Published by Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) Issue No. 19, March The Why and How

Transcription

1 The FuturesBulletin Published by Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) Issue No. 19, March 2015 Social : The Why and How 1.0. Introduction Kenya s devolved system of governance presents County Governments with the opportunity to enhance service delivery 1 at the local level, and the citizen in the devolved units with numerous opportunities to engage in governance processes 2. Article 1 of the Constitution states that all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya. It further states that the people may exercise this sovereign power either directly or indirectly through their democratically elected representatives. The objects of devolution enshrined in the Constitution give powers of self-governance to the people and enhance the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the state and in making decisions affecting them; and to recognize the right of communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the County Government Act 2012 among other legislation, envisage a situation where citizens are actively engaging in governance at the various levels. Leaders whether elected, nominated or appointed should facilitate the participation of citizens in governance processes. This includes participation in policy formulation, development planning including the identification of development projects and programmes for implementation using public funds, budgeting for the use of public funds, and monitoring the implementation of public funded development projects, activities and programmes. One of the risks in devolved governance is, by moving allocation from Central Government to County Government, devolution faces greater levels of corruption and mismanagement of resources 4. This is likely to be the case in situations where community 1.0 Introduction 2.0 and Social 3.0 The Case for Social 4.0 Government Institutions in 5.0 Constitution and Legislative Provisions on Social 6.0 Social Tools and Mechanisms 7.0 Benefits of Social 8.0 Critical Factors for Sucess of Social 9.0 Conclusion Inside 1 County governments have been allocated resources and sources of revenue. Local leaders can best discern the needs local communities. Devolution effectively promotes productive efficiency in the provision and use of public services and the allocation of resources as governments by virtue of their proximity to the beneficiaries of policy outcomes can allocate and extract resources more efficiently than central government. County governments have the powers to formulate policies, raise and spend revenue. 2 Citizens can engage in county planning, county budgeting and policy formulation as is the requirement by law 3 including the village level, the ward level, the sub-county level, town level as well as the national level 4 This however does not imply that central governance is less prone to corruption

2 members lack awareness on their roles and the capacity to execute them. Schedule 4 of the Constitution provides for the functions of both levels of Government: the National and County. The success of devolution and the ability of devolved governance to enhance public service delivery at the local level will be determined by factors such as the level of transparency and accountability by those in leadership and decision making positions at the various levels of governance, prudent use of public funds and an informed and actively engaging citizenry among other factors. 2.0 and Social is defined as the obligation of those in leadership positions and positions of decision making to account for or take responsibility for their actions. It is a proactive 5 process by which public officials inform and justify their plans of action, their behavior, and results and are sanctioned accordingly (Ackerman, 2004:3). Being accountable is not a one off event but a continuous process. Evaluating the effectiveness of public officials or public bodies ensures that they are performing to their full potential, providing value for money in the provision of public services, instilling confidence in the government and being responsive to the community they are meant to serve. mechanisms are classified into vertical and horizontal mechanisms. Horizontal accountability is the capacity of state institutions to check abuses by other public agencies and branches of government.. Horizontal accountability mechanisms are internal mechanisms within government like checks and balances. Vertical accountability on the other hand is the means through which citizens, mass media and civil society seek to enforce standards of good performance on officials. Social accountability has been defined as an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement. It is an approach towards building accountability where citizens and/or civil society organizations participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability from those in leadership and/or decision making positions. The World Bank (2006) defines social accountability as a broad range of actions and mechanism beyond voting that citizens can use to hold the state into account as well as actions on the part of government, civil society, media and other social actors to promote or facilitate these efforts. Social accountability complements formal accountability mechanisms. They are citizen led accountability mechanisms thus reinforce or improve vertical accountability as well as enhance horizontal accountability within state by placing pressure on institutional offices such as the ombudsman or Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission to perform their oversight role. Mechanisms of social accountability can be initiated and supported by the state, civil society 6 and citizens. Very often they are demand-driven and operate from the bottom-up. 3.0 The Case for Social Leadership is a contract between those in leadership positions 7 and the governed. Whereas both levels of government: the national and county have specific mandates in regard to the delivery of public goods and services, those entrusted with public offices and resources have a duty to be accountable to citizens for their decision and the utilization of public resources including public finance. The national government obtains its revenue from among other sources customs duties; value added tax, income tax, excise tax, licenses, local borrowing or foreign borrowing. County governments on the other hand obtain revenues from the equitable allocations from the national government, property taxes, entertainment taxes, parking fees and loans among other sources. The fact that citizens are the main contributors to these sources of revenue does justify the right that citizens have to exert accountability on how public finances are being utilized and the quality of public goods and services rendered to them. 5 Proactive alludes to the fact that government has to take initiative and actively provide information and give account frequently to citizens and concerned public. 6 the area outside the family, market and state, the civil society ecosystem typically includes: NGOs, non-profit organizations and civil society organizations; (CSOs) that have an organized structure or activity, and are typically registered entities and groups; online groups and activities including social media communities that can be organized but do not necessarily have physical, legal or financial structures; Social movements of collective action and/or identity, which can be online or physical; Religious leaders, faith communities, and faith-based organizations; Labour unions and labour organizations representing workers; Social entrepreneurs employing innovative and/or market oriented approaches for social and environmental outcomes; Grassroots associations and activities at local level; cooperatives owned and democratically controlled by their members- World Economic Forum. 7 whether elected, appointed or nominated Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15 2

3 Whereas the legislature, Parliament at the national level and the County Assembly at the county level exist to perform the oversight role over the executive in the implementation of development at the national and county levels of governance respectively, the Members of Parliament have been involved in the implementation of development through the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). Members of Parliament have also been involved in auditing this implementation of development undertaken by the CDF through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Investment Committee (PIC) of the national assembly. Concerns have however been raised regarding the objectivity of such an exercise. Members of Parliament and Members of the County Assembly also have the mandate to formulate legislation and represent the people. There are also concerns regarding the ineffectivessness of some the watchdog institutions mandated to ensure accountability in the management of public resources and controlling public ethics. For Instance, the Ethics and Anti-corruption commission, the Auditor-General and the Courts. It then begs the question, who plays the oversight role over both institutions besides the established independent offices in regard to policy formulation and even in their oversight role if not the members of public, including the citizen and civil society organizations. Reasons for bottom-up demand for accountability include; concerns about issues of governance and accountability, dissatisfaction with the manner in which governments have performed their functions, meager returns and low productivity from public investments, lack of transparency, inadequate rule of law, and corruption. Others include failure to achieve significant poverty reduction, inequity and injustice especially for the marginalized, failure of existing mechanisms for ensuring public accountability to resolve governance and accountability problems, addressing poor discharge of functions or provision of services by the government agencies in between elections. 4.0 Government Institutions in Among the institutions that have been established by the government to ensure prudent utilization of public resources is the Office of the Auditor General. The objective of the Office of the Auditor General is to promote accountability in the public sector in Kenya. The law requires that within six months after the end of each financial year, the Auditor-General shall audit and report, in respect of that financial year, on: the accounts of the national and county governments; accounts of all funds and authorities of the national and county governments; accounts of all courts; accounts of every commission and independent office established by the Constitution; accounts of the National Assembly, the Senate and the County Assemblies; accounts of political parties funded from public funds; public debt; and accounts of any other entity that legislation requires the Auditor General to audit. The Auditor General may also audit and report on the accounts of any entity that is funded from public funds. Of concern however is the ability of the office to discharge its mandate due to limited budgetary allocation and seeming lack of political will. The Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission has also raised concern over inadequate number of legal officers to enable it prosecute corruption cases. 5.0 Constitution and Legislative Provisions on Social Article 1 of the Constitution vests all sovereign power to the people of Kenya; it gives Kenyans the right to determine how public resources are used and managed. One of the national values as per the Constitution is the participation of the people. The Constitution gives citizens the right to access information held by the State in Article 35; the right to petition Parliament and the premise to be involved in policy making. The State is mandated to encourage public participation in various ways. It is also a requirement that the legislature provides for public access and participation in parliamentary seating and its committees. The Constitution and legislation also provides for openness, accountability and public participation in public finance management. The County Government Act 2012 outlines the principles of public participation including but not limited to provision of timely access to information and reasonable access to policy formulation and development planning including making inputs during the development of County Integrated Development Plans, County Sectoral Plans and Cities and Urban Areas Plans. 8 This includes participation in governance processes. 3 Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15

4 The Public Finance Management Act 2012 provides for public participation in the various stages of the budget cycle. The act lists the documents that should be availed by the county government for public scrutiny at the different stages of the budgeting cycle including the County Fiscal Strategy Paper and the Budget Review and Outlook Paper among others. The Act provides for a County Budget and Economic Forum as a means for consultation between the public and county government on the preparation of county plans, county fiscal strategy paper, the budget review and outlook paper and matters relating to budgeting, the economy and fiscal management at county level. The Urban Areas and Cities Act 2011 provides that the governance and management of urban areas and cities shall be based on the following principles; the promotion of accountability to the residents of the urban areas and cities, institutionalized active participation by its residents in the management of urban areas and cities affairs and efficient and effective public service delivery. The Act lists the rights and duties of residents to include the right to; contribute to decision making processes, be informed of decisions of a board affecting their rights and properties as well as regular disclosure of the state of affairs of the city or urban areas including its finances. The Act provides that a city or urban area shall develop a system of governance that encourages participation by residents in governance processes. 6.0 Social Tools and Mechanisms There exist a number of tools and mechanisms through which citizens and civil society can exert accountability from those entrusted with leadership, decision making and public resources. The tool of choice is informed by the challenge that needs to be addressed. This may include poor public service delivery or corruption among others. Some of these tools include: a)participatory policy formulation This involves direct participation by citizen or civil society in the formulation of public policy. Increase in trends of participatory policy formulation has been attributed to the introduction of community driven development initiatives at the local level through decentralised governance. b)participatory budgeting This is the process through which citizens participate directly in budget formulation, decision making and monitoring budget execution. It is instrumental in increasing public expenditure transparency and in improving budget targeting. Participatory budget formulation is applicable at both the county 9 and national levels. Civil society actors have prepared Citizens Alternative Budgets with the aim of influencing budget formulation by expressing citizen preferences. c)participatory output monitoring Participatory output monitoring is a method through which local actors can monitor the achievement of stated project or policy outputs against identified indicators. d)participatory budget analysis This involves the review of budgets in order to assess whether allocations match the government s announcements as expressed, for instance in a County Integrated Development Plan. It involves the collection, study and interpretation of budget data, the comparison of budget data to other information such as government policies and programmes and the establishment of findings and results. It also involves analyzing the impact and implications of budget allocations. e)participatory policy analysis This includes the review, critique and building public awareness about government policies. f)participatory public expenditure tracking This involves monitoring, scrutiny, follow up and evaluation of the budgeting process right from planning, allocation, disbursement, implementation and impact assessment. It involves the tracking of how the government actually spends funds meant for the provision of public goods and services. It aims at identifying leaks and/or bottlenecks in the flow of financial resources or inputs. It involves the collection of data on inputs and expenditure for 9 This may include participation at the Village, Ward, Sub - County level Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15 4

5 public dissemination. g)citizen report cards The process involves the collection of survey data on the quality and/or quantity of a public service, and awareness-raising and broad-based advo cacy based on the results of the survey. Citizen report cards are used in situations where there is no demand-side data, such as user perception on quality and satisfaction with public services. h)community scorecards The process combines quantitative surveys and community meetings that bring together consumers and service providers to jointly deliberate on service delivery challenges. Through community score cards, citizens provide immediate feedback to service providers. i)social audits Social audits are designed to build accountability and transparency in the use and management of public resources through citizen monitoring, analysis and evaluation of government performance. It involves public scrutiny of public funded projects in a public forum. j)public revenue monitoring Refers to the tracking and analysis of the type and amount of revenue that a government receives. This can detect and help prevent corruption or the squandering of revenue sources, as well as increasing awareness of the amount of money that a government has at its disposal. k)public forum This involves the establishment of public forums by government or any other organization to provide space for public debate and discourse on undertakings by government. 7.0 Benefits of Social Social accountability tools and mechanisms can lead to improvement in service delivery, effective use of public resources and a reduction in corruption and leakage of resources thereby contributing to poverty reduction. The citizens and civil society organizations through the use of these tools and mechanisms can assist those in leadership positions and government to identify leaks that lead to resource wastage; identify corrupt individuals among other loopholes as well as safeguard against the same. Social accountability tools and mechanisms enhance public participation governance processes. Active citizen involvement in devolved governance processes ensures that that their needs and priorities are considered during the identification and implementation of development projects and programmes. Social accountability is beneficial to the government as it enhances government credibility and legitimacy. Social accountability tools and mechanisms provide those in leadership positions and citizens with a reliable feedback mechanism as well as solutions to address challenges or problems faced by governments. 8.0 Critical Factors for Success of Social Effective and efficient social accountability is influenced by several factors including: a)political context and culture Parameters for social accountability are largely determined by the existing political context and culture. Social accountability works best under a democracy, in situations where basic political and civil rights are guaranteed including access to information and freedoms of expression, association and assembly. b)access to information The availability and reliability of public documents and data is critical as this determines the ability for one to apply the various tools and mechanisms. Of importance also is the reliability and accuracy of information held in the documents. Another factor would be the quality and accessibility of information whereby accessibility refers not only to the physical access to documents but also the availability of the same in formats that are easy to understand. c)independent media The independence of the media is critical as the media not only shape daily discussions but also inform and educate citizens. The media also 5 Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15

6 monitors government performance and is known to expose misdeeds. Local media provide an important means for citizens to voice their opinions and discuss public issues. d)civil society capacity The level of organization of civil society organizations, technical and advocacy skills possessed by these organizations, their capacity to mobilize and effectively use the media, and their legitimacy determines their ability to carry out their work professionally, objectively and also to influence actions and policies by decision makers. The character and extensiveness of the civil society in Kenya is the key to effective social audits. Civil Society Organizations in Kenya have limited albeit improving technical and organizational capacity to engage in social accountability from evidence based perspective. There are efforts to collaborate and build alliances and constructive networks within the Civil Society Organizations world and the State. Unfortunately, the Civil Society Organizations authority, legitimacy and credibility are challenged due to poor accountability remarks and allegations of donor manipulation by the government. Despite the latter, Civil Society Organizations and the citizenry are willing to challenge status quo and capacity building efforts are underway to equip the public in engaging in social audits. Citizens have the power to do so as enshrined in the Constitution and other legislations which are futile if not applied. The success of these social accountability mechanisms depends on the willingness of the public or citizen to demand for information, conduct social accountability exercises and without fear or favor present and discuss the findings as well as offer solutions to problems identified. The approach with regards to information gathering and dissemination of findings should not be adversarial. 9.0 Conclusion Widespread lack of public accountability in governance in Kenya certainly undermines provision of public services and economic growth. Social accountability initiatives are increasingly expected to facilitate positive development outcomes such as responsive local governments; exposing government failure and corruption, empowering marginalized groups especially the poor, and ensuring that government: both national and county respond to the concerns of the poor. Social accountability efforts can serve to create new effective vertical mechanisms of accountability and strengthen existing horizontal accountability mechanisms contributing to improved public service delivery, better governance and greater development effectiveness. e)government capacity Functioning public administrations are more likely to respond to citizens demands, are more able to produce records and accounts, are likely to be more effective in regards to devolution of authority and resources and are more likely to be accountable and ensure equity. f)synergy between government and civil society Meaningful results are likely to be achieved when citizens, politicians and bureaucrats all have an incentive to act. g)a proactive citizenry is a two way process where duty bearers (in this case the county government and its officers) are accountable to the public and the right holders (the public) participate in governance process and demand accountability guided by law. Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15 6

7 References Ackerman, J Social for the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion. Draft paper prepared for the World Bank 2. Das Gupta et. al Fostering community-driven development: what role for the state? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Esbern Friis-Hansen Social and Public Service Delivery in Rural Africa. 4. Gerardo Berthin A Practical Guide to Social Audit as a Participatory Tool to Strengthening Democratic Governance, Transparency, and. United Nations Development Programme 5. Malena, C, Forster, R. and Singh, J Social : An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice. Washington: The World Bank, Social Development Paper No O Meally, S. C Mapping Context for Social : A Resource Paper. Social Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC. 7. Paul, Samuel Holding the State to Account: Citizen Monitoring in Action. Bangalore, India: Public Affairs Centre. 8. Wagle, Swarnim and Parmesh Shah (2003). Case Study 1 Bangalore, India: Participatory Approaches in Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management. World Bank, Social Development Notes No World Bank (2004a). State-Society Synergy for : Lessons for the World Bank. Working Paper No. 30, Washington: World Bank. 7 Futures Bulletin - Issue No. 15

8 The IEA-Kenya is a public policy think tank and a civic forum that seeks to promote pluralism of ideas through open, active and informed public debate on key policy issues. The Institute provides research backup to policy makers, including members of parliament through research and advocacy. The IEA is independent of political parties, pressure groups, lobbies and any other partisan interests. Through the Futures programme, the IEA-Kenya seeks to facilitate increased utilization of futures methodologies (Vision Building, Scenarios thinking and Strategic Planning) in research, policy debate and decision making processes Institute of Economic Affairs 1st Ngong Avenue 5th Floor, ACK Garden House PO Box , Nairobi, Kenya Tel: , , Fax: admin@ieakenya.or.ke Website: Written by: Chrispine Odour & Veronica Nguti Editors: Susan Mbalu Board of Directors: 1. Solomon Macharia Muturi 2. Atsango Chesoni 3. Anthony Mwithiga 4. Charles Onyango-Obbo Design & Layout: Oscar Ochieng With funding from DANIDA through Uraia