FOR TWO days early this week, Kenyan Governors came together in a first ever Summit in which President Paul Kagame was the Guest of Honour.

The Governors’ Summit 2014 aimed to gauge progress as well as gain insights under the theme "Making devolution work”.

At the end of the Summit, according to a newspaper report, one of the main lessons the Governors learnt from the Rwandan experience was the need to consult more with their constituents and explain what they were doing to win public support.

Rwanda instituted devolution in 1999. Kenya’s came into force nine months ago with the election of the county representatives in March 2013 in accordance with the new Constitution.

However, if the Kenyan Governors have something to learn, how similar – or dissimilar – is the concept devolution applied in the two countries?

By definition, devolution is embodied in the term "decentralisation”, in essence transferring the power and authority for making decisions from the central government to local governments and communities.

The vote gives the people power to choose their leaders, and the voice should empower them to speak out and influence decisions that concern them.

In development parlance, such empowerment is a process that combines vertical and horizontal decentralisation. 

Vertical decentralisation transfers power and authority from central government directly to the people and situates it in their local situations.

Horizontal decentralisation empowers the local communities and enables them to make their own decisions based on local realities and demand accountability from the leadership – local or national, as the case may be.

This presumes that local governments are structured in such a way that they are legally obliged to seek and promote the participation of the local communities in setting their own priorities.

It is a fact, however, that majority of the people are either too busy tending to the consuming issue of eking a living to put food on the table, or are ignorant and unable to appreciate the complexities of devolution and governance, per se. They could also be lethargic in the hold of an uncaring regime. 

Appreciated or not, it is in this situation of public ignorance or lethargy that horizontal decentralisation must be allowed to nurture the growth of civil society, giving it a voice on the behalf of the people, as activists wont – however objectionably – in the name of human rights. 

Some basic observations have, therefore, been acknowledged as "best practice” towards successful devolution.

First, there must be political will to devolve and facilitate the process at the highest echelons of government to engage in shared exercise of power and authority. 

Secondly, local leadership must be capable and willing to receive and utilise the power and authority responsibly for the development of the people. 

Without civic will and capability, it is pointed out, the functions transferred through decentralisation will not be carried out effectively and the resources transferred will be wasted. 

And in addition, without the necessary checks, as experience has often borne out, local leadership is likely to behave as local dictators and jeopardise the participatory or even representative democracy that decentralisation is intended to achieve. 

Rwanda is not perfect, but to register the successes that have been gained in its model of devolution, a measure of political and civic will have formed the cornerstone of its achievements. 

The Kenyan Governors were therefore well advised. What is certain is that the concept devolution that Kenya has just adopted is similar to Rwanda’s geared towards empowerment of the people.

This is bearing in mind that sustainable development can only be sustained if the people are involved and consulted at every turn giving them a voice with each vote cast.

The writer is a commentator on local and regional affairs.

Twitter: @gituram