Significación de la experiencia de cuidado

In very broad terms, some of the challenges and obstacles to meaningful community participa- tion processes are; inadequate capacity and in- sufficient resources, as well as political unwill- ingness/ignorance on the part of the people in power to listen to the citizens. The capacity challenge is reinforced by a weak institutional structure that continues to give the centre de-

cision making power regarding the budgets of

local councils. Consequently, councils remain weak institutions with little economic, political and ideological power. They are limited in their autonomy, authority, legitimacy and manage-

ment capacity (Pieterse 2000:55). The ongoing constitutional review process needs to address

the issues that will support the embedding of

participation to the lowest levels of govern- ment. While the Proposed Constitution has

clear devolved principles and frameworks for

local governance through county governments,

the system of local governance in urban areas

will be subject to legislation. The broad prin- ciple is one of accountable structures subject to the will of the people through their partici- pation. For instance, Article 184 (c) calls for leg- islation to be done to provide for participation

by residents in the governance of urban areas

and cities while Article 196 (b) provides that

county assemblies shall facilitate public par- ticipation and involvement in their business. However, the central government will continue to render support to local authorities so as to

enable them discharge their service delivery

mandate – thus raising a question with regard to the extent of their autonomy.

More specific challenges are the following:

Community participation potentially pro- vides a good platform for social accountabil- ity. This accountability can be most effective when it keeps government officials on their toes. Although community participation is in the process of being legislated in Kenya, it is much more difficult to achieve sustained par- Community Participation in Local Authorities in Kenya

ticipation. There is a tendency for participa- tory pro-accountability mechanisms to only involve a small group of “well behaved” NGOs, middle class professionals, and centrist politi- cians (World Bank 2005:22). This was indeed observed in the course of the implementation of the RPRLGSP. Civic leaders who are more in-

terested in their own agenda than that of the

community very often pick their close allies and a clique of professionals who will not question their actions. The result has been very mis- placed projects and a disgruntled electorate. Political legal and administrative systems and organisations are often considered a barrier to participation. In Kenya we have very weak audit and administrative support systems. Whereas the legal and administrative frame- work allows for inclusion of communities in the planning process through consultations such as LASDAP and other public meetings, in practice many councils are still pursuing blue- print approaches. They will ‘obey’ the instruc- tions in the guidelines, but will revert to the conventional ways of processing information

gathered and which they implement without

further reference to the public. They are con-

strained by the burden of precedent and by in- sufficient capacity for developing alternatives. Whenever communities request for informa- tion on the cost of projects, progress reports,

there is tendency to ignore them until the next time when consulting them will become neces- sary. Since the process has yet to mature to the point where feedback and continuity become necessary requirements, councils are getting away with the ability to initiate new processes

each year without having to refer to the previ- ous year’s performance. The current structure of most local authorities presents itself in a very bureaucratic form – rules driven and in- sufficiently concerned with actual outputs and impacts.

NGOs are often not visible in local governance process - It is paradoxical that NGOs that are often known to undertake activities which fo- cus more on policy influence, advocacy and

governance alongside welfare and capacity

building of small CBOs are not visible in the lo- cal government sector. It is a fact that CBOs can be a useful rallying point for community partic- ipation. Yet and unfortunately, while there are too many NGOs in especially rural areas their

capacity is fairly weak when it comes to issues

relating to the urban areas. Local (civil society organisations) CSOs tend to be young and in- stitutionally fragile as well as opportunistic in nature. They have adopted the attitude of waiting to receive assistance from the Govern- ment. This inevitably weakens their ability to negotiate for quality services. The structures

22_{A working definition of social capital refers to the norms, trust, reciprocity networks that facilitate mutually benefi-}

cial cooperation in a community; [……] an important asset […..] that reduces vulnerability and increases opportuni- ties; Moser, C. 1996

that have potential to negotiate and keep gov-

ernment on its toes are market welfare and

water management committees.

Limited capacity to drive the community par- ticipation agenda in local government - The performance contracts, financial reforms and engendering the process, other demands from the centre often lead to a narrow decision-

making process that is devoid of inclusion of

other territorial actors. It is a fact that the new paradigm in community participation in local

governance is to include the users and other

stakeholders through the phases of the project cycle management. One challenge that needs

to be dealt with is the inability of the techni- cal staff to take the participating community members systematically through the various stages. The experience has been that councils adopt a “fire fighting” approach that meets the requirements of the central government. Accountability to the communities is not con- sidered important, leading to mistrust of the council and eventually apathy about attending council meetings. On their part, representa- tives of the community who are ready to share resources, indigenous knowledge and experi-

ence get frustrated mid-stream, abandoning the entire process. If councils are to address the demands of quality service delivery, they cannot afford to lose out on this social capital22.

An aspect of social capital that is relevant to the

point here is in its contribution to the quality of democratic cultures, especially to the account- ability of governments. When the councils dis-

empower the stakeholders by not providing

the necessary feedback, they are undermining a very important democratic process.

Under-developed democratic devolved sys- tems – It is a fact that community participation

is at the heart of a decentralized and demo- cratic system of government. The Kenya gov-

ernment has held numerous debates on the

type of decentralized policy it should adopt.

This debate is ongoing and what prevails in the

intervening period is a form of administrative de-concentration. In this case, the government devolves offices, staff and certain functions to decentralized offices without devolution of fi- nancial resources and taxation powers. With the proposed Constitution, there is possibil- ity of more political, administrative and fiscal power being devolved to the counties that will Community Participation in Local Authorities in Kenya

assume local level governance.

Over the years, the government has tended to pursue more efficient administrative arrange-

ments to support service delivery in various

sectors. In the process, it has supported local authorities’ budgets and decision making pro- cess. In turn, local authorities are increasingly

becoming dependent on central government transfers in the form of Local Authority Transfer

Fund (LATF), thus losing their independence. It

might be argued that this is good for develop-

ment but unfortunately it undermines local

authorities’ independence and governance. It also denies local communities of an opportu-

nity to support their local service delivery sys- tems. Again such transfer payments are not an- chored on any firm constitutional provision and can be withdrawn at the whims of Parliament. This gives lack of legitimacy on the part of the state and its local instruments to local citizens. In the ultimate, it becomes difficult to activate and mobilize communities to take political and developmental processes seriously.

Weak CSOs - The institutional weaknesses of the local authorities are often exacerbated by relatively weak community based organisa- tions, which are incapable of exerting substan- tive democratic pressure on local authorities to perform.

Very low priority is given to Community Par- ticipation vis-à-vis other council business. The

councils look at participation in terms of sea- sons not a continuous process which adds val- ue to the wellbeing of the council. Thus, coun- cils treat the season of LASDAP as another “fire fighting” exercise where they are responding to demands and deadlines from the Ministry. How can we introduce incentives for the LAs

to carry out the elaborate synthesis of issues

as outlined in the revised guidelines? This work requires dedicated time by LASDAP officers

whose capacity the government must address

as much as it is addressing financial manage- ment capacity. Training of engineers in com- munity participation to make them responsive

to social engineering issues and giving fresh

orientation to the social welfare departments is a strong recommendation.

The information feedback system from the LA to the community is still very weak, specifically

the link between what the council implement-

ed in the past year and what was not possible

due to planning issues or financial resources. In a good consultation process, the council pre-

pares a formal brief of what was done for the

ward in the past year. This should be given at the beginning of the consultation. It will also

contribute to the trust building between the LA

a small project for each and every ward each year results in fragmentation and incomplete projects. This has continued to discourage seri- ous participation. Most actors over time have

assumed that they know what the people

need, and have ignored them in determining and providing for their needs. This has resulted to apathy and sometimes resistance to the de- sired changes meant for their benefit. In some cases, no opportunities exist for the people to participate in their local affairs despite expres- sion of such desire.

Lack of a visible community voice in the de- centralisation policy - The government has de- centralized service delivery in various sectors. However the people have very little contribu- tion in the formation of some of the governance institutions. The boards are mostly appointed by some powers at the centre of the Ministry,

and all the people can do is to raise complaints

if the institutions are not performing, but they cannot make changes. It is even ironical that in some institutions where the people have com-

plete mandate to appoint boards and manage- ment, the procedures for removal/taking cor- rective actions are cumbersome.

Lack of a viable mechanism for holding elected leaders to account - As mentioned earlier the people/electorate have recourse to take action

on errant leaders only once in 5 years during elections. By the time they do so they will have gone through undue suffering and probable waste of resources including time. A mecha- nism needs to be put in place to effectively hold leaders and management to account.

3.5 Lessons Learned

From the foregoing, a variety of lessons can be drawn from the process of community partici- pation in local governance. Some very positive

outcomes and as such lessons can be drawn

from people’s participation in their governance at the local level. Participation in local authori- ties is realised through the LASDAP guidelines that require formation of community com- mittees that liaise closely with the technical committees of the council. Some of the posi- tive outcome of the community participation process arising from these committees is the increasing dialogue opportunities between the staff of local authorities and those residents

who have persistently followed up on school

and water projects. Where the community

has a felt need that is pursued following laid down structures such as the Board of Gover- nors or a water management committee, there has been a high rate of project completion and utilisation. A case in point was the construction of fish bandas in Nyanza province with the ac- Community Participation in Local Authorities in Kenya

Case of fish Bandas in Nyanza

Residents have realized good returns as they have begun using fish bandas and markets in a small fish- ing village in Luanda K’Otieno Beach in Kisumu. The project entailed technical assistance from EU field staff under the Rural Poverty Reduction and Local Government Support Programme. The project had a component of active participation of the local community through their representatives in the beach management unit. The project was identified after poor handling of fish and its products became an issue along Lake Victoria beaches. Evidence by the Beach Management Unit, indicates that the project success has attracted several fish processing firms from Kisumu and Nairobi in the process earning good returns for the local fishermen. It has also improved on fish handling by the locals. Previously, the market was filthy and would always face closure from the public health officers, whenever there was a cholera outbreak in the district.

Source: RPRLGSP

tive input of beach management units (see text box).

Another positive lesson of the participatory process is the potential to link various devel- opment initiatives; in this case those by the CDF and LATF. Both funds target the same ju- risdictions and community. In cases where the stakeholders consult each other, they have

eliminated the problem of double funding and

duplication of effort. For better results and har- monisation, the coordinating role of the Dis- trict Development Officer must be re-assessed and given fresh impetus.

Although civic leaders are often criticized of not interacting with the electorate except when

they need votes, the participation process

through LASDAP has created an opportunity

for the two to discuss development projects. There is of course the question of how much

civic leaders have taken advantage of this win-

dow of opportunity to spearhead community

participation. Nevertheless, in some wards,

the community has challenged the councillor

to represent their needs more efficiently by

providing appropriate feedback within a rea- sonable time period. The pressure has result-

ed in councillors developing interest on clear

monitoring and evaluation sessions with the technical staff. This clearly demonstrates that increasingly, the communities are becoming ready to hold the elected officers accountable