Last week, Uasin Gishu Senator Jackson Mandago put forward a radical proposal unlikely to be embraced by his colleagues or government bureaucrats. During a visit with President William Ruto at AIC Fellowship-Annex in Uasin Gishu, Mandago suggested that all civil servants, lawmakers, and senior government officials should exclusively use the new medical scheme, SHA/SHIF. His argument was simple: if government officials were required to rely on public healthcare services, they would be more invested in identifying and fixing systemic flaws.
Mandago’s proposal, though unconventional in Kenya, reflects policies implemented in other countries, such as China. In China, government employees must seek medical care in public hospitals and send their children to public schools. This policy aims to bridge the gap between the privileged elite and the public by ensuring that those in power rely on the same services as ordinary citizens. By doing so, policymakers experience firsthand the challenges within these systems and are more motivated to implement necessary reforms.
As the chairperson of the Senate Health Committee, Mandago should consider turning his proposal into a formal bill. The goal would not only be to improve Kenya’s healthcare system but also to ensure that influential decision-makers engage directly with the public services they oversee. If government officials were mandated to use public healthcare, they would have a vested interest in addressing issues such as underfunding, inefficiencies, and overcrowding.
Currently, many government officials in Kenya bypass public services, opting instead for private hospitals or even seeking medical treatment abroad. This disparity is exacerbated by access to private medical covers, which allow them to sidestep the challenges faced by ordinary citizens. If Kenya were to implement a policy similar to China’s—excluding government officials from private medical schemes—it could lead to significant improvements in public healthcare, just as China has experienced.
Mandago’s proposal aligns with the broader concept of “common prosperity,” a principle central to China’s efforts to reduce inequality. While such policies may seem unfamiliar in Kenya, they underscore the need for governance that prioritizes equitable access to essential services. If adopted, this proposal could drive transformative change in Kenya’s public healthcare and education systems, ensuring that they work for all citizens rather than serving as a last resort for the underprivileged.
Of course, the Chinese model is not without its challenges. Rural-urban disparities persist, and balancing healthcare quality across different regions remains a work in progress. However, the core idea—that government officials should use the same services as the general population—has contributed to tangible improvements in China’s public sector. By experiencing the same healthcare challenges as ordinary citizens, government employees are compelled to push for systemic reforms.
Mandago’s proposal also resonates with a broader philosophy: government officials, as public servants, should not be exempt from the realities faced by those they govern. If leaders truly believe in the policies they implement, they should be willing to subject themselves to the same conditions as the average citizen. However, such a policy would likely face resistance from officials accustomed to preferential treatment and access to superior services.
In contrast, countries like the UK, Canada, and the US have well-established public healthcare and education systems, yet government employees are not legally required to rely solely on them. Instead, they often have access to supplementary private options. This contrasts with China’s approach, where public servants are mandated to use state-run services. The absence of such a requirement in Western nations highlights key differences in governance philosophies and public service expectations.
Despite these variations, China’s policy presents a compelling case for addressing systemic inequalities. If Kenya were to adopt a similar model, it could serve as a catalyst for long-overdue improvements in healthcare and education. However, for such a policy to succeed, Kenya’s public services must first be strengthened to ensure they deliver high-quality care and education for all. Without these improvements, mandating government officials to use public services may amount to little more than symbolic action rather than meaningful reform.
The success of Mandago’s proposal ultimately hinges on the government’s commitment to improving public service delivery. If properly implemented, it could lead to a more accountable and efficient public sector, benefiting all Kenyans. However, unless the government is willing to invest in the necessary upgrades, forcing officials to use these services may prove futile.
In conclusion, Mandago’s proposal—though controversial—mirrors a policy that has contributed to reducing inequality and strengthening public services in China. By requiring government officials to use the same healthcare and education systems as the general population, Kenya could foster a more accountable and effective public sector. However, this can only work if these systems are significantly improved to meet the needs of all citizens. Without such enhancements, any attempt to enforce this policy risks being perceived as political posturing rather than a genuine step toward equity.
The writer is a journalist and communication consultant.
Source: capitalfm
