Across Kenya, a troubling trend continues to play out in our communities: Different cadres of elected leaders each roll out development projects independently—sometimes within the same location, at the same time, and for the same purpose.
For instance, it is not uncommon to see three classrooms constructed at a single school, each funded by a different leader, each managed separately, and each unveiled with great ceremony. Although their ‘good’ intentions are clear, the lack of a joint approach to development is quietly sabotaging efficiency, equity, and long-term impact.
The end result—additional classrooms—may seem like progress. However, the fragmented approach reveals a deeper governance problem that is not sustainable in the long run as no one addresses related needs like desks, sanitation, libraries, labs, access roads, security needs or even water provision.
Devolution of political power under Kenya’s 2010 Constitution was designed to bring services closer to the people. Yet instead of encouraging synergy, it has too often led to disjointed initiatives as each leader seeks visibility and political credit.
This pursuit of individual legacy has turned many development projects into theatres for political rivalry rather than symbols of community emancipation.
It sums up to a development strategy hampered by political silos, duplication and poor coordination.
This issue of duplication goes beyond physical infrastructure. Take bursary allocation, for instance. At present, students often receive separate bursaries from MPs, Governors, and MCAs—each disbursed independently with little coordination or oversight.
This disjointed system results in duplication, inefficiency, and inequitable access. Some students benefit multiple times, while equally needy peers in other areas receive nothing at all.
A more effective solution would be to pull all bursary funds into a common pool, administered transparently through a unified set of criteria.
Such a system would ensure fairer distribution based on need, not political affiliation; prevent double-dipping and allow for better tracking of beneficiaries; and maximise the reach and impact of bursary funds across counties.
A centralised bursary fund, with contributions from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), County Governments, and ward-level allocations, would not only streamline administration but also restore public confidence in bursary programs as tools for equal opportunities.
Whether in school development or bursary distribution, a shift to collaborative leadership where leaders pool resources, align priorities, and implement projects in a unified, strategic way would promote equity and change things for the common good.
By combining their efforts, leaders can move beyond building basic infrastructure to delivering comprehensive, fully functional projects. Rather than overserving one area and neglecting another, a shared strategy ensures that every community receives its fair share based on actual development needs.
For instance, instead of simply constructing classrooms, a holistic approach can also ensure the provision of clean water and proper sanitation, besides equipping the classrooms with furniture, textbooks, and electricity, allowing leaders to address the full ecosystem of needs, not just isolated components.
Beyond equity, joint procurement processes and shared supervision also lead to prudent financial utilisation and better quality control. This mutual accountability fosters transparency, facilitating easier tracing of how public funds are spent and detecting malpractices.
Also, joint leadership builds public trust and creates results for citizens. When leaders work together, they demonstrate that development is not about self-promotion but about public service that puts the needs of the people above personal or political gain.
Importantly, in combining their budgets
and efforts, leaders will maintain quality standards by hiring a single
contractor with proper oversight. Instead of everyone building walls
haphazardly, one could focus on the classrooms, another on furniture and
textbooks, while the other pays for related infrastructure like solar power,
ICT labs or facilities for the teaching staff.
So what must change?
First, every major institution should have a coordinated development plan co-created by MPs, Governors, and MCAs, with meaningful participation of local communities. Second, there should be a centralised planning and monitoring system for sharing information on who is funding what and where. Third, bursary allocations should be harmonised through a centralised, transparent database and a jointly managed fund.
Finally, national and county governments should incentivise joint projects through funding support, technical assistance, or public recognition.
Kenya does not suffer from a lack of resources or ideas. What we suffer from is a lack of alignment. Until our leaders move from parallel tracks to a shared path, we will continue to build scattered, uneven progress that leaves too many behind.
It is time to retire the notion of development as a solo race. Whether it’s infrastructure or bursaries, progress is a relay—and it is only when leaders pass the baton to each other, rather than jostling for the spotlight, that the nation can truly move forward. In short, a joint approach shifts focus from "who gets the credit" to "what improves lives.
By Benard Ogoi
