The promulgation of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya marked a revolutionary shift in the nation’s political architecture. For counties like Kakamega and Vihiga, it was a turning point that changed how power was distributed, how leaders were chosen, and how development was managed. The 2010 Constitution in Kakamega and Vihiga ushered in devolution, turning the once centralized political space into a county-based governance model that empowered local populations and introduced new political dynamics.
The Pre-2010 Centralized Political Order
Before 2010, power in Kenya was heavily centralized in Nairobi. Provincial administrators, appointed by the President, controlled budgets, development priorities, and public appointments in Western Kenya. Local MPs had limited influence beyond national legislation and lobbying.
In Kakamega and Vihiga, development was inconsistent and often manipulated for political gain. Ethnic favoritism, political marginalization, and lack of local oversight meant services were unequally distributed. Citizens had little direct control over public resources.
Devolution Reshapes the Power Map
The 2010 Constitution introduced a two-tier government: national and 47 county governments. This radically transformed Kakamega and Vihiga, placing governors, MCAs (Members of County Assembly), and county executive committees at the center of local leadership.
Key changes included:
- Election of Governors with executive authority over county budgets and policy.
- Establishment of County Assemblies to provide oversight.
- Direct access to national revenue through the Equitable Share and Equalization Funds.
- Creation of Ward-based representation, ensuring hyper-local political accountability.
This shift decentralized power and gave residents the tools to demand better governance.
New Political Players and Structures
The new system created entirely new political offices, attracting seasoned and emerging politicians alike. In the 2013 general elections, Kakamega elected Wycliffe Oparanya as its first governor, while Vihiga elected Moses Akaranga.
Additional transformations included:
- Elected Senators to represent counties at the national level.
- Women Representatives to enhance gender inclusion.
- Dozens of MCA seats across both counties, promoting grassroots representation.
Political competition moved from a national to a county-based focus, introducing local manifestos, ward development funds, and county-specific priorities.
Accountability and Citizen Engagement
The Constitution also entrenched public participation as a legal right, forcing county governments to consult citizens before making major decisions. In Kakamega and Vihiga, this led to:
- Ward-based public barazas on budgeting and legislation.
- Increased civil society activity monitoring county spending.
- Public debates on leadership performance, with voters recalling underperforming MCAs and pressuring governors to deliver.
While implementation was not perfect, the transparency and accountability culture improved dramatically.
Challenges and Growing Pains
Despite the progress, the shift wasn’t without friction:
- Cases of corruption and mismanagement emerged at the county level.
- Power struggles between governors and MCAs disrupted services.
- Political competition turned hyper-local, intensifying ethnic sub-group rivalries within counties.
- National politicians still tried to influence county politics, often causing confusion over roles and priorities.
Yet these challenges reflected growing pains of a new system—not systemic failure.
Conclusion
The 2010 Constitution’s impact on Kakamega and Vihiga cannot be overstated. It turned passive recipients of centralized authority into active stakeholders in local governance. Through devolution, residents gained the power to elect their leaders, allocate their resources, and shape their development path.
While obstacles remain, the transformation has been profound—marking a new era where political power is not only held at the center but shared with the people.
