The promise of equitable development, a cornerstone of Kenya's 2010 Constitution, is facing a significant challenge from the long-standing political culture of patronage. Recent discussions and political statements have reignited a national debate on whether development is a constitutional right for all citizens or a reward reserved for those who offer political support to the ruling administration. This tension strikes at the heart of Kenya's governance structure, particularly the system of devolution designed to correct historical imbalances.

Kenya's legal framework is unequivocal on the matter of fairness in resource distribution. Article 201 of the Constitution explicitly states that public finance shall be guided by principles of equity, ensuring that expenditure promotes the equitable development of the country and makes special provisions for marginalised groups and areas. This principle is the bedrock of devolution, which aimed to dismantle a highly centralized system where the executive historically used state resources to build patron-client networks, often along ethnic lines. The establishment of 47 county governments was intended to give local communities powers of self-governance and ensure a more just distribution of the national cake.

Legislation such as the proposed County Wards (Equitable Development) Bill further seeks to create a clear framework for allocating funds for ward-based projects, reinforcing the constitutional mandate for grassroots development.

Rhetoric, Politics, and Public Funds

Despite this clear legal and constitutional direction, the rhetoric of conditioning development on political allegiance continues to feature in public discourse. Statements by senior government officials have often suggested that regions that voted for the ruling coalition hold a greater 'shareholding' in the government and could expect preferential treatment in development matters. While Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has more recently urged leaders to cease divisive politics and focus on development, his past remarks on the issue remain a point of public debate. In contrast, President William Ruto has consistently called for national unity and a focus on his administration's development agenda, dismissing critics as 'naysayers' with no vision for the country.

This selective development approach is not a new phenomenon in Kenya. Historically, ruling elites have been accused of allocating public land and state contracts to influential individuals and corporations in return for political support, a practice that has entrenched inequality. Critics argue that the current administration continues this trend, turning development projects funded by taxpayers' money into campaign tools to reward loyalty and punish dissent. This approach, they contend, reduces national development to a form of political bribery.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) have been vocal in their condemnation of this practice, warning that it undermines the very purpose of devolution. Groups like the Kenya Devolution CSOs Working Group have called for greater transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, including the full implementation of e-procurement systems to curb corruption, which they see as intrinsically linked to patronage. They argue that without robust oversight and genuine public participation, billions allocated to counties will not translate into better services for ordinary Kenyans.

The judiciary has also played a crucial role in safeguarding the principles of equitable governance. In a landmark ruling on August 8, 2022, the Supreme Court of Kenya declared the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act unconstitutional. The court found that the Act violated the separation of powers by giving executive functions to Members of Parliament and undermined the role of county governments, which are constitutionally mandated to handle devolved functions like local infrastructure and health projects. This ruling was a significant affirmation of the devolved structure and a check on attempts by the national legislature to control development funds at the local level.

For Kenyans, the implications of this debate are profound. The politicization of development directly affects their access to essential services such as healthcare, clean water, and infrastructure. When resources are allocated based on political alignment rather than need, it perpetuates the marginalization that the 2010 Constitution sought to remedy. According to analysis from institutions like the World Bank, while devolution has made progress, challenges like elite capture and weak accountability mechanisms continue to impede its full potential. Ultimately, adhering to the constitutional principle of equitable development is not merely a legal obligation but a critical factor for fostering national unity, ensuring political stability, and achieving sustainable economic progress for all Kenyans.