The one-man one-shilling revenue allocation formula has raised a lot of debate. Counties with a higher population are clamouring for it, while those with a larger land mass (that have, coincidentally, always been the marginalised areas) pointing out that it speaks against the spirit of the Constitution. So the question is, should we seek equality or equity?
I believe we should all seek equality –but only after achieving equity. It would make no sense for the government to allocate more resources to a people whose areas already have a semblance of services such as tarmacked roads, good hospitals and schools, while leaving out areas such as northern Kenya. Let these areas catch up first.
Furthermore, it was every Kenyan's hope that devolution would save us from poverty brought about by government negligence.
The government of Kenya had made it it's mission to only develop the white highland areas while leaving the rest of the country, mostly arid and semi-arid, to survive by the grace of God.
But as devolution is showing, those areas can be as productive when fully resourced.
From fruit farming in Makueni and oil in Turkana to textile companies in Kitui and industrial complexes in Uasin Gishu, it is evident all areas have something to contribute to the national cake if well resourced.
Contrary to popular belief, unity in Kenya shall not be found through BBI or prayers. The answer to disunity in Kenya is development.
A child in Turkana will feel Kenyan if they can go to school and hospital, and grow up to make a livelihood in their county. But should service delivery be politicised, feelings of bitterness and resentment shall continue bubbling up, which is a recipe for disaster as the 2007/08 violence showed us. The one-man one-shilling formula is only honourable and humane in a society where all people are equal.
Ms. Kyalo comments on topical issues. [email protected]