ISSN 1569-9986

Available online at: www.targetjournals.com

Journal of History 2(16) October, 2020

Factors for the rise and fall of Majimboism in .

1Catherine Barasa Master of Arts Degree in History of Kibabii University

2Dr. Yokana Ogola, Department of Social sciences, Kibabii University

3Dr. Obino, P. Ong’anyi Department of Social Sciences, Kibabii University

4Mr. James Runaku Department of Social Science Education, University of Science and Technology

ABSTRACT This study sought to investigate factors for the rise and fall of Majimboism in Kenya.The year 1962 was chosen because it was when Kenyans initiated the call for Majimboism led by KADU chaired by . The ending point is 2017 because that is the period when the people of Bungoma had fully experienced the new constitution that was promulgated in 2010. Bungoma is the geographical scope because it is one of the devolved counties in Kenya populated with various ethnic groups. Concept of Majimboism was misused and there was need to carry out an historical research on the rise and demise Majimboism to ascertain its development challenges and impact among the people of Kenya. Scholars have written a lot on this subject of Majimboism but little seems to be done on its rise and fall of and the resultant impact on the local community. Most of the studies done by various scholars such as Kariuki and Karani have dealt with decentralization

547 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

in rural areas and Federalist debate in Africa. Therefore there is insufficient research on the history of Majimboism in Kenya hence, Prompted the study to shed light on Rise and Fall of Majimboism in Kenya Bungoma County, 1962-2017. The main objectives were therefore: to investigate the origins, developments of Majimboism and resultant impact of devolution on the communities of Bungoma and its challenges. The sequential theory of devolution was used to inform the study. The theory views devolution as a process of gradual re-shaping of the structure of governance. A descriptive survey design was used to gather and analyze data. The target population consisted of persons from Bungoma County who consisted of ;Retired Members of Parliament 2, District commissioner 5, District officer 10, Assistant chiefs 30, Chiefs 50, Members of County Assembly 5, County Commissioner 2, Deputy County Commissioner 15,Women groups10, Youth groups. The sample size was 150 which were derived from 10% to 30%. The study employed purposive and snowballing sampling technique. Data was collected by use of Questionnaires, Interview schedule, Focused Group Discussions (FGDs), participant observation, archival and documentary sources. Data was analyzed through content analysis and Verbatim from the field was transcribed coded and arranged thematically based on objectives. Majimboism originated from the KADU philosophy of Federalism meaning in Kiswahili regionalism. Majimboism was among the issues that were discussed in the Lancaster conference. was banned in 1966 later on it emerged in 1992 and 2008 as a political tool. In 2010 the new constitution was promulgated. The study found out that a highly centralized administrative structure satisfies local initiatives, encourages misappropriation of revenues from local populations, and promotes inefficiency in the utilization of resources and ineffectiveness in service delivery. Consequently it required high caliber personnel to assess local development needs, carry out project planning and implementing local development programs effectively, efficiently and economically. There was evidence to show that the human resource capacity at Bungoma County was still low. This research has shown that Bungoma County has yet to overcome parochialism and nepotism in the recruitment of their personnel. Devolution has had a great impact on education especially ECD, public officials have become responsible to provide concrete explanation and justification of their actions, Provision of farm inputs, development of dispensaries such as Kibingei. These shortcomings must be addressed to ensure the success of devolved units; development programs and consolidates the process of devolution. It was envisaged that the outcomes of the study would be of immense value to policy makers, scholars, other researchers, the community of Bungoma and the general public. Key Words: Rise, fall & Majimboism in Kenya

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Lancaster House Conference saw the legislative Council meet with Macleod to chart a new Course, Ngala, Muliro, Odinga and Mboya led the African delegation. To some surprise, even amongst African members, the conference laid down the goal of Kenyan independence under majority rule for the first time. It restructured the Legislative Council, establishing an overall African majority of one, with 33 open seats reserved for Asian, European and Arab Candidates and 12 national members elected by parliament Macleod also widened the African Franchise significantly. Although the African the African Councilors were not happy they accepted the plan. European opinion was not so forgiving and die-hards bitterly criticized Blundell on his return (Hornsby 2011). Many settlers felt abandoned by the British, with no guarantees of what would happen to their land. Unless they were willing to resort to violence, however, the colony would movement toward majority rule. Although independence was almost guarantee were still

548 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

concerned to halt the spread of Soviet and Chinese influence, which would weaken Western leverage as well as (in their view)Kenya’s prosperity. To do this, the British steered African nationalist opinion towards moderation and sought opportunities to bring more moderate Africans into positions of influence. Four elected AEMO members (Ngala, Muimi, Kiano and Towett) now joined the government. The harder-line members led by Odinga, in contrast, rejected this arrangement until Kenyatta was free (ibid 2011).

Devolution is mostly considered as a covenantal relationship or simply as a compact between different levels of government (Elazar, 1976 and 1991; Kincaid, 2005). Federalism is a specific form of political organization where there are two levels of government; the central government and the federal states whether “regions”, “cantons”, “lander”, “emirates”, “provinces”, ‘‘anchals” and Students of federalism offer different definitions to decide whether a political type of organization is federal.

Territoriality or in other words, territorial definition of national governments of a federal system and territorial division of power, is perceived by many scholars as one of the most fundamental features of federalism ( Dosenrode, 2007)

Devolution or the establishment of proper political institutions is considered to facilitate the accommodation of territorial cleavages and by combining the advantages of shared rule with those of self-rule, to provide many advantages which make it preferable to unitary forms of government (Amoretti, 2004 and Bermeo, 2000).Majimboism is also referred to as decentralization and has three key divisions which are fiscal, political dimensions and administrative. In decentralization Administratively responsibility functions from central agency are transferred to one or lower levels internally, while political devolution separates powers an political responsibility horizontally or vertically (Willent & Goivannin 2014). On the other hand fiscal decentralization entails to revenue collection and giving devolved unit power to expand.

Devolution is defined as key initiative by the government that desires to take political powers and economic resources to the lower level of the community by availing development and services closer to its citizens. Numerous governments worldwide are defined by devolution. (Rodriguez- dose & grill 2003). Further it pertains delegated functions, making of decision in management and financing the national government to the county governments (Simiyu & Mweru, 2014).

The concept of devolution is not a new phenomenon but, an aspect of decentralization. Right from the 18th Century, the system had been applied in specific countries in Europe. A good example is in the UK, where the Act of Union 1707, provided and guaranteed the existence and respect of Scotland’s separate legal system, church and education system. In reality therefore, the whole idea behind devolution is diversity in unity. In this respect, the whole system of relationship was based on free an effective cooperation. There are several countries in the world that are run through devolved units. The level of success differs, an example in the (UK) United Kingdom, devolution did not involve the community which changed the emphasis on governance and reduced the local authority access to funds (Willet of Giovannial, 2014).

The United States (US) and India are success experiences with devolution about 200 and 60 years’ respective experience. One of the attributed merits of federalism is its secession-eliminating capacity. Further, in some federal countries with divided societies such as Belgium, Canada and

549 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Spain, federalism is supposed to help to keep these societies united. However, to perform its attributed potentials, federalism should not be imposed from outside as in the type of forced- together federalism of post-communist Europe which failed eventually (Bermeo, 2002).

In Africa many counties after independence embraced one party-system known as ‘democracy by consensuses. African leaders later realized they had differences in ideology which led to struggle for multiparty democracy ( Haughhton, Counsel & Vigar 2008). The federal in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Comoros it is included in their constitutions and these countries describe their governmental systems as federal, the status of other countries including South Africa and Tanzania is open to debate. Following the end of the apartheid regime in 1994, the government system of South Africa began to be considered by many students of federalism as quasi-federal (Ibrahim, 2003).

In South African politicians avoid using the term federal on the grounds that such a definition would reinforce another division in the country based on racial lines. However, although being “reluctant federalists” (Simeon), there is reason to believe that the government system in South Africa is unquestionably federal. As Elazar properly emphasizes, South Africa is “a federation in almost every respect but does not refer to itself as such” (1998). The United Republic of Tanzania, which was the result of the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar Act, signed in 1964, is the only type of federal systems between two parties that survived till today, however, its federal status is accepted to be union –rather than a federation, as her name implies- due to the special status of Zanzibar (Tepeciklioglui).

As is noted by Visser, some of the African countries already have strong decentralization policies including Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe (2010). In his Exploring Federalism, Elazar (1991) defined the African countries of Ghana, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, and Tanzania as countries which “are not formally federal but have, in some way, introduced federal arrangements, principles, or practices into their political systems”.

Decentralization has transformed both the structure of government and the political landscape of Kenya. This has led to the gradual and comprehensive transfer of power, responsibilities and resources from the central to local authorities. The process began as a shift from appointed to elected councilors and leaders, residence committees and local councils in rural and urban areas when? Decentralization has also manifested itself in various forms such as transferring responsibilities to run primary education, health, water and sanitation, rural transport infrastructure from the central to the local governments (Chebet, 2013). In order to provide a clearer foundation of the evolution of this concept of devolution, it is pertinent to have a look at Kenya’s past experience with devolution as seen below.

1.1 Kenya’s Past Experience with Devolution

The 1963 independence constitution of Kenya provided for some form of devolution. There were two levels of government. First, like the 2010 constitution of Kenya, there were national and seven autonomous regional governments Majimbo (Stiftung, 2013). Competing ideas over the shape of Kenya’s future can be seen in the conflicts during decolonization between the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU) and Kenya African National Union (KANU). Their subsequent battle for power and the shifting of British support, including the debates over the inclusion of Majimbo or Majimboism, meaning regions or provinces, is reflective of the struggles of independence

550 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

movements. With taking control with KANU, Kenya achieved independence in 1963. After the declaration of independence, Kenya quickly moved into a de facto single party system, and the idea of the Pax Kenyatta or the fifteen years following independence, began. The ten years following Kenyatta’s death in 1978 under saw the solidification of the single party system within the constitution until a combination of Internal and external pressures resulted in more democratic processes in 1992. Kenya’s first democratic elections, as recognized by the international community, did not occur (Ogot 1995).

The seven regions had a President each with as a special provincial region governed by a city council headed by an elected Mayor. The regional governments were protected by the Constitution, and various policies and laws. In addition, there was a Senate which had exclusive assignments and function to ensure effective service delivery to the public. Regional assemblies acted as political representatives at the regional level. At the national level, representation was through the senate which also catered for the regional governments. Regional governments were given a specific function that included; community development, including primary education, housing and health services (ibid).

The same source reveals that the “Majimbo” was abolished within three years of independence, leading to loss of powers of governance by the local authorities that remained as unit of governance at the local levels. The abolition was achieved first, when Kenya was made a republic, a process that weakened the regional governments. It reduced their powers over taxation, local authorities and functions that were shared with national governments. The second amendment replaced the regions with provinces and also abolished the Senate. This was affected under the Transfer of Functions Act of 1969.

From the above analysis, it is evident that devolution is actually a form of decentralization that involves a process of transferring political, administrative and fiscal management powers from the central to the lower levels of governance. The idea has also been linked to delegation and decentralization of powers (Porter, 2001; Oloo, 2006; Muia, 2008).

According to Muia( ), decentralization is the dispersion of power of decision making and adjudication, making governance closer to the people while delegation transfers responsibility to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly owned by government. He conceives devolution as a political arrangement where political, administrative and other relevant powers are distributed to lower authorities (Muia, 2008). From the above background it was noted that there is a dearth in literature pertaining the rise and fall of Majimboism in Kenya hence this study.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The history of Majimboism in Kenya has not been given adequate attention. It has been marked by deep division within the political class since 1962 when wrangles between two political factions, namely KANU and KADU emerged, with each side supporting different ideologies. The KADU was led by marginalized communities Maasai, Kalenjin Luyia and Mijikenda who feared the Luo/Kikuyu. The proponents of Majimbo included: Masinde Muliro and Jastus Ole Tipis, Ronald Ngala (Coast Province) and Daniel Moi (Rift Valley province. KANU was spear headed by the educated urban elites the Luo and Kikuyu. The KANU faction led by Jomo Kenyatta, , Oginga Odinga supported a centralized (Unitary) governance system. Later on KADU

551 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

stalwarts such as Moi, Ngala and Muliro Joined the KANU government and KADU died a natural death.

In the past, the political leadership has had contentions about the correct system of governance. Before independence, the colonialists used the divide and rule system, a system that was bound on ethnic divisions. The demise and rise of Majimbo has scarcely been studied is scarcely studied and understood since independence. Though the KANU government won the support of the majority of the people and formed a centralized government, the KADU supporters were not encouraged to join the government led by KANU. In order to consolidate political power the Jomo Kenyatta regime amended the independence constitution to watch down the concept of Majimbo leading to the reinforcement of the unitary system to the disappointment of those who wanted Majimbo system. Lancaster talks constitution which recognized the place o Majimbo in 1962 constitution but about 1963 Jomo started killing Majimbo system for Unitary system.

Though not so conceivable at the time, the concept of Majimbo advanced more during the the struggle for multi-party in 1991. As a result opposition led by Luo and Agikuyu. In response, Moi suggested the return of Majimbo to protect the smaller communities. In the 2007 general elections, the debate for Majimbo versus Unitarism resurfaced, this time proposed by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) who were the opposition and Party of National Unity (PNU) which was the ruling party. New meanings were acquired on the concept, and the campaigning period was marred with definitions, explanations, debates on what Majimbo is and what it was not. The ODM party used the concept of Majimbo to discuss a bout historical injustices on land at the coast in order to get the support of Mijikenda and Swahili vote. This led to the 1992 and 1997 politically instigated ethnic and land clashes in the Rift-valley and the Coastal region. Finally in 200, Kenya experienced Post-election violence which was supported by the Coastal and Rift valley Politics over the unresolved land issues emanating from the feelings of regional and ethnic marginalization consequently, in 2010 Kenyans voted for a constitutional dispensation that recognized Devolution, a form of Majimbo as the Solution to inclusivity and fairness in the sharing of nation resources. This study therefore endeavored to investigate the Rise and fall of Majimboism in Kenya, a case study of Bungoma County, 1962-2017.

11: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research Design

The study was based on descriptive survey design which is a type of qualitative and quantitative approaches where data were presented in tables and graphs. The study used questionnaires, focus group discussions and participant observation ethnography as the main tools for data collection it should be in the section of data collection tools.

2.2 Study Area

The study was carried out in Bungoma County that is inhabited predominantly by the Babukusu community. Bungoma County constitutes the nine sub-counties: Bungoma South, Bumula, Bungoma West, Kimilili, Mt Elgon, Webuye West and Webuye East. Participants were drawn from all these areas.

552 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Figure 1: Map of Bungoma County showing the sub – counties

Source: Moi University Geography Department GIS Lab.

553 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Figure 2: Map of Kenya showing 47 Counties map

Source: Moi University Geography Department GIS Lab.

2.3 Origins of Majimboism

554 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

We have already noted earlier that the idea of devolution was not new in Kenya. It had been used in other places such as the UK where the Act of Union of 1707 provided for devolved governance that systematically led to free and effective cooperation in governance. From its inception, KADU pursued a political philosophy of federalism, called majimboism (meaning regionalism in Kiswahili), which would allow semi-autonomous regions, based on ethnicity, to have substantial decision-making power. The central government would, in turn, have a limited and defined federal role. A coalition of the smaller ethnic groups, including the Kalenjin, led by Masinde Muliro, Daniel arap Moi, and Ronald Ngala, were strong proponents of majimboism, arguing that it would ensure that no single large ethnic group could dominate the country. KADU received significant funding from the British settler population before independence to counter support for KANU, which was identified with strong nationalist sentiment (Leys, 1975).In Kenya, the 1963 independence constitution provided for some kind of devolution through the Majimbo system which was later abolished in 1966 after Kenya became a republican state. However the Transfer of Functions Act of 1969 replaced the regional units with provinces and also abolished the senate (Nyukuri 1992). The idea behind Majimboism was to achieve effective governance decentralizing and de- concentrating political and administrative functions to the lower levels of local governance. However the center still remained the overall power behind all levels of decision making and allocation of funds (Muia, 2008; Manor, 1999). Devolution was also conceived as some form of federalism where regional units had a say in their development agenda. In other words, a political organization should seek to achieve both political integration and political freedom by combining shared roles on some matters by highlighting the concept of participation, pursuit of common ends and enhancing discretion in policy making (Hamilton and Jay 1987).Having examined the origins of the idea of devolution, we can now move to its development as analyzed below.

2.4 Development of Majimboism in 1963-1964

At independence leadership wrangles between two political factions, namely KANU and KADU emerged over the system of governance to be used in Kenya. Its proponents included: Masinde Muliro and Oginga Odinga (Nyanza-Western Province), Ronald Ngala (Coast Province) and Daniel Moi (Rift Valley province), (KNA-MAC/KEN/44/1).The KANU faction who Ngunyi (1996) calls the unitarists led by Jomo Kenyatta at the time had the backing of the major ethnic communities and proposed a central government. KADU on the other side, which had political support from the colonialists, fronted regionalism/Majimboism. This was the first time Majimbo as a concept was proposed by Africans in Kenya. Though the KANU government won the support of the majority of the people and formed a centralized government, the KADU supporters did not last long in the government. Most of them became opposers of the central government system. For instance , later formed an opposition party, though other proponents like Moi remained perpetrators of unitarism. During this period Majimbo meant regionalism, a system of ruling where each region had a representative in the central government.

From the end of the Mau Mau emergency to 1960, the British retained control over Kenya and its government. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s “Wind of Change” declaration in the UN signaled the beginnings of an independence movement in colonized country that would change the world. Essential to the new Kenya, which officially gained independence on December 12, 1963, was the creation of a constitution and a government. In the lead up to independence, alongside the

555 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

formation of a coalition between KANU (Kenya African National Union) and KADU (Kenya African Democratic Union), the British government aided the rival parties in the negotiations for both the future independence constitution and the organization of government. The Kenya Constitutional Conferences, held at Lancaster House, London, the political struggles between KADU and KANU and the eventual 1963 Constitution helped shape the future of Kenya and East Africa (KNA-MSS/29/9).

At the end of 1961, during the first Lancaster House Constitutional conference, the idea of majimbo began to take shape. Led by Ronald Ngala, KADU, who, despite being numerically overwhelmed in the Legislative Council by KANU, were invited in 1961 to form a government after KANU declined unless Jomo Kenyatta was released, which was refused (Colonial office 1992). KADU, joined by the White Highland settler’s New Kenya Party, the Kenya Indian Congress and other independent members, agreed to form a government, beginning work on majimbo. Majimbo comes from Swahili, and means regions or provinces. The idea of majimbo was not new, having been explored in early (Colonial office 1992). According to (Maxon 2011) Aided by Sir Hone, Sir Michael Blundell, Reggie Alexander and W. I. Haverlock, majimbo relied on ideas from the Swiss constitution and drew heavily on regionalism ideals. The goal was a “devolved constitutional arrangement that would protect smaller ‘minority’ communities from the dominance of larger communities… a proposal for decentralization.” According to (Anderson 2005) this strategy called for 6 provinces and the capital of Nairobi, all equal, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an upper house representing the regions and a lower house representing 71 constituencies. Both houses would have equal powers of legislation, but the upper house would approve appointments to the armed forces and courts. Additionally, a Federal Council of Ministers of ten to fifteen members would elect a chairman as Head of State, which would then rotate annually. Each of the regions and Nairobi would have an Assembly with legislative powers, its own civil service and its own police. KADU justified the system as being an expression of the desire for a democratic future a noble goal for a country shaped by distrust and war. Although majimboism was recognized by the British as well intentioned, this “structure. Kenya could ill afford.” (Anderson 2005) Reginald Maudling, the newly appointed Colonial Secretary, “supported the political goal of KADU as a bulwark against Kenyatta but he had been warned by the Colonial Office that Kenya simply could not afford an expensive federal system of government. (Anderson 2005) The extensive nature of the KADU proposed decentralized government would require a complete overhaul of the existing government structure, requiring money the government did not have. Maudling saw Kenya’s future as being in the hands of Kenyan leaders, but in addition to the warnings of the Colonial Office, saw fear as being the biggest threat to Kenya’s future. (Ogot 1995) Noted that despite Europeans having had great influence in the shaping of the federalist system suggested in majimbo, most European farmers, merchants or colonial officials were not supportive (Maxon 2011).

As noted by Maxon, the plan continued to evolve before the second Constitutional Conference, however the essential reasons for majimbo did not change. These reasons were “the need to provide Kenya with a democratic constitution that would protect individual liberties and guarantee a separation of powers. The ambition of [KADU] politicians to attain positions of leadership in an independent Kenya. The party’s perception that control of land and the administrative structure would be crucial after independence.” (Maxon 2011) These ideals and unwavering determination of KADU to keep their Rothchild views Majimboism as a key part of racial bargaining, while Ogot dismisses Majimboism as unimportant to the national cause. Anderson however sees Majimboism was essential to understand post-colonial Kenya and potentially even more enduring than

556 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

nationalism. Constitutional ideal ultimately saw KADU’s loss to the seemingly more flexible KANU delegation in the second Conference.Jomo Kenyatta, the leader of KANU and first prime minister of Kenya, was released in 1961. Patrick Renison, the governor of Kenya at the time of Kenyatta’s release, sent a dispatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on July 29th, 1961 (KNA-MAC/KAN/44/1).

Kenyatta was seen as a danger to independence, Governor Renison decided the extra security risk could be contained, and the African Elected Members advised unconditional release, leading to the release of Kenyatta. Upon his release, which was initially conditional, Kenyatta took over control of KANU, alongside Odinga and Mboya. Starting on February 14, 1962, the UK and Kenya delegations began the second Kenya Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House (KNA- MAC/KEN47/6-Constitutional talks 1962).

Prior to the Conference, Maudling made a trip to Nairobi, resulting in a memorandum for the Cabinet regarding the upcoming Conference. Maudling’s memorandum is negative, frequently citing concerns of corruption, poor political organization and the connection between KANU and Mau (Colonial Office 1961). “Despatch from governor, Kenya to secretary of state for the colonies. Release of Jomo Kenyatta.” Mau. (Maulding 1962) Despite Maudling’s concerns and the inherent tension between KADU and KANU on the future of the constitution, within the memorandum, he also supported for the Conference process and the hope that agreement can be reached if minority rights can be preserved in a meaningful way, stating “so far as the present conference is concerned, we should try hard to get agreement on… protection for tribal minorities and for European individuals,”( ibid 1962) a theme that continued to shape the British perspective and goals for the remainder of British control. Following Maudling’s report, British Prime Minister Macmillan “produced in Cabinet of his characteristically daring but unworkable ideas: that Britain should hand over Kenya to a UN trusteeship in order to stave off independence for about five years. This was a bouleversement indeed since it had been one of the main themes of British policy since the war to keep the hands of the Trusteeship Council off British Colonies”. Kyle noted that Foreign Office was obliged to appear to treat Macmillan’s suggestion seriously, the idea was quickly killed in the Colonial Office. The 1962 Constitution was negotiated between the KANU and KADU parties and the British government, organized by the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth Sandys, and chaired by Secretary of State Maudling and Governor Renison. The conference focused on determining the form of government for Kenya, and was mired in difficult negotiations.

While Britain had recognized after the first Conference that continued British political power was not going to be a reality in the future Kenya, and that the hope for British interests was to transfer power to a stable government that would not be open to Communist ideals or commit to either side in the Cold War East/West struggle. Maudling’s memorandum after the Conference definitively called it a failure. His prior hopes expressed in the previous memorandum for finding agreement between KANU and KADU no longer existed after the second Conference. While KANU’s constitution, consisting of a centralized government with a written constitution including safeguards for individuals and some local interests, largely resembled the Westminster model, insufficient safeguards for minorities, as recognized by the British and KADU, raised questions. Maulding Negotiations came to a halt, as KADU refused to discuss anything until the question of government structure had been decided on. Maudling attempted to break the standstill, “telling the delegates that he as chairman could give a ruling on the procedure to be followed, but that he would only do so if assured that all would accept it.”Maxon independence constitution

557 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Unsurprisingly, Ngala refused to accept and abide by a ruling, while Kenyatta insisted KANU would abide by Maudling’s ruling, forcing a continued standoff.

2.5 Target Population Mugenda (2003) defines population as the entire group of individuals, events or objects having common observable characteristic. The study population were 150 which constituted all individuals living in all the sub counties of Bungoma County specifically 3 retired Members of Parliament, 5 District commissioner, 10 District officer, 30 Assistant chiefs, 50 chiefs, 5 Members of County Assembly, 2 County Commissioner, 15 Deputy County Commissioners, 10 Women groups, 20 Youth groups.

2.6 Sampling Techniques

As a result, the purposive and snowballing sampling technique methods were employed to access the required respondents. Purposive sampling was used because the researcher believed the respondents would provide the much needed data. The margin of error that would result from poor judgment was checked by comparing data with those from other sources. Table 1: Sampling Technique Sample Population Sampling technique Sample Size Retired Members of Parliament Snowballing 2 District commissioner Purposive 5 District officer Snowballing 10 Assistant chiefs Purposive 30 Chiefs Purposive 50 Members of County Assembly Purposive 10 County Commissioner Purposive 2 Deputy County Commissioners Purposive 15 Women groups Snowballing 10 Youth groups Snowballing 20 Total 154

2.7 Data Collection Tools The study utilized both primary data and Secondary data. Table 2: Data collection tools Sample Population Data collection tools Sample Size Retired Members of Parliament Interview 2 District commissioner Interview 5 District officer Questionnaire 10 Assistant chiefs Questionnaire 30 Chiefs Questionnaire 50 Members of County Assembly Questionnaire 5 County Commissioner Questionnaire 2 Deputy County Commissioners Questionnaire 15 Women groups FGD 10 Youth groups FGD 20 Total

558 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

2.7.1 Primary Data

The primary data were collected through Focus Group Discussion, Interview Ethnography and Records from national archives.

2.7.2 1In-depth Interview Schedules

The interview guides were used to obtain qualitative data, especially from those who were illiterate (Seale, 2004). It involved working according to a set of topics using non-standardized questions. The method provided greater degree of flexibility, greater depth and following the contextual structure of the interviews. The main language of communication was English supplemented by Kiswahili. The questions were unstructured, only providing key points for investigative discussions. Tape recorders were used to record the proceedings of the interviews.

Data collection commenced in August 2017. Two field assistants were involved in data collection, administering questionnaires and general ethical standards. The researcher’s main task was collecting archival and oral data and to receive and analyze data from the field assistants.

2.7.3 Focus Group Discussions

The researcher used youth group and women group in discussions focused on specific topical issues related to devolution facilitated by the researcher. The unit of analysis was the group, focusing on how they collectively perceived the ideas of devolution (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996). The fixed schedule of questions and topic guides were used, a recorder was used to tape the proceedings of the discussion. The researcher used four FGDs each with four members.

2.7.4 Participant Observation/ Ethnography

Here the researcher became a participant observer on devolved community projects such as road construction, school programs and market places. The aim was to come to terms with the internal logic of the values and issues under investigation (Seale, 2004). The method was particularly used to obtain information on the practical aspects of developed services. Using this method, we observed that the community had a big stake in the devolution process in Bungoma County. 2.7.5 Secondary Data Secondary data included data gathered from documents search such as media reports and review of published books, journals, papers, periodicals, and unpublished works as well as government's official documents. The study used secondary data in the form of documented information from libraries and other relevant institutions.

2.7.6 Library Research

This was conducted in the libraries of higher institutions of learning such as Kibabii and Masinde Muliro University. Where the researcher was able to acquire relevant information from books and Newspaper concerning devolution. The Kenyan National Archives in Nairobi, the district archives, the County archives in Bungoma were used to obtain archival data. Records and personal documents of important personalities were examined. The internet and library sources were used to check materials from other sources.

559 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

2.8 Data Analysis

The findings from these secondary data once collected will be analyzed through content analysis. According to Holsti (1969) content analysis is any technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying special characteristics of messages. In this context, the researcher scrutinize artifacts of social communication (Artifacts are written or transcriptions of recorded communication).

The objectives were categorized into themes in line with the study objectives. In-depth Interviews were transcribed and analyzed according to emerging data. Periodic reviews of all collected data were carried out, followed by a summary construction and formulation of more questions to be answered on devolution. Peer groups were also consulted with those who were knowledgeable on research procedures and on the content of the subject under investigation. The aim was to brain storm on emerging themes, concepts and interpretation. In addition the quantitative data from questionnaire respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics and results presented in frequency table and charts.

2.9 Validity

To test the validity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted on 10 boda bodas in Kakamega County. The aim of a pilot study was to assess the clarity of the wording of the questionnaires, interview schedule, focus group discussion guide and observation check list and items which failed to meet the anticipated data was discarded. A pilot study is important in testing the validity of the instruments and clarity of language (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). According to Kirk and Miller, 1986 validity is briefly defined as the degree to which the findings are interpreted in a correct way and reliability is the degree to which the findings are independent of accidental circumstances of the research.

2.20.1 Reliability

To test the reliability of instruments, the researcher used the test re-test method. Test re-tests reliability established the correlation co-efficient. The reliability will be ascertained by first assigning values to the items in the questionnaires for purposes after it had been administered. The items were split into two equal halves using odd versus even plan. The reliability co-efficient for the half items was estimated using the Pearson product correlation formula. To obtain the self- correlation of the whole questionnaire using the reliability of the half, estimate were made using spearmen Brown prophesy formula (Kothari, 2003).

2.21 Ethical Considerations

The researcher observed acceptable etiquette when interacting with all the research respondents. The respondents were assured that the information they provided was handled confidentially and was used for academic purposes. Ethical considerations are important for any research (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003).The research sought permission for research from NACOSTI. In this study, the research ethics were approved by the board of post graduate studies of Kibabii University.

560 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

III: RESULTS

3.1 Community Reaction to the Introduction of the Majimboism

The community reacted towards the introduction of the concept of devolution as devolution was advocated as a political response to the ills plaguing fragile and plural societies, such as, conflicts, inequalities, rent seeking, economic stagnation, corruption and inefficient use of public resources. Besides, devolution was also implemented as a reaction to external pressure from organized groups (or separatists). For devolution to be effective, however, the criteria of subsidiary and consensus must be observed (Dent, 2004; Kimenyi and Meagher, 2004).

A Focus Group Discussion composed with assistant chiefs reported that: The African states with centralized systems of government had suffered multiple symptoms associated with poor governance. Their analysis of centralization of governance, enumerated a sense of failure to make a clear separation between what was public and private. This engendered a tendency to direct public resources for private gain. Secondly, the system did not establish a predictable framework of law and government conducive to development, and encouraged arbitrariness in the application of rules and laws. The system fostered excessive rules, regulations and licensing requirements which impeded functioning of markets and encouraged rent seeking. Fourthly, it encouraged the setting of priorities inconsistent with development and non-transparent decision making (FGD Assistant Chiefs 14-10- 2017 Chwele).

With the introduction of devolution, the services needed by the general public in Bungoma County would be closer to them and would be easier to access. It therefore follows that the county executive had the power to implement county legislation, enacted by the county assembly and manage the functions of the county government including jurisdiction over health, agriculture and county transportation. The constitution also laid the foundation for a more equitable distribution of resources to the county governments in order to help remedy the resource disparities that contributed to the 2007 crisis. Thus, fifteen percent of government revenue was allocated to the county governments and the national government grants funds awarded to the county governments based on population, poverty index, and land area. Therefore majority of Members of County Assembly were of the opinion that since the county had enacted its’ own laws, it would lead to equal service delivery to its citizens (O.I Members of County Assembly, Webuye, 14-10- 2017)

According to Ghai (2006) centralization had created environment hostile to development since the authority of government over their people was progressively eroded. The resultant effect was reduced compliance with decisions to which the government responded through populist measures or coercion. Economic costs rose due to escalating corruption and the diversion of resources to address internal security and therefore in Bungoma County the community gave devolution an overwhelming support and recognition. It was seen as a new dawn to the community.

For a long time it was believed that the pervasive rise of conflict in the community was a factor of ethnic heterogeneity. The last decade had, however, witnessed growing consensus among scholars (Chabal and Daloz, 1999; Nasong'o, 2002) that ethnic loyalties and parochial identities are not the only root cause of conflict in Bungoma County. Instead scholars advance the argument that the

561 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

political conflicts were often precipitated by political competition over state resources within a context devoid of effective political institutionalization. The low levels of institutionalization engendered conditions where resource allocation was skewed in favour of the self-aggrandizing activities of incumbent regimes and their supporters. Subsequently, the discriminated social groupings were forced to mobilize to articulate their interests, resulting in political antagonism that had invariably led to conflicts (Nasong'o, 2002).

IV: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The arguments for devolution were thus grounded in the political and economic benefits it presented. One important political contribution that a well-constructed sub-national system offers was the enhancement of a democratic culture. Ndulo (2006) stated that by creating a number of governments below the national level, devolution multiplies the opportunities for political participation. Barrett et al (2007) and Oloo (2007) further pointed out that the community not only engaged in the local political process but were able to demand effective provision of services. This was because if things went wrong, physical proximity made it easier for citizens to hold local officials accountable for their performance (Ndulo, 2006). In empowering communities to manage their own resources more effectively, devolution simultaneously strengthened local institutions. Further, by affording the local community opportunity to participate in the planning and implementation of development projects devolution enhanced their sense of ownership of the projects (Barrett et al., 2007; Oloo 2007). Devolution ensured that varying interests of stakeholders were balanced, and that decisions were made in a rational, informed and transparent fashion. The decisions contributed to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the institutions. From an interview with a group comprising eight Community elders in nine Sub Counties of Bungoma County, the study reported that; Devolved levels of government had their raison d'etre in the provision of goods and services whose consumption was limited to their own jurisdictions. Since outputs of such goods and services were tailored to the particular preferences and circumstances of their constituencies, decentralized provision increased economic welfare of the constituents. This is because; the level of welfare is often higher if consumption occurred at each jurisdiction than if any single uniform level of consumption was maintained across all jurisdictions ( FGDs, in Namamuka Village, 27-06-2017). It can therefore be reported that based on the findings of this study majority of respondents were of the opinion that devolution was an answer to all the ills of centralized government and therefore the community of Bungoma County welcomed it is implementation.

REFERENCES

Asiibwe D. et. al. (2007). Decentralization and Transformation in Uganda, Fountain publishers Kampala – Uganda.

Arikan, G. (2000). Fiscal Decentralization: A Remedy for Corruption? Dept. of Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign

562 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Azfar, O. Kahokonen, L. S. A. Meagher, P and Rutherford D. (2004). Decentralization, Governance and public services: The impact of institutional arrangements in Kimenyi, S. Mwangi and Meagher p. (ed.) Devolution and development. Governance prospects in decentralizing states. Hants: Ashagate Publishing Ltd

Chattopadhyay, R. and E. Duflo (2001).Women as Policy Makers: Evidence From a India- Wide Randomized Policy Experiment.Unpublished, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Davoodi, H., D. Xie, and H. Zou (1995).Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the United States.Policy Research Department Working Paper.World Bank,Washington, DC.

Eskeland, G. and D. Filmer (2002). Autonomy, Participation, and Learning in Argentine Schools: Findings and Their Implications for Decentralization. Policy Research Working Paper 2766.World Bank, Washington DC.

Gurgur, T. and A. Shah (2002). Localization and Corruption: Panacea or Pandora’s Box? In Ehtisham Ahmad and Vito Tanzi, editors, Managing Fiscal Decentralization, pp. 46 67.Routledge Press, London and New York.

Barret, C. B, Mude A. G. and Omiti J. M., (2007). Decentralization and the Social Economics of Development. Lessons from Kenya. Nairobi: CAB international (2013)

Charles H. (2011). Kenya: A History since independence London, I. B. Tauns co. Ltd Omamo, Government of Kenya Commission on Local. Authorities in Kenya. Government Printer Nairobi

Chitere P., & Mwonya J. (1988). Decentralizing for Development: The case for District focus Approach. University of Nairobi press- Nairobi

Crewel, W,John ,(2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,3rdEd,Los Angeles: SAGE

Dent, Martin J, (2004). Identity Politics: Filling the gap between federalism and independence Hants: Ashgate Publishing limited.

Grindle, Merilee S. (2007). Going local: decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for Social Sciences and Humanities.Reading MA; Addition-Wesley.

Kibua, N. T., & Mwabu G. (2008). Decentralization and Devolution in Kenya: New Approaches, Nairobi :University Of Nairobi Press.

Kimenyi, S. M. and Meaghar, P. (2004). General introduction Kimeny, S Mwangi and Meagher, P,ed (2004). Devolution and development. Governance prospects decentralizing states. Hants; Ashagate publishing

563 | P a g e

ISSN 1569-9986

Linder, S, (1990). Settling Disputes,New York: West view Press.

564 | P a g e