advertising
• Cultural activities, public entertainment, and public amenities
• County transport and infrastructure
• Animal control and welfare
• Trade development and regulation
• County planning and development
• Pre-primary education, village polytechnics, and childcare facilities

C. Distribution of Powers and Functions

The distribution of powers and functions between the national and county governments is a key feature of Kenya’s devolved system. This distribution is guided by several principles:

1. Subsidiarity: Functions should be performed at the lowest level of government where they can be carried out effectively.
2. Distinctiveness: Each level of government has distinct and separate functions.
3. Interdependence: The two levels of government are required to cooperate in the performance of their functions.
4. Residual Powers: Any function not expressly assigned by the Constitution or national legislation to a county is a function of the national government.

The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution explicitly outlines the distribution of functions:

National Government Functions include:

• Foreign affairs, foreign policy, and international trade
• Use of international waters and water resources
• Immigration and citizenship
• National defense and security
• Courts
• National economic policy and planning
• Monetary policy, currency, and banking
• National statistics and data on population, the economy, and society
• Intellectual property rights
• Labor standards
• Consumer protection
• Education policy, standards, curricula, examinations, and granting of university charters
• Universities, tertiary educational institutions, and other institutions of research and higher learning
• Transport and communications
• National public works

County Government Functions include:

• Agriculture
• County health services
• Control of air pollution, noise pollution, other public nuisances, and outdoor advertising
• Cultural activities, public entertainment, and public amenities
• County transport
• Animal control and welfare
• Trade development and regulation
• County planning and development
• Pre-primary education, village polytechnics, homecraft centers, and childcare facilities
• Implementation of specific national government policies on natural resources and environmental conservation
• County public works and services
• Firefighting services and disaster management
• Control of drugs and pornography
• Ensuring and coordinating the participation of communities in governance at the local level

The distribution of functions is not always clear-cut, and there have been instances of overlap and conflict. To address this, the Intergovernmental Relations Act of 2012 established mechanisms for consultation and cooperation between the two levels of government.

In cases of conflict over the distribution of functions, the Constitution provides for resolution through negotiation, mediation, or ultimately, the courts. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution and resolving disputes between levels of government.

Key Features of Devolution in Kenya

Devolution in Kenya, as established by the 2010 Constitution, represents a fundamental shift in the country’s governance structure. It is characterized by three main features: fiscal decentralization, political decentralization, and administrative decentralization. These features work together to create a system that aims to bring government closer to the people, enhance service delivery, and promote equitable development across the country.

A. Fiscal Decentralization

Fiscal decentralization is a cornerstone of Kenya’s devolved system, involving the transfer of financial resources and revenue-raising powers to county governments. This feature aims to ensure that counties have the financial capacity to fulfill their mandates and deliver services effectively.

Key aspects of fiscal decentralization include:

1. Revenue Sharing: The Constitution mandates that at least 15% of national revenue be allocated to county governments. This percentage is based on the most recently audited accounts approved by the National Assembly.
2. Equalization Fund: An additional 0.5% of annual national revenue is set aside for the Equalization Fund. This fund is used to provide basic services to marginalized areas and bring them to the level generally enjoyed by the rest of the nation.
3. Own-Source Revenue: Counties have the power to raise their own revenue through property taxes, entertainment taxes, and service charges. This ability to generate local revenue enhances county autonomy and reduces dependence on national government allocations.
4. Conditional and Unconditional Grants: Besides the equitable share, counties may receive additional funds from the national government in the form of conditional (for specific purposes) or unconditional grants.
5. Public Finance Management: The Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act provide a framework for prudent and transparent management of public resources at both national and county levels.

Challenges in fiscal decentralization include disparities in revenue-generating capacity among counties, delays in disbursement of funds from the national treasury, and in some cases, mismanagement of funds at the county level.

B. Political Decentralization

Political decentralization involves the transfer of political power and authority to the county level. This feature aims to enhance democratic participation and ensure that local voices are heard in decision-making processes.

Key aspects of political decentralization include:

1. Direct Election of County Leaders: Governors, deputy governors, and members of county assemblies are directly elected by county residents, enhancing local political accountability.
2. Separation of Powers: Each county has its executive (led by the governor) and legislative (county assembly) branches, mirroring the national government structure.
3. Public Participation: The Constitution mandates public participation in county governance, including in budgeting processes and development planning.
4. Representation of Marginalized Groups: The county assembly membership must reflect the community’s diversity, including provisions for gender balance and representation of marginalized groups.
5. Intergovernmental Relations: The Senate represents county interests at the national level, and various intergovernmental forums facilitate cooperation between the two levels of government.

Political decentralization has enhanced local political engagement but has also faced challenges such as conflicts between county executives and assemblies, and in some cases, the replication of ethnic tensions at the county level.

C. Administrative Decentralization

Administrative decentralization involves the transfer of responsibility for the planning, financing, and management of certain public functions from the national government to county governments.

Key aspects of administrative decentralization include:

1. Functional Assignment: The Constitution clearly delineates functions between national and county governments. Counties are responsible for functions such as county health services, pre-primary education, and local infrastructure.
2. Human Resource Management: Counties have the authority to hire and manage their own staff, allowing them to build capacity tailored to local needs.
3. Local Planning: Counties develop their own County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs) and spatial plans, aligning local development with community needs and preferences.
4. Service Delivery: Counties are responsible for delivering a range of services, from healthcare to waste management, bringing service provision closer to the people.
5. Local Regulations: County governments can enact local legislation on matters within their functional areas, allowing for context-specific governance.

Administrative decentralization has improved responsiveness to local needs but has also faced challenges such as capacity gaps in some counties, coordination issues with national government agencies, and in some cases, duplication of functions.

These three features of devolution – fiscal, political, and administrative decentralization – are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Fiscal decentralization provides the resources necessary for counties to exercise their political and administrative mandates. Political decentralization ensures that decisions about resource allocation and service delivery reflect local preferences. Administrative decentralization provides the mechanism through which political decisions are implemented and services are delivered.

While these features have significantly transformed governance in Kenya, their implementation continues to evolve. Ongoing challenges include balancing local autonomy with national cohesion, ensuring equitable development across counties with varying capacities and resources, and refining intergovernmental coordination mechanisms.

Impacts of Devolution in Kenya

The implementation of devolution in Kenya, following the 2010 Constitution, has had far-reaching effects on the country’s governance, service delivery, and socio-economic development. While the system has brought about significant positive changes, it has also faced various challenges and criticisms. This analysis explores both the positive outcomes and the challenges of devolution in Kenya.

A. Positive Outcomes

1. Enhanced Service Delivery

• Improved access to basic services in many counties, particularly in previously marginalized areas
• Faster response to local needs due to proximity of decision-makers to citizens
• Tailored solutions to local problems, considering unique local contexts

1. Increased Public Participation

• Greater citizen involvement in governance through county forums, public participation in budgeting processes, and local development planning
• Enhanced political awareness and engagement at the local level
• Emergence of local leadership and political talent

1. Equitable Resource Distribution

• More balanced development across the country, reducing historical regional disparities
• Guaranteed share of national revenue for all counties, ensuring a baseline of resources for local development
• Special focus on marginalized areas through the Equalization Fund

1. Economic Growth and Local Development

• Stimulation of local economies through county investments and projects
• Increased focus on local resources and competitive advantages of each county
• Growth of small towns and rural centers, reducing pressure on major urban areas

1. Innovation and Customization

• Counties as “laboratories of democracy,” experimenting with different approaches to service delivery and governance
• Development of county-specific solutions to local challenges
• Healthy competition among counties, driving improvements in service delivery and governance

1. Strengthened Democracy

• Dispersal of political power, reducing the stakes of national elections and potentially mitigating election-related conflicts
• Increased checks and balances through the two-tier government system
• Greater representation of diverse communities and interests in governance

1. Improved Disaster Response

• Faster and more effective response to local disasters and emergencies
• Better coordination of relief efforts at the local level

B. Challenges and Criticisms

1. Fiscal Management Issues

• Cases of mismanagement and corruption at the county level
• Challenges in revenue collection and over-reliance on national government allocations
• Delays in disbursement of funds from the national treasury to counties

1. Capacity Gaps

• Lack of skilled personnel in some counties, particularly in specialized areas like urban planning and financial management
• Challenges in attracting and retaining qualified staff in remote or less developed counties

1. Intergovernmental Conflicts

• Disputes between national and county governments over division of functions and resources
• Lack of clarity in some areas of functional assignment, leading to duplication or neglect of services

1. Political Tensions

• Emergence of local political dynasties in some counties
• Conflicts between county executives and assemblies, sometimes leading to governance paralysis
• Replication of ethnic tensions at the county level in some areas

1. Inequality Among Counties

• Despite efforts at equalization, significant disparities remain between counties in terms of resources and development
• Concerns about the ability of resource-poor counties to generate sufficient own-source revenue

1. Bloated Wage Bills

• High recurrent expenditure, particularly on wages, leaving limited funds for development projects
• Creation of numerous positions in county governments, leading to concerns about the cost of devolution

1. Coordination Challenges

• Difficulties in coordinating national policies and programs across 47 distinct county administrations
• Challenges in maintaining national standards in devolved functions like healthcare and early childhood education

1. Slow Progress in Some Areas

• Uneven implementation of devolution across different sectors and counties
• Persistence of some pre-devolution challenges, such as inadequate infrastructure in some areas

1. Public Expectations Management

• High public expectations, sometimes exceeding the realistic capacity of county governments
• Impatience with the pace of change, leading to disillusionment in some cases

1. Regulatory Challenges
   • Inconsistencies in local regulations across counties, potentially hindering business and investment
   • Overlaps and conflicts between national and county legislation in some areas

While the positive outcomes of devolution in Kenya are significant and far-reaching, the challenges highlight the complexity of implementing such a fundamental change in governance structure. Many of these challenges are seen as teething problems of a relatively new system, with ongoing efforts to address them through legislative reforms, capacity building, and improved intergovernmental relations.

The overall impact of devolution in Kenya is generally viewed as positive, with the system having transformed the country’s governance landscape and brought about tangible improvements in many areas. However, realizing the full potential of devolution remains a work in progress, requiring continued refinement of the system, strengthening of county capacities, and fostering of a culture of accountable and transparent governance at all levels.

As Kenya continues to navigate its devolved system, the experiences – both positive and challenging – offer valuable lessons not only for the country’s own governance evolution but also for other nations considering or implementing decentralization reforms.

Future Prospects of Devolution in Kenya

As Kenya’s devolved system of governance matures, there is ongoing discussion about its future direction. This analysis explores the ongoing reforms and improvements being made to the system, as well as potential areas for further devolution. These prospects reflect both the successes of devolution thus far and the challenges that have been identified in its implementation.

A. Ongoing Reforms and Improvements

1. Strengthening Intergovernmental Relations

• Enhancing the effectiveness of the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGTRC)
• Improving mechanisms for conflict resolution between national and county governments
• Developing clearer frameworks for cooperative governance

1. Fiscal Reforms

• Refining revenue sharing formulas to better address county needs and capacities
• Improving county revenue collection systems and expanding local revenue sources
• Enhancing transparency and accountability in county financial management

1. Capacity Building Initiatives

• Ongoing training programs for county officials in areas such as public finance management, urban planning, and project management
• Partnerships with universities and technical institutions to develop tailored courses for county governance
• Peer-learning initiatives between counties to share best practices

1. Legislative Reforms

• Reviewing and updating laws to clarify functional assignments between national and county governments
• Harmonizing county legislation across different counties to ensure consistency and ease of doing business
• Strengthening legal frameworks for public participation at the county level

1. Enhancing Public Participation

• Developing more structured and effective mechanisms for citizen engagement in county decision-making processes
• Leveraging technology to increase accessibility and transparency of county governments
• Civic education programs to enhance public understanding of devolution and citizen rights

1. Improving Service Delivery

• Developing and implementing county-specific service delivery improvement plans
• Enhancing monitoring and evaluation systems to track progress in service delivery
• Promoting innovation in service delivery through county innovation hubs and knowledge sharing platforms

1. Addressing Regional Economic Disparities

• Refining the Equalization Fund to more effectively address historical marginalization
• Promoting inter-county economic blocs to leverage shared resources and markets
• Developing targeted interventions for counties with special needs or challenges

B. Potential Areas for Further Devolution

1. Health Sector

• Potential devolution of more specialized healthcare services to well-resourced counties
• Exploring county-led health insurance schemes to complement the national program
• Greater county autonomy in health workforce management and drug procurement

1. Education

• Possible devolution of secondary education management to counties
• Increased county role in curriculum development to reflect local contexts and needs
• Greater county involvement in higher education, particularly in establishing and managing county-specific technical training institutions

1. Security and Policing

• Exploring models for partial devolution of policing functions, such as community policing initiatives
• Enhancing county governments’ role in local security management and coordination

1. Natural Resource Management

• Potential for greater county control over local natural resources, balanced with national interests
• Exploring models for benefit-sharing from natural resources between national and county governments

1. Transportation

• Possible devolution of more road construction and maintenance responsibilities to counties
• Exploring county-managed public transportation systems in urban areas

1. Environmental Management

• Increasing county powers in environmental regulation and enforcement
• Potential for county-led climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives

1. Urban Planning and Management

• Greater autonomy for counties in urban planning and development control
• Exploring models for city governance within the devolved system, particularly for larger urban areas

1. Social Services

• Potential devolution of more social welfare programs to counties
• Exploring county-led initiatives in areas such as youth employment and social protection

1. Agriculture

• Increased county role in agricultural research and extension services
• Potential for greater county involvement in strategic food reserves and food security initiatives

1. Cultural Affairs
   • Exploring models for greater county autonomy in promoting and preserving local cultures and heritage

As Kenya considers these potential areas for further devolution, several key factors will influence the process:

• Constitutional Amendments: Some areas of further devolution may require constitutional changes, necessitating a complex political process.
• Capacity Considerations: The readiness of counties to take on additional responsibilities will be a crucial factor.
• Fiscal Implications: The financial feasibility of further devolution, both for the national government and counties, will need careful consideration.
• National Cohesion: Balancing further devolution with the need to maintain national unity and standards will be important.
• Public Support: The appetite for further devolution among the Kenyan public will play a significant role in shaping these prospects.

The future of devolution in Kenya is likely to involve a careful balancing act between deepening local autonomy and maintaining national cohesion. As the country continues to refine its devolved system, it will likely draw on both its own experiences and international best practices in decentralized governance.