Advancing Public Good, in the context of opposition.

Economists tell us that public goods have two important characteristics. That  they are non-rival (individual consumption does not diminish the potential for others to consume) e.g. clean air, and that they are non-excludable (you cannot stop others from consuming of that good or service. 

Because an individual or business cannot charge for accessing these goods, very few people or businesses are interested in providing them to the public. In deed for that reason they can become subject to negative externalities – where inappropriate consumption imposes risks and costs on other people. A good example is air pollution. Another good but rarely understood example is HIV for Key Populations.

In our work on HIV for Key Populations, we are often confronted with advocacy situations that are very difficult to deal with. There are cultural, legal, social and policy situations that are very unfriendly to members of Key Populations, and require review.  But this is often very difficult to communicate to members of the society.

Religious and cultural leaders have invested heavily in maintaining the status quo, which they see as being protective of their religious and cultural values. How do you tell them, that in fact the situation is very harmful to public good in form of public health?  How does one get them to understand that this is a perfect case of negative externalities; where the health of the entire society deteriorates merely because we cannot get around providing right prevention and treatment environment?

How does one put himself or herself out there, to do this work given the huge stigma, discrimination and sometimes violence that accompanies the work? Why should anyone do this work, while they cannot charge a fee on the society who benefit from it?

Indeed why put oneself in this painful position, while the beneficiaries include the very same people loading on to him/her the pain? After all, just like the next person, s/he too can benefit from initiatives of others who may choose to take up his place? S/he too can free-load – that is if someone is successful in effecting the much needed changes.

Religious and cultural leaders – the very people who should in fact be at the forefront of this work, but are the vanguard against it, need to understand the impact of their opposition. If I were a religious leader today, I would want to do what is best for the common good. I would not want to be the bedrock for stigma and discrimination. I would certainly not want to be the roadblock to improved quality of health for our people. 

True the moral and cultural values they hold dear are important and need to be protected. But it is a false assumption that cultural and religious values are mutually exclusive with a  conducive policy and regulatory environment for public health. It is a false narrative that holds; in order to protect our morals and our culture, we must sacrifice members of the Key Populations, even if at the cost of non-Key Population persons. 

Kiambu County is honouring 12 outstanding persons who have helped put the Kiambu on the global map. I hope they can use the forum as a platform to honour people working on HIV and especially for the vulnerable and marginalized populations. The only way public good can be advanced is if the societies, through their governments pay for them; and this is an opportunity for Kiambu to do that without incurring any financial costs.

Bribe and Tribe – perfect ingredients of self-marginalization.

In much of Africa, Kenya being a prime example, bribe and tribe are important variables in politics. The value, many of us derive from supporting political candidates from our tribe is very much like what one gets by supporting an English Football club – whether its Manchester United, Arsenal e.t.c. I would term this value or utility as fanatic utility. When a club you support wins, one derives some utility in the form of joy that cannot be converted into real physical value.

The same applies to when a person from your tribe wins a political seat. Many Kikuyus and Kalenjins may perhaps feel good about the Uhuru-Ruto win, but in real terms, they will live to enjoy or suffer from the “Kenyan experience” in the same way as every other Kenyan. Just like Marketers who have realized the potential that can be exploited in “fanatic utility,” by advertising during football matches, politicians exploit primal tribal feelings to advance their own personal or class interests.

They do however facilitate this fanatic utility through token gifts (i.e. political bribes). The bribes become enablers of continued tribalization of politics. A more technical term for this relationship between the political class and the masses is neo-patrimonialism. Unfortunately neopatrimonialism is so entrenched in African politics. 

In real terms, “Fanatical utility” cannot be converted into real value in the market place. There are times when a few people close to these politicians get some gifts – political bribes. In our patron-client kind of politics, these gifts often come from either the inflated salaries paid to Politian or corrupt deals. Either way, the money comes from public taxes. 

It is the general public who subsidizes the cost associated with “fanatical utility.” And by public here, we mean everybody from all tribes.  Not many of us are keen on how much tax we pay each month and each year, hence fail to realize that we are consistently underwriting the costs of our sub-optimal political arrangement. 

How then do we begin to extricate ourselves from this situation? One of the ways we can do that is to consistently collect information on the amount of tax we individually and collectively pay – daily, weekly and monthly. Every day we pay taxes, for goods and services that we buy. 

Those in formal employment, pay income tax (P.A.Y.E), but also together with those working in the informal sector pay sales tax – the VAT on goods and services.  Every time we shop in a supermarket, we pay VAT – but very few people check to see how much that is, or even collect these receipts to see how much they have paid to the government in a month.

Collecting this information individually and then asking your friends to do the same is an important personal financial management exercise. It becomes even more valuable, when you begin to require of the government to provide services commensurate with the amount of tax it collects. Very soon, the political class will begin to realize there are no free lunches. Indeed, if we were to coordinate this activity with full-fledge budget advocacy (which just means tracking the budgetary allocations against actual delivered services), we shall have solved very many problems associated with underdevelopment, marginalization and exclusion.

People like myself, who are forced to live at the margins of the society through an unfavourable colonially inherited legal system, begin to question why they should make tax contribution to a society that disregards their social value. Moreover, it becomes possible to demonstrate how much we subsidize for the lives of others in the society. 

Those living in the mainstream however, are placed in a privileged position, in which they can actually demand for full value for their tax contribution.

Follow up to Transferred Patriotism

Two things happened last week. One is the feedback I got about the length of my blog from a fellow blogger. He felt they posts are generally too long even for a faithful reader. The second was about the content – someone felt it was misplaced since the underlying message was one of pessimism in the African capacity for change and acceptance of diversity. I will take advice on length.

But I will continue with the metaphor framed in the language of business and finance, because it has a mainstream nature that lends to easy understanding. In addition it is helpful to add the context for these posts is from Prof. Wangari Maathai perspective of the hummingbird. The story of the hummingbird is so captivating hence I have posted it below - it’s only 2 minutes.

Last Friday’s post was about Transferred Patriotism, which is about matching one’s personal aspirations with the patriotic aspirations. Many people may be uncomfortable with this metaphor because at its core, it recognizes rejection from the society of one’s birth – we would rather live with the hope of change than face this reality. Yet Transferred Patriotism presents opportunity to realize personal aspirations despite this rejected identity.

By observing mergers and acquisition processes one can learn to build on ones talents with a view to raising their value to become a target firm – or the business that is bought off. Target firms; generally tend to have desired characteristics (valuations) to the acquirer. Often the acquiring firm will value the target much higher price than the market. 

To effectuate transferred patriotism, then, there is need to build on the “valued” characteristics – which are often skills or resources that will of necessity be undervalued by the local society – on account of sexual or gender identity. In essence, a society that creates policy and legal strictures for enforcing heterosexuality will arrive at different valuation of a non-heterosexual person from another society that does not have legally enforced heterosexuality.

In our previous post, we looked at valuation of financial contribution – where a society such as Kenya’s such an individual represents a costs, in lieu of costs associated to jailing while others would notice the positive contribution in terms of tax.

There are interventions that we can take at individual level to enhance this valuation well beyond tax considerations. In the first instance, non-heterosexual people in non-accepting societies should interrogate how they use their resources – regardless of how much that is. Take an audit of every single penny spent, to ensure that it is supportive of your goal to enhance your value.

The starting point has to be with the use of time – one of the most valuable resources all of us have. The other potent area in need of an audit is the amount of time and resources spent on alcohol. While it is easy to understand the need for a quick escape, time and resources spent on it, undermine your long-term value.

It would not be helpful to be prescriptive of different options one can take to enhance their value – but adding a new skill, or expanding on the bottom line are time-tried options one can take. There are now many free online courses – e.g. courseara, where one can progressively build on their internal capital to broaden their life options. 

I am just but a hummingbird…

Transferred patriotism – controversial but eye-opening approach to advocacy

In the last couple of weeks, Kenya has witnessed a number of very serious road accidents, on August 29^th over 41 people were killed along Narok road, and then another 9 on the 25^th of October on the same road, and on 30^th another 11 in Nairobi when a bus crushed into a train. Because there are no direct Biblical quotations on what speed a Public Service Vehicle – P.S.V. driver should drive at, or whether one should attempt to drive right through a fast moving train; at least not in the same way that the Bible has in terms of religious practice or sexuality; Not many people have come out to condemn the accidents in the same way they would have, had it been a same-sex marriage.

In Kenya, policy and legal considerations tend to largely have as their value touch-stone, Biblical quotations especially in matters sexual and reproductive health. When there are no direct scriptural texts which speak to issues of public morality, people also tend not to have strong views. One would argue that the Bible really does not speak to morality of the society in the public space, as our society is currently organized. Yet, when it comes to sexuality matters, especially those related to minorities, the society holds very strong views, which in turn impacts on political decision making.

In creating public policy, it becomes necessary then to determine what should influence private morality and what should influence public morality. Private morality and religious practice relates to; if, how and when we go to heaven or hell; in terms of reward or punishment for faithfulness to Divine guidelines as given by the relevant religious traditions. Public morality on the other hand, relates to how we live in the society, and how private decisions and practices impact on the lives of others in the society. Public policy seeks to meet the needs of creating a strong, happy and cohesive society addressing the collective social goals – often as stated in the country’s constitution. 

Societies, like Kenya whose political class – hence emanating legislative framework, is heavily influenced by a particular religious even specific biblical quotations, the distinction between public morality and private morality is rarely understood. Minorities and marginalized members of the society, particularly those for whom there exists Biblical quotations determining the framing of their private morality, are severely disadvantaged in terms of public policy.  

Questions then arise about patriotism in the context of this severe disadvantage. Patriotism has been defined as “Love of and pride in one’s country.” Patriotism is also captured by related sentiments like a sense of personal identification with the country, special concern for the well-being of the country, willingness to sacrifice to promote the country's good among others. The question then becomes whether one can transfer their patriotism to another country or society that is less disadvantageous to them.

Enabling Transfer of Patriotism can be a great tool for advocacy. It can provide opportunity to engage societies with restrictive understanding of public morality to reflect the difference between private and public morality. Capacitating Patriotism transfer by enabling discriminated members of a society to migrate to those societies they now identify with is critical to realizing their personal potential. In Kenya for example we would reflect on people like Professor Wangari Maathai vis-a-vis Ngugi Wa Thiong'o and their respective contributions to the Kenyan society.

Migration is of course a very emotive topic, with hard feelings on both sides of the divide, and one that is also very well researched. Economic and political factors are often the dominant push and pull factors that motivate people to want to migrate from their own countries and/or are drawn into different countries. Using a progressive policy environment as a pull factor for minorities discriminated in their countries, raises the question of whether the better approach should not be to focus rather on changing the restrictive policies, instead of promoting migration. Migration does not solve the problems of restrictive policies nor is it sustainable. 

Yet from where I sit, the question should not be about whether or not we need to engage in policy advocacy for positive policy reform. The need for social reform of these restrictive and often discriminative policies and laws is necessary. All members of the society should be involved in the process of promoting a public policy regime that respects the basic human rights and dignity of each and every single member of that society. This should be an on-going exercise for all members of the society, and more particularly those most affected by the negative laws.

Enabling the effectuation of Transferred Patriotism, in no way negates the need continued engagement with in-country advocacy for policy and legal reform. Transferred Patriotism however does create an opportunity to interrogate social valuation of different individuals negatively affected by the laws and policies. As an illustration, let’s look at how the Kenyan society values my contribution to the society – as a gay man.

The Penal code requires for jailing of gay people engaging in sexuality with another consulting adult for 14 years. Though this means that one would be released upon the expiry of the sentence, for those of us who believe that being gay is an immutable characteristic, it can only mean that the sentence would automatically renew, save for the judicial process.

At my age, I do not think I can survive 2 terms, for illustration purposes, we shall assume that I can only live for the duration of 2 terms. This then means that I have a life time outstanding of 28 years. On the basis of this assumption, let us see how much the Kenyan government values me in Present value terms.

Since I would be arrested and be in prison for 28 years, the government would incur Kshs. 175 daily - the amount it takes to feed a prisoner per day. This translates to Kshs. 63, 875 annually, (we are assuming there are no other costs to imprisonment such as health, clothing e.t.c.). The total costs by today’s value is -ve 510,005 as a imprisonment costs (we are also assuming that when in jail one would not engage in economically valuable activities - were I to be imprisoned I know I would not willingly engage in such activities in favour of the state). In other words the government would incur imprisonment costs to the tune of Kshs. 510,005 at a minimum. The formula is here below.

PV = R ×	1 − (1 + i)-n
	i

But how much do I think the government should value my contribution and that of others like me. Even assuming we engage in no other economic activities besides our formal employment. It would mean we pay tax. Assuming I pay Kshs. 1, 500,000 annually in tax, then my contribution to the Kenyan society is at a minimum Kshs. 11, 976, 634. This is the amount of money I will give to the government between now and the next 28 years, assuming they do not arrest me - and this is at present value terms. In fact the value is more, considering the cost savings they make for not putting me in jail - hence the total value should be Kshs. 12,489 639.

The question raised by Transferred Patriotism then is, why should one continue to contribute to a society that has negative valuation of me and others like me - especially given significant positive contribution we actually make? This negative valuation, certainly impacts on my motivation to contribute in other voluntary areas of the society – something that I would be happy to do in a different society. I would rather a progressive society placed some resource or skill conditions for accepting transferred patriotism, than forever trying to change a society with no capacity for such a change. And I might add, one that I contribute so much, to its advancement!

For the progressive change, such conditionality would motivate younger generation of discriminated citizens to move to bridge any resource or skills gaps needed to ensure effectuation of their transferred patriotism. Moreover for the progressive societies, their liberal laws would in fact be an economic and social investment. It is likely that many societies in Africa would reflect on the value of conflating biblical requirements for private morality with the public morality. Such possibility creates an opportunity cost to this conflation of private and public morality and with it an initial jolt into social reform.