Manifestos should promise empowerment, not cash

As it is, the Azimio-One Kenya manifesto launched by the coalition’s presidential candidate, Raila Odinga, appears to promise voters lots of fish but falls short of offering fishing nets.

Generally, the role of a government is to create conditions that make it possible for citizens to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. And when all basic needs have been met, they can go higher up the hierarchy of needs to splurge on luxuries or to invest in production.

This is what Azimio ought to have done. Instead, however, the manifesto is long on what it will do for the people rather than what it will do so that people need less government.

When America was going through The Great Depression, US President Franklin Roosevelt – after his inauguration in 1933 – responded by implementing “The New Deal”. Under this programme, his government created a demand for consumer goods by investing in programmes that created jobs for the very poor.

It would have been much easier for Roosevelt and his administration to opt for social welfare programmes that sent money to the poor directly.

However, that would have created a culture of dependency while also giving the poor the impression that they could make money by being out of work. This is the danger that Kenyan politicians eyeing the presidency ought to guard against.

While it may sound hilarious when a candidate like George Wajackoyah says he will legalise commercial production of cannabis, there is a sense in which that pledge speaks to the need for production for export. Indeed, some western countries have embraced the herb for medicinal use, allowing it to be administered in palliative care for people with debilitating conditions like cancer. Though the substance of his pledge may be wanting, the principle is sound.

Wajackoyah has also argued that he will push for a four-day work week, with three shifts a day, with workers being paid fortnightly rather than monthly. This is sound economic thinking and the concept of a four-day workweek has already been embraced in Scandinavia while the fortnightly payment is the norm in the US. This is an idea that merits serious interrogation.

Economists in western nations have in recent years come up with the concept of a productive citizen who makes rational economic decisions for self-advancement. For instance, the idea of an “econ” – an individual who makes rational economic choices – pervades Richard Thaler’s book, Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioural Economics.

Such ideas situate the citizen at the centre of economic activity while acknowledging the age-old principle that the working (wo)man is one of the five factors of production. This is the gospel that presidential candidates should be preaching to voters because, at the end of the day, the work of a government is to empower people to fend for themselves and offer them security so that the wealth they generate is protected from capricious neighbours.

But is this messaging coming through?

While launching his earlier in the week, Raila said for instance that his administration would have a welfare programme for the very poor – who would receive a Sh6,000 monthly stipend – and for unmarried mothers (their amount was not specified).

While such programmes can create much-needed cash flow as has been demonstrated by the cash transfer programme for senior citizens – who receive Sh4,000 every two months – it carries with it the risk of creating a two-tier system in which hard-working taxpayers pay for the upkeep of those who feel the State owes them sustenance. This is bad for both personal industries as well as the economy.

Even in the US, which has a welfare system for people out of work, the programme is aimed as stopgap protection against destitution. It is, so to speak, something to tide a person over, as they seek employment.

Though this may sound moot, the point is that the candidates seeking the presidency ought to appreciate that the economy has both a demand and supply side.

Giving cash transfers, though good at ameliorating extreme poverty, fails to spur economic activity since recipients presume that the money is for upkeep. Done on a large scale, this has the risk of babysitting a large segment of otherwise potentially productive Kenyans.

That is why manifestos ought to go big on investments in public goods such as roads, electricity, health and education services, not handouts.

James.mbugua@mediamax.com

More Articles

---