By Mwibanda
In 2013, Kenya embarked on one of the most ambitious governance experiments in its post-independence history: devolution. Anchored in the 2010 Constitution, devolution promised to bring power and resources closer to the people through the creation of 47 county governments. The goal? To promote equity, development, and citizen participation across the nation.
A decade later, it’s time to ask: Is Kenya’s county government system truly working?
The Promise of Devolution
The framers of the Constitution saw devolution as a remedy to historical injustices — marginalization, centralized resource control, and regional development disparities. It was designed to:
Improve service delivery at the grassroots level
Encourage local decision-making
Enhance accountability and citizen participation
Bridge the gap between urban and rural Kenya
It was a bold, people-centered initiative. But has it delivered?
The Successes: Signs of Progress
Infrastructure Development
Many counties have invested significantly in roads, markets, hospitals, and administrative buildings. Areas that once felt neglected now boast modern facilities. Counties like Makueni, Kakamega, and Kericho have become case studies in how good governance can spur real development.
Health Services
Decentralizing health services has enabled counties to hire medical staff, build health facilities, and expand access to care. The establishment of Level 4 and 5 hospitals in remote areas is one of devolution’s most tangible wins.
Youth and Women Empowerment
Several counties have rolled out innovative programs to support youth, women, and persons with disabilities — from vocational training to enterprise funding and leadership initiatives.
Enhanced Civic Participation
Devolution has opened new avenues for citizen engagement. Communities now take part in budget hearings and public forums, with more direct platforms to hold leaders accountable — at least in theory.
The Challenges: Stumbling Blocks to Progress
Corruption and Mismanagement
Billions have been lost to misappropriation. Auditor General reports often highlight ghost projects, inflated costs, and questionable procurement. In many counties, devolution has simply decentralized corruption.
Politicization of Service Delivery
Appointments are frequently based on political loyalty rather than merit. This undermines professionalism and efficiency, especially in critical sectors like health, education, and agriculture.
Overdependence on the National Government
Despite the promise of fiscal autonomy, most counties still rely heavily on disbursements from Nairobi. Delays in funding disrupt services and salary payments — highlighting the fragility of local financial independence.
Weak Oversight
County assemblies are meant to check executive power, but many MCAs lack the capacity — or the will — to hold governors accountable. In some cases, they become complicit in governance failures.
Devolution 2.0: What Needs to Change?
To unlock the full potential of devolution, key reforms are necessary:
Strengthen accountability through independent audits, lifestyle checks, and citizen-led monitoring
Build the capacity of MCAs and local administrators
Improve own-source revenue generation to reduce reliance on the national government
Protect county governance from political interference and ensure equitable distribution of national resources
Conclusion: A Mixed Report Card
Ten years on, devolution remains a work in progress. It has undoubtedly brought services and decision-making closer to the people — but it has also created new centers of inefficiency, politicization, and graft.
The question is no longer whether devolution should continue, but how to make it more transparent, accountable, and effective. If citizens, leaders, and institutions commit to reform, devolution can still become the transformative tool it was meant to be.
The dream of local empowerment is alive — but it needs guardianship, reform, and sustained accountability.
