There is a revival of calls for “One vote one shilling”. This was something that was being aired when the Building Bridges Initiative was being pushed.
In fact, the BBI Bill to amend the Constitution did not specifically address this issue – but the proposal to increase the number of constituencies from 290 to 360 was mostly motivated by this.
And the mechanism would have been the CDF because the tradition has been for the CDF to be shared equally among constituencies, which would mean that the more constituencies a region has the more money it gets via the CDF. And the distribution of the 70 new constituencies proposed by BBI favoured some areas over others.
What is the point?
This not being a column of political rhetoric, let’s look at the Constitution. While the Constitution does push for one person one vote, it definitely does not for one vote one shilling. Its vision of a future Kenya is of a nation that is united, but not by sameness. Nor does it advocate or require a mechanical equality. It does set equality as a standard, but it recognises that equality does not exist now.
And it is well established that equality is not achieved by treating everyone identically. It is true that, once upon a time, Sir Thomas More imagined a society in which everyone was treated identically – but this was completely unreal, and even there inequalities existed between ruling class and ordinary people, between women and men - and there were slaves. In fact, it is not clear whether this was put forward as an ideal or was a satire on the real world of the time.
Maybe if one started with a society in which everyone was in very much the same position, it might be possible to ensure that everyone benefited more or less equally from their work and the national wealth. But Kenya did not start with an equal society.
Poverty and relative prosperity, huge variations of agricultural potential, as well as varied histories, dictated great disparities in wealth and opportunities. Kenya was put together – with no input from Kenyans – from a range of disparate communities.
Then came independence. A few of those disparate communities were not convinced they wanted to be in a united Kenya. But neither the British nor the incoming Kenyan government was interested in entertaining such reservations. Nor unfortunately, having achieved one Kenya was the incoming government particularly interested in doing what was needed to try to achieve an equal Kenya.
But the 2010 Constitution – a commitment of Kenyans at least as much as of their government – does create obligations of that sort.
Article 27 on equality and freedom from discrimination says that everyone is equal before the law, and equality includes the “full and equal enjoyment of all rights”. We can’t get there without some sort of special treatment for those who lag behind.
So the article also requires that the state takes affirmative action to “redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past discrimination.” Many communities were discriminated against in the past. And discrimination under the Constitution does not mean just a deliberate intention to treat people unequally but also behaviour that has unequal effects.
Furthermore, rights under our Constitution go much further than the sort of situation where the state was expected not to actively deprive people of the benefits of their rights (like not giving them a fair trial or punishing them for expressing their opinions) and includes the obligation to protect rights from others, and take positive steps to fulfil rights.
And those rights include the Article 43 rights like the right to health, food, water, education and housing. Enjoyment of those rights has been far from equal in the past. Positive action is needed in the future to remedy those faults of the past.
Another area where the Constitution sets out very clearly its vision of a more equal and more just society is in finance. First the burden of tax must be shared fairly (which does not mean necessarily the same as equally). Then spending public money must be done to “promote equitable development” including “special provisions for marginalised groups and areas”.
And devolution is a very important aspect of this new vision. This is clear in Article 174 on the object of devolution, when it mentions factors like promoting social and economic development and ensuring “equitable sharing of national and local resources throughout Kenya.” The latter is crucial. The share of the national income that goes to counties is even called the “equitable share”. How the share is arrived at includes taking into account “economic disparities within and among counties and the need to remedy them”.
And there is in addition the Equalisation Fund: 0.5 per cent of the national revenue. It is to be used by the national government itself or through county governments to provide basic services to bring those services in marginalised areas to the level “enjoyed by the rest of the nation”.
Some of the “one vote one shilling” advocates have also focussed on the sharing of national revenue between national and county governments and between counties.
So where are we now?
The main body responsible for operationalising the financial side of the Constitution’s vision of a more equal future is the Commission on Revenue Allocation. It studies the situation and recommends ways in which the equitable share and the Equalisation Fund are to be divided between counties.
When preparing its second policy of dividing the Equalisation Fund it reviewed the causes of inequality, including the colonial period when “Implementation of the colonial legislation and /or policies intentionally or inadvertently instigated marginalisation in some parts of the country.” Then the inconsistency of vision and practice of post-colonial governments (including the infamous Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965).
The results, coupled with the variety of natural and human circumstances around the country, will take a long time to remedy. Yet the Equalisation Fund has a guaranteed life of only until 2030, unless there is strong support in both parliamentary chambers for an extension. And the fund was not operative for the first three financial years under the 2010 Constitution.
Jealousies, efforts to appeal to one’s own constituency, desire to reward electoral loyalty, are often particularly acute in systems with federal or devolved systems of government. But the very motive for having such systems is often to preserve national unity that is potentially under threat, not just a matter of fairness.
David Ndii, now chairperson of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, in an article in the Elephant forcefully criticised the one vote one shilling philosophy in 2020. He wrote towards the end: “Without a commitment to equitable development there is no social contract, which is to say that, sooner or later, there will be no Kenya.”
We cannot afford for the support of voters to be “bought” by the CDF. Still less can we afford MPs desire to enhance their reputations or profiles through the CDF, if the cost is a departure from these fundamental principles of the Constitution. Politicians and voters need to be educated about the realities of the country and what needs to be done to achieve a just society – and the possible long-term consequences of failure
So, we say to MPs and others who advocate population as the sole criterion for distributing financial resources of any sort: “Are you really committed to Kenya?”
