The referendum call has sparked a public furore that is gradually metamorphosing into a titanic political battle. The protagonists are stubbornly in favour of the referendum as an alternative vehicle to redress their perceived policy concerns.
Instead of using the existing institution like Parliament, the protagonists have understandably opted to engage citizens directly through the national referendum to avoid tyranny of the majority in the House.
One of the policy concerns that is unexpectedly gaining support from some governors is the call to increase budgetary county allocation from the 15 per cent national revenue threshold.
The proposition popularly framed as “more money to the counties” gives it an attribute of a populist idea. If the proposition was to be affirmed through constitutional amendment, it would carry serious policy ramifications that have not been interrogated as yet.
Therefore, the ongoing public discourses on the referendum must subject the proposition to a rigorous scrutiny. In view of this, I would like to weigh in as a concerned citizen on this critical topical issue.
The promulgation of the Constitution was indeed a milestone. It marked, on one hand, an end to the 50 years colonially imposed constitutional order that further perpetuated centralised power and regional inequalities.
On the other hand, it symbolised the beginning of a long journey with the Constitution as a beacon that would guide us towards a more democratic and prosperous nation. This must come true.
At the core of the Constitution is the entrenchment of a devolved system that decentralises power to the 47 county governments, to align public policies with local diverse interest.
The concept of devolution was predicated on the citizens’ belief that the county government would become an incubator that would hatch great local ideas to drive developmental agenda.
It was on this basis that a guarantee of minimum vertical allocation of 15 per cent of audited national revenue was enshrined in the Constitution.
Although devolution remains a popular initiative, its implementation, unfortunately, has turned out to be a logistic quagmire. Unexpectedly, most county executives abandoned the developmental agenda immediately they got into offices.
Lack of accountability of the initial allocation, among other factors, has incentivised them to go on a reckless discretionary spending on recurrent expenditures that would later justify the demand for more budgetary allocation.
Notably, the corresponding cost associated with the proposed demand is conveniently disregarded. As the saying goes, there is no free lunch. An increase in budgetary allocation will in turn increase the cost of allocation in misallocation of resources and administrative costs among others. Since the government does not generate its own money, such an increase in cost will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers.
Therefore, in the spirit of exercising their constitutional civic responsibility, the citizens must know who will bear the burden of such a profound policy shift.
Given our historical regional inequalities, it is imperative the government devolves adequate resources to redress such imbalances. However, such an imperative must be alive to the realities of limited fiscal space.
The government draws its revenue mainly from tax collection, among other sources. Tax collection is not evenly distributed among the county governments. Therefore, an increase in taxes to fund more budgetary allocation will burden some counties more than others.
Without political consensus, such an unequal distribution of the burden may trigger a backlash that we must guard against.
In conclusion, the determination of the optimal budgetary allocation must ensure that the additional benefits of reducing regional inequalities correspond with associated additional costs. We have not done this yet.
The writer is a principal policy analyst at KIPPRA. Views expressed in this article are author’s alone.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
