Development professionals have recently started talking more about the role of politics in opportunities or constraints for poverty reduction, alongside the role of economic growth. This shows recognition of the role of governance in development and the need for appreciating politics when considering development opportunities. Even the notoriously economic-centric World Bank has begun to reassess its apolitical stance, through consideration of the role of corruption in development.
I write this because, in Kenya, every development goal we seek is hindered, affected, constrained or, occasionally, helped by politics and corruption. Policymaking is highly politicised, resource allocation is often unequal on the grounds of ethnicity (which is also a primarily political issue) and the inequality in the country, at an all-time high, has been made worse by corruption in all levels of politics, the judiciary, the police service and service delivery. It is an issue we deal with every day working in Kenya, and one I am particularly passionate about tackling.
Politics is in everything: governance, policy, institutions and the ‘bigger picture’ of political ideologies and systems- there is huge scope for poverty reduction strategies to be politicised. Politics and poverty will always be country specific, affected by history, political parties, ideology, civil society and the types of institution in that nation, as well as international interactions with regard to aid, trade and conflict, which all impact upon poverty and its alleviation.
The idea of pro-poor politics as opposed to pro-poor economics emerged out of the good governance debate. Good governance alone is insufficient for development- governance reforms will only benefit the poor if they have representation and influence over institutions. A pro-poor polity must have the capability and commitment to creating an environment that allows space for citizen participation to reduce poverty through empowerment and through accountability and responsiveness of the government for improved resource allocation and service delivery.
Kenyan citizens have huge political motivation. In my time living in England, I have been saddened by the lack of interest in the country’s political situation, and the lack of knowledge of politics even at the basic level (try asking a bunch of 15 year olds who the PM is). In Kenya, people have passion, commitment and interest in politics and reform. John Githongo (the former anti-corruption tzar, exiled for whistleblowing and now back in Kenya) has started a social movement called ‘Ni Sisi’ – "It is us". We, the people of Kenya, must work to hold our government to account, to not accept corrupt practice and to use the political landscape to our advantage, encouraging the implementation of pro-poor policies alongside supporting the country’s economic growth. Transparency in politics is also necessary, to provide the appropriate information to citizens to allow them to better influence policy debates and political discourse.
We need political leaders committed to poverty reduction through service delivery, economic stability, social and state security, well-devised policies, both social and infrastructural, with capacity to implement them equitably, and a state responsive to civil society. We need a state which allocates resources equitably and efficiently. We need a government that exhibits capability, responsiveness and accountability to all citizens. Only then can Kenya attract more investment potentially improving the environment for poverty reduction, and ensure equitable resource allocation.
The aim of pro-poor politics is to create a political system that allows space for citizen participation, leading to poverty reduction through empowerment and enhanced policy focus and implementation, via advocacy and improving accountability of those in power to all citizens. This process is limited by political structures and affected by the agenda set by the powerful elite.
Though a state may be considered broadly democratic, there are varying levels of democracy. Corruption, excessive Presidentialism and patronage politics may perpetuate poverty. This occurs more often in a fragmented political system where many political parties, with little regulation or commitment to the poor, compete to ‘rule rather than to serve’ the citizens.
Though it is political leaders that have official power in many polities, the civil service can affect implementation of policy and therefore poverty levels. If employment in civil service is highly politicised (and oversized), it diverts resources away from poverty reduction strategies and thus reproducing poverty in the country. Weak institutions, lacking capacity and commitment, mean the mixture of ‘formal and informal rules’ will affect policy formulation and implementation, determining whether outcomes are pro-poor or not. Strong institutions are able to ‘rein in the power of individuals’ and produce the rule of law, via downward accountability. This will have positive effects in terms of poverty reduction, ensuring appropriate and equitable resource allocation. If institutions are weak, or informal rules dominate, the use of power cannot be regulated, leading to non-delivery of pro-poor policies, or formulation of policies which exacerbate poverty. Those who are unable to affect these informal rules therefore suffer disproportionately.
As a group, people can gain power and influence decisions that affect their lives, advocating for appropriate resource allocation and protest against ‘anti-poor’ political structures and informal rules. Influence can be used to ensure that the government use their power appropriately and effectively to improve the lives of the citizens.
But what if an environment for social mobilisation cannot be created? If political power has been gained through support from a regional group, ethnic loyalty or economic wealth, the poor feel powerless to effect change. If elites are governing in their own interests, the poor, who feel vulnerable, are unwilling and unable to challenge the state. Personal or patronage rule inhibits social organisation.
Poor governance structures affect the political capabilities of the poor, directly affect service delivery, through misallocation of resources and funds and hinder external investment and donor collaboration. Important aspects of poverty reduction are empowerment and service delivery, as well as security, from economic shocks, corruption and criminal activity. These will all be compromised by corrupt practices and informalised political structures. We need transparency and accountability measures to improve the situation, as well as decentralisation of power, thus providing citizens with knowledge about the resource allocation process. The new constitution may well help this in Kenya.
Politics is about power relations. It is the distribution of power that affects a state’s ability to implement successful poverty reduction strategies. This includes issues of corruption and conflict and can be somewhat counteracted by effective, appropriate institutions staffed according to merit rather than patronage, allowing for some regulation of power and therefore resource distribution, improving service delivery to the poorest. There must first be sufficient political commitment and capability to pro-poor politics to enable bottom-up advocacy for change. Poverty can be defined in terms of empowerment, service delivery, access to markets and security. The political system and informal rules can shape these aspects of poverty. The most crucial ingredient to political development is organisation and mobilisation of the poor, as it is they who can potentially influence those with the power to effect pro-poor change.
No comments:
Post a Comment