Mutuma Mathiu
5 August 2001
opinion
The ban on trade between us and our lawless cousins in Somalia is, I'm inclined to think, self-destructive, illogical and to no useful purpose.
Our trade with Somalia is mainly in drugs and weapons. The former is legal, the latter illicit. Not surprisingly, a lot of Kenyans are seeing this purely from the business angle. African Business Leadership Council Chairman Jimnah Mbaru has said the ban will hurt the economy by destroying a business that brings in Sh8 billion a year.
But surely there must be some other trade in legitimate goods that is not as well documented between us and that lawless land. As a country at war, Somalia does not carry on much in the way of production. One would have expected that our own manufacturers could scare up a spot of business in that tough neck of the woods. But they can't do that when there is a blanket ban on trade.
There is a likelihood that the President banned the trade to force the warring warlords to some settlement or other. You will recall that the President has been trying to broker peace in Somalia, among other war-torn parts. But to do so at the cost of more than Sh8b a year? There must be a cheaper alternative.
I agree that it is futile to close the border and ban trade under the pretext that this will curb gunrunning. We need to recall that guns are never in the cargo manifests of transport vessels. They are smuggled. Banning trade hurts legitimate trade, not illegal trade. It criminalises business, which is a most peculiar thing for a poor country to do.
Equally, I'm not certain under what section of the law the President is imposing this draconian ban. If indeed there is such a law, it is an immoral and harmful one for it has the potential to harm honest tradespeople.
Which elevates us to the next level. What is the most obvious measure of freedom? Choice. The ability to exercise free will, in so far as human beings are able to do that, within the commonly agreed and absolutely objective constrains imposed for the common good and to preserve the rights of others. But even though these constrains are generally accepted, they are not pre-emptive: It is the right of every man and woman in a democratic society to do and be damned.
Community leaders in Lamu - I don't know whether they are following the President's lead or whether the President is following their lead - have banned the sale of miraa. Local District Commissioner Wilson Wanyanga supports the ban, though he concedes that the provincial administration has no right to impose it. The community has a standing militia which enforces the ban.
Their complaint is that the drug is ruining the youth. Which leaves me in something of a quandary. On the one hand, I admire a community that takes resolute steps to protect its youth from drug dealers and damaging influences. On the other hand I shudder to think of a situation where clerics or some other cabal takes upon itself to select what I can and can't do. I'm also reminded that when people are taking away other's right to choose, they always say, "It is for your own good. I'm only looking out for your best interests."
The Europeans have been experimenting with legalising the so-called soft drugs, particularly marijuana, which the social liberals argue is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. The Dutch legalised it a long time ago and according to British MP Paul Flynn, who wants canabbis legalised in his own country, "In the Netherlands, after 20 years of regulated licensed decriminalisation, soft drugs use is lower than in Britain among all ages".
In contrast, in Britain, "Thirty years of harsh prohibition have all increased all drug problems by 2,000 per cent. A well-meaning law (outlawing the drugs) has enriched crime mafias and cost the criminal justice system £1.5 billion."
In many ways, we can't afford the liberalism of the Europeans. We can only approach the issue with the fact in mind that it is beyond our ability to regulate the use of such potentially dangerous drugs as cannabis and the only way to keep it in check is to fight it.
But when it comes to such things as miraa, criminalising them, whether informally or through legislation and presidential dicta is not worth the trouble. I happen to know quite a bit about miraa and its consumers and about the only negative side effect I have ever observed is that people waste too much time on it.
But it is not the consumption which produces the idleness, it is the idleness which leads to the chewing. It is a pastime for idle people.
mutuma@nation.co.ke
Front Page | News |Comment | Letters | Sports | Cutting Edge | Feedback
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2001 The Nation. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
