Ruto must change approach to key programmes

 The ongoing, persistent and ubiquitous sense of desperation by Kenyans due to socio-economic challenges from weak governance and a dysfunctional system should concern us all. Something is just not right.

It is becoming increasingly clear that haphazard implementation of public policies by President William Ruto’s administration touching on education, healthcare and affordable housing is creating far-reaching implications on the welfare of Kenyans, causing anguish. This is for two reasons: Strategic misrepresentation of Kenya’s priorities and obvious human biases in decision-making.

For example, after the hasty implementation of the new university education funding model, many needy students from deserving families were left out in what ought to have been a model that promotes academic equity and inclusion. So wanting was the rolling out of the Means Testing Instrument in the model that the Chief Justice Martha Koome termed it as ‘discriminatory’. There have also been questions on why all existing bursaries should not be consolidated into a pool to make education free for all. The fact that President Ruto had to explain his model directly to students in what seemed like a public relations stunt raconteur for the poorly implemented policy, makes one wonder if Kenya Kwanza policies are well thought out.

Can’t the government establish a proper framework and mechanisms to implement policy in a professional and efficient way? In a country that is touted to have one of the most educated human capital in Africa, what seems like lack of programme evaluation tests, feasibility studies and contingency planning is increasingly embarrassing the top leadership - including the President himself.

Policy transition

The health sector has also not been spared in the menace that is the new norm of obfuscating government policies. The nascent Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), which replaced the National Health Insurance Fund, has been scathingly criticised due to its failure to meet the policy transition criteria and threshold. SHIF, which seeks to deduct 2.75 per cent of Kenyans’ income failed to meet the most important policy implementation procedure: notice-and-comment-rule-making. In this procedure, publication of SHIF by the government ought to have given ample time for comment period by key stakeholders in the health sector and scientific programme evaluation through case studies before final rule making which has the binding legal effect.

The SHIF and new education funding policies explicitly characterise the Kenya Kwanza’s administration’s propensity to bulldoze unpopular moves that seem to lack evidence-based scientific programme evaluation.

Last but not least, the Adani-JKIA privately initiated proposal is also raising questions about the value for money that Kenya would gain if the deal were to be implemented.

While President Ruto is a scientist and self-declared technology enthusiast, who understands how critical data-driven decision science is, he seems not to be leveraging on science in the formulation of his government policies.

The blind faith formulation and speedy transition of social programmes such as SHIF, whose remarkable flaws are made evident and demystified in court’s decision and chaotic roll-out, are exposing the evaluation deficits by government technocrats. Their mandate is to offer technical and scientific expertise on feasibility, legality and viability of new programmes. This begs the question, does the cabinet read and scrutinise reports?

In the US while President Obama was facing political heat on Obamacare, he published on the proposed health insurance plan in the Journal of The American Medical Association on the Affordable Care Act. This was a hotly contested public policy issue on health insurance for Americans. In Obama’s paper, evidence-based analysis, which constituted scientific research findings and open data dating from 1963 to 2016, was examined. The process was lengthy and complex with the legislative process taking more than one year while the implementation was phased over a number of years.

Why does President Ruto hurriedly rush important and complex government policies that affect Kenyans then complain of government–citizen trust deficit?

Legal policies

Kenya has a pool of highly skilled, competent intelligent and dedicated technocrats capable of developing equitable, legal policies and the political leadership should allow career civil servants to offer scientific and technical advisory in the formulation of policy, to provide modifications for programme improvement and rationale to solve technical problems as needed. This can be done in line with the executive’s manifesto, without any political bulldozing or miniscule analysis and evaluation.

While reputable evidence-based studies for sustainable development indicators highlight social well-being, environmental integrity, biodiversity and balanced economic growth as the key indicators of sustainable development, over politicisation of socio-economic programmes by the current administration has led to the illusion that donor money and taxation are the main variables necessary for sustainable development.

It is not surprising that political tourism and launching of countless mirage projects is the norm for the political class in Kenya. As a result, Members of Parliament, who should critique and scrutinise public policy proposals and write committee reports, have become a perfect example for dereliction of legislative duties in pursuit of ‘development’ resources in political trains.

To actualise equitable and sustainable development and realise his manifesto, President Ruto should recalibrate and reconsider his hasty policy implementation management style by embracing public participation and leveraging on evidence-based technical, legal and scientific expertise from technocrats.

By doing this, his social and economic policies will more often than not see the light of the day instead of scandalous court hallways.

The writer is a PhD Candidate in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of the District of Columbia, Washington DC