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.