David Ndii is an exceptionally gifted economist and analyst, and I think on balance we actually agree more than we disagree. But his rejoinder to me in the Saturday Nation of January 17 (“Why the ruling class fails”) generated more heat than light.

In that piece, Ndii flip flops on whether he is talking about public finance or politics. On the one hand, he says I missed his initial point, which was not about budgets/public finance, but about “politics and political economy.”

Yet he goes on to “wonder” twice about “which school of public finance I went to.” If indeed Ndii’s focus is politics and his point is that allocation of resources is political, why does one need a special background in public finance to debate it?

Ironically, Ndii argues strongly that the problem with Kenya has been too much focus on technical credentials when it comes to public finance, but then seeks to discredit my contributions on this same basis.

The school I went to is irrelevant. We are not discussing PFM theory, but public finance in the real world. Having said that, anyone with an Internet connection would know that I studied political science, and specifically the politics of public spending. I attended a school that I think most would consider adequate for debating these issues in a newspaper (you can look it up if you care).

A few more minutes online would reveal that I have dedicated my life for the past few years to precisely the proposition Ndii seems to think I am against: Making public finance more open and transparent, and encouraging more ordinary people to participate instead of viewing this as the preserve of the technocratic elite.

My organisation’s recent film, A Measure of Fairness, also online, is based on visits around the country to discuss revenue sharing with ordinary people.

Its purpose was specifically to take the message to the Commission on Revenue Allocation that this is no longer the preserve of the technocracy. We also work to strengthen citizen participation in county budget processes.

Like Ndii, I believe in the radicalism of the Constitution. As far as I can tell, we disagree on two things. First, we seem not to agree about the nature of this radicalism. And second, we seem not to agree about whether the “revolution” has already happened.

Ndii says I am “splitting hairs” when I remind people that the decision about resource allocation still starts at national level, that billions of shillings are at stake, and that parliament has a critical role to play. He doesn’t believe anything good can happen at the national level, and he is entitled to that view.

My view, however, is that unless Kenyans engage in the national discussion about revenue sharing, they will leave the political issues to the technocrats and miss the opportunity to seize the radical opportunities in the new Constitution.

Ndii wants to talk only about counties, yet the national budget for education is larger than the total national transfer to all 47 counties combined. If he seriously wants the public to engage in resource allocation, why does he insist on ignoring this? And how can hundreds of billions of shillings subject to parliamentary discretion be “splitting hairs”?

When it comes to accountability, Ndii continues to use simple anecdotes to make sweeping generalisations. The “revolution” already happened, he says, because a road was built in Wajir, and there is some street lighting.

Political scientists take concepts like accountability (and revolution) a bit more seriously, though. To know whether paving a road translates into greater accountability (political or financial), we need to know what happened before it was paved, while it was paved, and after it was paved.

What was the process that selected that road for paving and was it inclusive and fair? Was the work high quality at a reasonable cost? Or was it either poor quality, or inflated to benefit contractors who also happen to be related to the governor? Will the road still be there next year, or will it be full of holes that never get fixed? Finally, if anything went wrong at any point, was there any consequence for those involved?

Ndii would not say that the mere completion of the standard gauge railway demonstrates national accountability, so why insist on the mere existence of a paved road as proof of accountability at county level?

I am happy for the folks in Wajir, but be wary of anecdotes: Wajir spent almost 80 per cent of its development budget last year. In Tana River, they spent less than 3 per cent of their budget.

For those of us working in the counties to actually implement the Constitution, we are wide awake to the fact that the “revolution” is just beginning. Let’s confront our challenges rather than declaring an early victory.

Jason Lakin is Kenya country director for the International Budget Partnership. E-mail: [email protected]