Transparency International stated in 2002, that “Corruption undermines good governance, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to the mis-allocation of resources, harms the private sector development and particularly hurts the poor.”

Across the border, Uganda became the first country to benefit from Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) measures. This is after it developed a Poverty Eradication Action Plan through its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper which calls for a reduction in the absolute
poverty vote from 44 percent (1990s) to 10 percent by the year 2017.

Isn’t there a contradiction when Kenya, with 60 percent of the population being categorized as ‘poor’ claims that by the year 2012 the GDP would be 10 percent even after the effects of the post-election skirmishes?

Certainly, political leadership goes hand in hand with proper budgeting allocation, anti-corruption measures and poverty reforms. Introducing a National Participatory Evaluation Policy at all levels of governance would help us manage ourselves for results. Performance indicators, like an efficient and effective electoral commission and political leadership, would strengthen our policy, program and preparation initiatives on national matters. A government to citizen and vice versa performance-based monitoring and evaluation system would automatically empower all groups.

For example, government and political leaders are obsessed with signing performance contracts yet this approach is more passive and with partisan political peer pressure and tendencies to cause public embarrassment or approval without the need to determine its efficacy. This is so because government and leaders are not certain that such performance measures may effectively and practically be used to positively affect decisions of national interest.

In the UK, performance is reviewed every other six months and through the office of the Prime Minister. This active approach brings the picture of performance contracts that are later modified and refurbished to be effective and better, to the eyes of the public.

Our government should be able to table ministerial and departmental reports in parliament for re-examination and evaluation and the same to be introduced to the public within every six months or yearly.

On the other hand ordinary citizens ought to set up a People’s Panel to help ascertain the authenticity of such performance reports. This makes members of the public to be consulted and generate ideas on how services can be improved.

Structural flaws in any of our systems should never be accepted. Such impunity only creates a mismatch between authority and responsibility that prevents accountability.

An example, being the Kenya Police force where the Police Commissioner uses standing orders that are bureaucratic and dictatorship yet the performance of police is below per due to corruption and poor coordination amongst its forces. The police need a performance measurement system that re-orders its day-to-day operations using an innovative model of police management and departments for service delivery.

Currently, the police force is stuck in the rut of corruption and selective application of justice while carrying the burden of politics even after knowing its old familiar shortcomings that come with sectarian pre-occupation. Partisan and short-term consultants and policy makers only worsen the situation when they fail to consistently monitor actual performance relative to prior baseline performance or benchmarks or to predetermined targets or plans.

Even with the cry by politicians for a parliamentary system. Parliament should effectively be supervised by the executive and the citizens to avoid displacement of leadership on flimsy propaganda grounds or for the sake of settling political scores. Parliamentarians should not be allowed to play cards with the fate of desperate citizens with their ever selfish egos lest we fall victim to the politics in parliament at the expense of leadership.

Mundia Mundia Jnr.
Clinical Physiatrist.