By Maina Mihiato
THE proposal by Githunguri MP Gathoni wa Muchomba for the re-adoption of polygamy by the Gikuyu community raises very salient concerns about the future of our society in several centuries to come.
Angered by alarming levels of alcoholism in the community, which has decreased birth rates in Central Kenya, the legislator opines that polygamy would be the only panacea, especially if practiced by rich and able men.
But, is her proposal really the remedy? To some theorists, it may sound somewhat practical, but what is the way forward? Where did the rain start beating us?
Firstly, her concern raises the whole phenomenon on the intertwining of Westernized modernity, African norms and traditions, African philosophy and the wholesome future of the African society.
In most African societies, drinking was indeed a cultural requirement for men. In others, it symbolized a great sense of unity and egalitarianism among them.
Recounting the Gikuyu norms that governed beer-drinking in the book Facing Mount Kenya Mzee Jomo Kenyatta asserts that it was strictly for men who had been “accepted” by the society.
The symbolism of the “acceptance” meant that the men had passed all the “communal tests” such as being responsible husbands (most were in polygamous family set-ups), feeding their tens of children, built enough huts for their wives, maintaining order in their polygamous families among other communal requirements.
Apart from the Agikuyu, this was the universal cardinal rule of living in other communities. Those who defied them were excommunicated or faced grievous ramifications from the “wrath” of the gods.
This was to ensure that the nobility behind it was disabused.
Beer was (and still is) sacred in some communities, as libations are still being practiced to appeal to the gods and spirits.
However, unlike in the past, the noble tradition of responsible drinking has been totally abused by the current generation.
Poor parenting is one cause. But while in modern definition, parenting incorporates the presence of both female and male parents, inculcation of morals may not necessarily mean that man or a woman cannot singlehandedly bring up morally upright and responsible children alone.
In social philosophy, morals and gender presence are not disproportionate. It’s my belief that a responsible man/woman can successfully play the role of both genders, in situation where one of the parent(s) is unavailable.
We live in a real society where single mums have raised very successful personalities in our midst. In the same length, there are examples of fathers who have raised up their children to adulthood, without the presence of their mothers.
Now, there are a million reasons which could have resulted to such situations-some being natural, such as death, while some are default, like divorce or domestic violence.
In this context therefore, alcoholism is a default cause, rather than natural. As such, a woman may deliberately decide to bring up her children herself, if the father is a captive of the bottle.
We find ourselves back to the moral question: Does the gender count? The answer is relative. In a society where modernity has borne all ills, morality remains paramount, despite the path it is achieved through.
Yes, if the child will achieve all his or her dreams in the hands of her responsible mother or vice versa, then we have no reason to invoke the completeness of the “family unit.”
Why would one live in a dysfunctional family to fulfil the “societal need”? Unfortunately, the “societal completeness” is being advocated by the religious community, without taking heed of the prevailing circumstances.
The goal of every ambitious society is to anchor its foundation of growth in the moral philosophy. Alcoholism is one of the resultant ills of a broken social fabric.
And as Peter Sloterdijk, a social scientist postulates in his book, The Art of Philosophy: Wisdom as a Practice, any success of a society that is not anchored on morals is as vague as itself.
Then, if these ills overcome us as a society, we owe it to ourselves.