All the parties have said how they are going to bring about the change that Kenyans desire. One of the issues in these manifestoes is devolution. Each party, however, understands devolution differently.

For the Party of National Unity, devolution means Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and the creation of more districts. CDF cannot be devolution; it has been more or less MPs’ pocket money for them to decide when and where to use it. It is why many former MPs won’t be re-elected. It designed from the centre and given to constituencies as take it or leave it. It was not the people’s choice.

Small administrative units are meant to take services to the people. These services are created elsewhere and delivered. Again the people are the clients, consumers of goods that they did not develop. Power is held elsewhere and those who wield it decide what type of services the people get.

On this score, PNU vision is a continuation of the status quo where people wait to be told what is good for them or send begging missions to the President. This vision has no intention to empower or liberate the people to decide their destiny. It has no intention of making resources available to the people to spend on their priorities.

The PNU manifesto has no room for the Bomas Draft Constitution, a project on which Kenyans spent about Sh4 billion. The project was meant to usher change and transform public governance. Citizens desire real change. Measured against this, PNU fails the test.

Orange Democratic Movement- Kenya talks of implementing economic federalism. But this is putting the cart before the horse. The economic might of the US is a consequence of its political governance structure, federalism, not the other way round. But economic might could help to reinforce the political structure. The same is true for other federal states like Germany, India, Russia and South Africa.

Economic federalism will not work without devolution of political power. ODM-Kenya fails the test for its lack of ability to bring about desired political change. For economic equity to take place power must be delivered to smaller units. For that reason the party will not receive my vote.

Orange Democratic Movement promises to implement devolution of power as contained in the Bomas Draft. That draft itself was a result of a referendum. Views from every sector found expression in it. That is why the process is regarded internationally as the most consultative of all constitution making processes ever undertaken.

Bomas proposes a devolved system that will bring about the changes that the people want. Citizens want rule by institutions, rather than by individuals. They want power spread among institutions.

Now there has been loose talk as to why the "majimbo" constitution of 1962 failed. It is important to note that the federal system did not fail. It was not tried and was not given a chanced to function. The system had to go because there was something at stake. The Constitution of 1962 was a radical departure from the colonial system.

The Maasai land British settlers were vacating was at stake. Who was to replace these settlers was the issue that decided whether federal system was to work. The Maasai sent a delegation to the 1962 Lancaster House Kenya Constitutional Conference. Their case was that they had two land agreements with the British. Now that the British were leaving, the land should revert to them. The British agreed that the agreements were valid and that the Maasai had a case.

The minutes of the proceedings show that Kadu supported the Maasai case; Kanu opposed it. Eventually it was agreed that land would be a regional matter. On March 23, 1962, when this issue came up before a sub-committee of the conference, Mr Ronald Ngala said: "The agreements between Her Majesty’s Government and the Maasai must be recognised by any future African government."

Kadu felt all Maasai land should be the responsibility of the region in which the tribe would be located.

"It would be quite wrong for the Maasai land to come under the jurisdiction of the other tribal authorities, or the central government or the central land board," Ngala argued. This was the crux of the matter. Under the majimbo constitution, land was a regional matter.

Yet Jomo Kenyatta and those in his administration wanted to replace the departing British as the new owners of the Maasai land, which was previously known as White highlands. The majimbo constitution was an obstacle, which had to be removed for this to happen. Some of the majimbo critics are those who replaced white settlers in land, which had been taken from the Maasai for British use.

When Mr John Keen, former Narok North MP, protested at the injustice that was being visited upon the Maasai by the Kenyatta regime in 1967, he was detained.

Thus the abrogation of the majimbo constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic tension. For the eight months it was in place there was not a single incident of ethnic clashes or any other form of animosity that could be attributed to majimbo. On the contrary, the colonial structure that was re-introduced has continued to lead to ethnic clashes.

When Mr Raila Odinga was fighting for democracy, we were told democracy would divide the people. Democracy came and people are happy. Again when he was fighting for multiparty politics, we were told multipartyism would divide the people. Multiparty politics came and we were happy.

Now the same Raila is telling us to embrace devolution of power, the same prophets of doom are saying devolution would spell doom. Just as in the previous cases, it is those prophets of doom themselves who are doomed unless they embrace devolution of power.

Source: The Standard 

Average user rating