Engagement in

Kenya: Promise,
Reality and
Prospects
Policy Brief 1 on Public Participation Based on Six Case
Studies

Why the research?

The research is an examination of the Constitutional promise of participation vs. what exists in
reality.

Public participation is recognised by the Constitution of Kenya as a civic right and responsibility
in Art 1 (1) (2), a national value Art 10 (1), a key principle of public finance Art 20 1(a), Arts.
124, 196, 232, require key legislative bodies to open their deliberations to the public.

Constitution provides public with easy access to courts, right to form associations (Art 36),
demonstrate, picket and petition (Art 37), recall legislators (Art 104), and protect the
Constitution through referendum (Art 252 and 257)

Four years since the promulgation of the Constitution, this covenant seems elusive, suffocated
by tokenistic participation strategies, disrespect for the rule of law and open tensions between
the national Government and the county Governments. 42 counties are yet to pass
legislation on public participation.

Citizens on the other hand, appear unable to seize the opportunities availed to them through
the constitution and influence public policy making processes. Notable civic voices argue that
the space for citizens engagement is gradually shrinking. Consequently, public participation
remains low at 5.7 % (between June 2012 and 2013).

The case-studies

SID examined the gap between the promise of participation vs. its reality through six
relationships and processes over 2014:
1. Case Study 1: Advocating for the commencement of the PBO Act (2013) without

contentious amendments;
2. Case Study 2: Contesting restrictive medial laws;
3. Case Study 3: Organisation of health workers to challenge devolution of health;
4. Case Study 4: Community Organizations as active citizenship: The case of Mustard

Seed Community Organization (MSCO);

5. Case Study 5: Organisation of the Turkana Community to challenge Tullow Oil Company

operations;
6. Case Study 6: Community participation and contestation of the Kiambu County Finance

Act.

Why the six cases?

The six cases were selected to reflect public participation at both national

and county levels.

They illustrate the opportunities presented by the Constitution, particularly

in relation to public participation, and the extent to which that has

translated to active, free and meaningful participation.
They illustrate diverse constitutional mechanisms used for public

participation (including protests, associations, petitions, courts, county

consultative meetings, lobbying MPs) and utilisation of different spaces
(closed, invited and open spaces) to participate.
The significance of these cases lies in their attempts to expand democratic

space, the national or global significance of the issues they address and the
number of people affected by their interventions.
It is also important to note, that while each of these case studies has been

trying to advance its agenda for at least two years or so, none has fully
realised its objective.

Methodology

The study relied on semi-structured interviews and

FGDs with 31 purposively sampled respondents
involved in the six case studies.

To validate information from interviews, secondary

sources of data related to the six cases were reviewed.

Observation

The zero draft was discussed by a group of researchers,

community actors, CSOs, State and research advisors.

Effective Participation:
Active, free and
meaningful

The DRD sets the standard for participation as Active,

Free & Meaningful participation, which moves beyond
providing information and consultation to empowered
participatory governance and opportunities for citizens
to freely influence decision making.

This calls for connection across formal and informal

spaces of participation, which requires:

An open, inclusive and responsive overnment

Strong civil society

Engaged citizenry

Creating an open,
inclusive and
Responsive
Government: Findings

While citizens seized the opportunity presented by the

Constitution.

However space for meaningful public participation is

shrinking, by attempts to control and weaken
mediating organisations through restrictive laws and
amendments. At the county level, the space for
meaningful public participation is being reduced to
tokenistic participation in county consultative processes;

Citizens challenge through petitions, court processes,

protests (disruptive rather than constructive) or conform
through patron client relations.

Creating a strong civil

society: Findings

Civil societys capacity to effectively confront and challenge

attempts to reduce the democratic space is weakened by
internal divisions and external political and social factors that
pose a challenge in advancing a collective agenda, sustaining
action and broad-based coalition-building among different
types of civil society organizations;

Media representation of issues raised and campaign agenda,

often influenced public opinion negatively.

Missed opportunities to organize collectively, and mobilise

more broadly.

Creating an engaged
citizenry: Findings

Organized citizen groups, while effective in

addressing the welfare needs of the community,
remain low in translating the welfare agenda into
influence broader political and democratization
processes.

Due to increased loss of public trust, citizens are

continually seeking private solutions to public
problems through associations or affiliation-based
privileges rather than public-extensive rights.

Lessons and
Recommendations:
Government
Establishment of laws and clear mechanisms

for public participation, at all county and

national levels, by both County Assemblies and
Parliament;
Need for an urgent shift in formal spaces, for

leaders to embrace the goodwill of citizens, listen,

understand and create room for genuine and
meaningful participation of citizens in governance.

Lessons and
Recommendations: Civil
Society
Increased alliance and coalition building civil society;

both conventional (NGOs), and non conventional

(associations, unions, citizen groups) media, political
elements, and elected representatives advancing the
democratic agenda.
This is necessary to strengthen the capacity of citizens

and civil society to demand for the minimum conditions

for the rule of law and constitutionalism to flourish
Beyond awareness on the Constitution, there is need to

catalyse welfare agenda to broader political,

democratization and policy processes.

Lessons and
Recommendations :
Citizens
Citizens have a responsibility to exercise integrity in

electing leaders who are not only determined to create

spaces for participation, but are also equally determined to
ensure that spaces for participation work effectively.
This requires new social and political relationships based

on entitlement to public-extensive rights to replace patronclient kind of alliances.

Citizens need to recognize their informal spaces as spaces

for identifying, nurturing and supporting members to take

up leadership positions to represent and defend their
interests.

Conclusion

The Constitutional promise of public participation is yet to be realised

Despite increased options for direct and indirect self-representation, and channels for
citizens to engage with Government, the political culture has not changed. It is still
characterised by ethnic or sectarian mobilisation, patronage and abuse of power and state
resources.

If we continue at this rate, the promise of participation will be still born.

How can we accelerate the establishment of laws/guidelines/policies for public participation

at national and county levels?

How can we strengthen the capacity of citizens to recognise themselves as citizens rather
than beneficiaries or clients?

How can we create a recognition by all actors; citizens, civil society and Government that a
key component of democracy is building trust among and between different parts of
society?

THANK YOU