Ponder relevance of Senate in governance

The role of the Senate in governance has been a subject of intense debate. As constituted, it has peripheral functions, often calling into question its relevance. In other jurisdictions, such as the United States, where the concept is borrowed from, the Senate, or the Upper House, has substantive functions.

The matter came up for discussion when senators made a presentation to The Steering Committee on the Implementation of the Building Bridges Initiative report this week with the accent that the Constitution be reviewed to redefine and upgrade the Senate.

At present, the Senate has four distinct functions: Representing the counties and their governments; participating in creating laws affecting counties; determining resources to the counties; and oversight over public officers.

Public debate on the role of the Senate is important as we seek to redraft and reconfigure governance structure. First is to ask the critical question of whether or not the country needs two chambers of Parliament — the National Assembly and the Senate — and, if so, what specific and substantive roles each should play and with which outcomes.

Second is to address the question of governance in the context of the national budget. When the Constitution was ratified in 2010, the overriding consideration was dispersal of powers from central institutions and departure from the previous structure, where few individuals or agencies wielded enormous, yet non-accountable, powers. Moreover, the Constitution sought to empower citizens to make decisions on matters concerning them.

Several independent institutions and agencies were established to perform specific roles without recourse to the national authorities. But it has become exceedingly expensive to keep all of them. Some have even become so roguish, bringing to question their viability in serving national interests.

The county system, the most outstanding feature of the Constitution, has had the impact of redistributing power and national wealth while giving communities opportunities to make decisions on what matters to them. But the corollary is that they have become the new centres for corruption, nepotism and ethnicity.

The Senate is intricately tied to the counties. It is its fundamental duty to oversee what counties do and, presumably, put them on a tight leash. However, there is little evidence to suggest they have performed that role. Other factors notwithstanding, the Senate is more or less a bystander because, even in matters of resource allocation to counties, they have a minimal impact. What the National Assembly determines is what counts.

Clearly, the Senate’s role should be reviewed. If it must remain, its functions should be redefined and it should be seen to deliver.