Election
debates follow a dichotomy of issues in an issue-based democracy. In more
mature democracies there are pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-gun control and
anti-gun control, pro-modern day slavery and anti- slavery, pro-war and
anti-war, capitalists and communists, pro-GMOs and Anti-GMOs, pro and anti-gay
relationships as well as gender issues. That is what we call issue-based
politics whose opposite may be termed as ‘parochial interests’ politics’. In
such democracies you never miss special interest groups and lobbies advocating
for a particular issue like the repeal of ‘don’t ask don’t tell policy’.
In
less mature democracies (or little democracy) the debate takes a very low
course. But no course has ever been lower than Kenya’s in the previous
elections where lords of impunity preserved status quo, from which they obtained
their filthy lucre, through hook and crook. Someone failing to elect a
progressive leader on the basis of circumcision is intellectually ‘uncircumcised’
and experiences the lowest level of civic knowledge. If we were to dig further
into man’s recorded history from all sources, we would not find any correlation
between circumcision and leadership capabilities. I might even add that,
remotely, there is correlation between foreskin and intelligence. We all
believe that the ancient Greeks were intellectually endowed; they invented
philosophy whose logic touched Alexander the Great and attested by Xerxes of
Persia. We have read extensively from Homer, Aeschylus, Herodotus, to Prof. H.
D. Kitto’s Fifth Century Greeks but
none of those sources record circumcision among the Hellenists. We are also
familiar with ancient Egypt whose civilization dominated Mesopotamia for
centuries and circumcision is not recorded to have been practised among them.
Majority
of Kenyans are Christians and there is a growing number of Muslims each passing
day. For that matter, they are more inclined to possess some knowledge of the
Bible and Qur’an to know the origin of circumcision among the Jews. The first
time circumcision appears in the Bible was an order from God to distinguish his
descendants (Jews) from the rest of inhabitants of the Earth. Our Muslim brothers
do not hold the story of Abraham and circumcision in any ‘controversy’. That
simple act of circumcision made the Israelites so special in the eyes of God so
much so that when David fought the invincible Goliath he knew it was impossible
to lose to uncircumcised Philistine. Enoch, a righteous man who lived ages
before Abraham, was taken to heaven alive uncircumcised. After the death of our
Lord Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul approved Simon Peter for discriminating against
the gentiles when he resorted to eating exclusively with the circumcised Jews.
To paraphrase Paul in his epistle to Galatians, they no longer lived in flesh
but in faith. It is therefore clear that
circumcision is not heaven’s gatekeeper.
What
intrigues me is that proponents of ‘a circumcised leader’ are Christians whose
region is dominated by Presbyterian Churches, Catholic Missions, AIC, ACK, and
avalanches of evangelicals; People who add ubarikiwe
or ‘be blessed’,’ praise the Lord’ in every sentence that escapes their pious
mouths. How hypocritical can a people be?
Medical researchers draw correlation between foreskin and the spread of HIV/Aids while there is a disputing team of researchers who strongly holds that such medical deductions are preposterous at best. As Stephen Jay Gould puts it in his book Bully for Brontosaurus, "Scientists have power by virtue of the respect commanded by the discipline. We may therefore be sorely tempted to misuse that power in furthering a personal prejudice or social goal -- why not provide that extra oomph by extending the umbrella of science over a personal preference in ethics or politics? But we cannot, lest we lose the very respect that tempted us in the first place."
In my silly reading habit, I have come across ‘ bring back my foreskin’ movement in western world. It is not because of circumcision that continental intelligence sunk after the collapse of Ancient Egypt. I do not subscribe to innuendoes of former governor of German central bank that the national intelligence was lowered by presence of many foreigners in Germany. I guess we do not need to commission a medical research to find direct correlation between foreskin and collective intelligence and put the issue to rest.
Some researchers posit that uncircumcised
men (due to the sensitive tip of penis always covered by foreskin unless when
having sex) enjoy love making more that their circumcised counterparts. Every
woman in Nairobi dreams of a Luo or Teso boyfriend despite circumcision status.
They make very good lovers and generally reputed for intelligence. At medicinnNET.com
someone writes,” Some
adult men so lament their parents' decision to circumcise
them when they were infants that they go to great lengths to correct the deed.
Some do it for aesthetic reasons and others to enhance their sexual
experience”. What say you? The Teso of
western Kenya too do not practice male circumcision and nobody objects.
Whatever the
case, 2013 election debate is well defined: Reformers versus Lords of Impunity,
agents of change who genuinely want to implement the constitution and improve
social conditions of the citizens of Kenya on one hand and agents of status quo
who have exploited the constitutional and structural loopholes in previous
regimes to enrich themselves with taxpayers hard earned money. That being the
case, Miguna’s Peeling Back the Mask
has hugely been motivated by anti-reform forces who will cling at anything
(including allegations of a jilted lover) to discredit Prime Minister’s hard
won reform credentials and derail the reform process.
Shem Sam
