The politicisation of development often leads to a low return on investment. That is why people keep wondering why we borrowed so much with so little to show. Just because a project is politically viable in terms of attracting votes doesn't mean it will yield as many economic benefits.
The stories we hear often that this or that region should be in government in order to receive development are just fallacies. Why would the government take politically inspired projects in a region where it enjoys support?
When did you last see any project being launched in the Rift Valley? Even in Central Kenya, they are pouring money there in a way they wouldn't have done if they still enjoyed support.
Opposing the government seems like the fastest way to receive the so-called development. Yet in the grand scheme of things, the country will end up bankrupt, and everyone will be a loser.
Maybe one day we will come back to our senses and spend borrowed money on projects with the highest economic returns for the country. Interestingly, such projects will also have greater political benefits in the long run since the economy will thrive. Our short-sighted political class will never understand this.
Comments