Kawira’s trial reveals devolution ailment

The Meru Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) had tabled seven charges against the governor but the Senate failed to uphold any of them.

The evidence presented revealed the inner details of what ails devolution in Kenya. But the embarrassing evidence in video presentations by both the governor and the County Assembly blinded everyone of this ailment. The role of local elites in devolution and how they react when they lose power or are excluded from power was missed out. The growing role of political networks and political party affiliations got lost in the cloud of embarrassment.

Similarly, the importance of clan or even sub-group identities and how they shape outcomes in devolution and local electoral politics disappeared. The place of traditional and religious institutions and how they have adapted or have been co-opted in electoral politics for public good or even for individual self-interest was lost out.

To be fair to Meru County, there have been over 10 impeachment hearings since 2013 when the first county governments were established.Embu, Kiambu, Nairobi, Kirinyaga, and Makueni, among others, witnessed similar proceedings with Kiambu and Nairobi becoming the first to have governors effectively impeached and therefore barred from taking part in future elections and appointment in public offices.

In all these counties, the hearings brought to public attention these inner factors that shape politics around devolution. In these counties and all these impeachment proceedings, one thing stand out: the failure of county governors to kowtow to MCAs and the rich networks of political patrons causes tensions that spills over into demands for impeachment.

All over the country, MCAs fight with governors over the meaning of oversight. More often, the MCAs demand funds to individually implement development projects in their wards. They want to procure goods.

Evidence from the previous impeachment hearings reveal this as the first cause of tension. Governors who are politically naïve insist on procedural and legal approach. Those who are politically astute end up co-opting the MCAs.

The MCAs also co-opt them. They marry and make merry. But if a governor reneges on the terms of this marriage, then storm erupts. These are challenges anyone running for office of County Governor must recognise and contend with.

But MCAs are not the only problem. There is a challenge posed by network of local and national political and economic elites. Sometimes these are referred to as cartels.

Others call them ‘political brokers’ because they deliver political connections. These are the most difficult to sustain because their interests and demands are endless. They have fingerprints in all impeachment trials of the past no matter which county government you look into.

Economically powerful

There is no doubt elites play an important role in shaping electoral outcomes. The term ‘elites’ is used here to refer to those individuals with influence (sometimes extra-ordinary influence) on political and economic outcomes in a community.

They are powerful members of the society who bargain for themselves but also bargain for the community – may it be a clan, sub-group, or even an ethnic group. They may also be wealthy or rich individuals who are economically powerful that they influence decision making in the society; they are just respected because of their wealth and riches.

These include those with valuable assets or rich businesspeople at the local level. One should not underestimate the influence of a rich shopkeeper in the countryside or the local business elites such as large landowners or owners of many public transport vehicles and other businesses which ordinary people rely on.

Communities depend on them for many things and therefore there is a tendency for ordinary people listen to them. Elites may also include the salaried and others who are able to connect the community to public services.

These elites have influence and sometimes act as gate keepers to villages and polling stations during elections. If you ignore them, they mobilise to withdraw voters from you. And all candidates looking for votes at the local level begin by identifying local notables, the local elites, to use the elites’ influence to get support from voters.

There are national level elites too. These are usually the ‘movers and shakers’ of political and economic decisions. They have informal power to countermand decisions by any formal actor. The elites provide political support at a cost. They will require pay-back if you win you win election. They will come to you for favours which often include procurement contacts – to supply goods and services.

At the county level, the local elites are the bridge through which the national ones reach the county. They are joined by self-interests. They form alliances based on self-economic and political interests.  The MCAs are sometimes the middlemen through which these interests are addressed. Candidates for the posts of governors and senate at the county level have to navigate the labyrinth of elites and notables. If they win, they must satisfy or meet their expectations.

Kawira’s first problem was her campaign strategy that reached the ordinary voters without going through the network of local and national elites. She is one candidate that did not have campaign posters or billboard. She directly reached the poor and a majority of other ordinary voters through populist messaging and strategies. She used her media platforms to disrupt existing organisation.

She won as an independent candidate but failed to recognised the significance of elite networks. Listening to the evidence presented, the governor may have evolved a strategy that neglected the need for ‘political inclusion’ of elite networks. She seems to have ignored the importance of inclusive politics on the hope that she has the support of ordinary voters.

The attempt to impeach the governor therefore should be read as an attempt to re-organise the balance of power in the county. Re-organisation of power in any county after elections, as evidence shows from 2013, comes with a cost if not well managed.

In a majority of cases where some governors have succeeded, the costs include formation of broad-based coalitions and alliances whose economic appetite are difficult to satisfy.  In the meantime, this continues to weaken devolution in all the 47 counties.

- Prof Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Nairobi. [email protected]; @karutikk