APRM • SECOND COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA 4.4.2 Findings of the Country Review Mission 4.4.2.1 Progress made since 2006 328. The government has made laudable progress in its quest to promote public participation in government policies and programmes. It has enacted various laws that have provided significantly scope for participation of ordinary Kenyans in the development and implementation of various development policies and programs. Both the Constitution and the PFM Act 2012 now require the public to be involved in the design and implementation of the government’s policies and programmes through a bottom-up planning process that empowers communities to petition or challenge the government in the courts of law if they are left out of the decisions made. This is clearly a significant milestone. Box 3: Best Practice: Devolution of Functions A very significant transformative change in Kenya’s history of governance is devolution of government that is enshrined in the constitution. The two levels of government provided for in the constitution are the national and county governments, which are distinct and interdependent. Both levels of government are required to maintain mutual relationships through consultation and co-operation. The expectation of Kenyans is that the devolved system of government will promote good governance through participation, and enhance service delivery and raise their welfare. Truthfully, the people of Kenya are generally happy with devolution because it has initiated and improved participation and consultation in governance. Also, devolution has increased the provision of social services (e.g., healthcare education, roads and electricity), especially in the rural communities. Indeed, devolution in Kenya, in terms of design, legislative institutional structures, among others, is capable of promoting inclusive growth. 329. However, during the consultative forums, the CRT found that public participation at all levels of the decision making process of developmental programs is very low. Stakeholders provided various reasons for the low public participation. These included distance and the high burden of transportation cost, inadequate understanding of the policies and programmes of the government, and poor publicity. In some instances, documents or materials which formed the basis of discussions at the public forums are only circulated at the venue of the meetings without prior notice, and at times, notifications were only given a number of days after the day of the consultation. The low participation in economic policy making decision (budget process and planning) is a serious impediment to communities to fully own the programmes and projects executed. | 154 |