In Support of Capital Punishment for Rape: A Response to Edwin Kamau’s Counter-arguments

Between 24^th and 25^th February 2018, Mr. Edwin Kamau responded to a number of tweets that I had posted in favour of capital punishment for rape. My tweets were in response to media reports that a fifteen-year old girl in Wajir had been gang-raped for three days. I asserted that perpetrators of such outrageous crimes are not fit to live. Mr. Kamau was of the view that contrary to my assertion, rape does not deserve the death penalty. I commend him for staying with the issue and offering several counter-arguments to which I wish to respond below. The paragraphs below are not edited to my usual standard, but I have decided to post them here as I find it easier to respond to Mr. Kamau in this way than in a series of tweets. The reader will make greater sense of what I say below by first going through my conversation with Edwin Kamau and Mutinda Kitana from 24^th to 25^th February 2018.

 

Dear Mr. Kamau

You asked if we were not justified to use insights from other jurisdictions such as the US and China. Using the US and China for insight is justifiable as long as we remain responsible for our decisions independently of theirs. The trouble is that many lawyers feel dutybound to treat precedents from overseas as infallible. The Us uses case law, common law, and so do we; but for us this is the result of colonialism, and part of our intellectual emancipation must surely be the endeavour to get rid of colonial baggage that hinders us from striking out in our own path.

 

Applying case law from other jurisdictions without taking cognisance of our own value system does compromise our sovereignty. Never forget that a people’s legal system ought to reflect their ethical value system. Yes it is alright to borrow from the West; but we ought to adapt rather than adopt. Even the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 is so terribly individualistic in a most un-African manner: our peoples are communalistic: where are the group rights?

 

You cited “Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment”. Yes this is in our constitution, but the people made the Constitution, so they have a right to interrogate and amend it. The idea of “cruel and unusual punishment” is strange because all punishment has an element of what is being termed “cruelty”: you cannot punish anyone by serving them their favourite meal: you always subject them to something that causes them discomfort. In sum, punishment is, by definition, uncomfortable, and anything uncomfortable can be construed as cruel.

 

Is capital punishment for rape a cruel and unusual punishment? Yes according to Western liberalism; not necessarily so according to our societies that have a communalist orientation.

 

You say in some cases capital punishment is justified to maintain order: I think rape horribly disturbs order and tranquility by causing emotional trauma, often spreading deadly diseases, and sometimes resulting in unwanted conceptions.

 

You say the justice system is for maintaining order but not reparation to the aggrieved? Really? What is the basis for this assertion? Why would capital punishment be justified for treason, murder and terrorism but not for rape? I wonder how many women would agree with you on this one. I am not a woman, but I certainly do not agree because rape destroys order in society. What is your basis for excluding rape from this list? Male bias for a political system dominated by men, and caring little for the plight of women who are usually the victims of rape perpetrated by men?

 

You assert that the justice system is not based on subjective individual’s perception of justice in relation to grievance”? What makes this very assertion objective rather than subjective? Is objectivity even possible in view of the fact that all of us are subjects rather than objects?

 

You cited a US ruling that rape does not deserve the death sentence. I disagree with that ruling because it ignores the plight of the victim, probably on the false assumption that her plight has minimal negative effect on society.

 

You posed the question: “Does rape make [sic] irrepairable damage to the life of the victim”? Some men might say “No”; most women, and some men would say “Yes” – lifelong emotional trauma, unwanted conception, exposure to deadly infections, crisis in the marriage of the rape victim, etc.

 

You said that rape victims can still be productive despite heineous crime. By whose standards? Productive for who? I guess you would be satisfied if she is still able to report to work; but would she be equally satisfied? The idea that only rape which results in death deserves capital punishment puts undue emphasis on physical death, paying inadequate attention to lifelong damage on the victim and on the society of which she is a member.

 

You said my position that rape deserves capital punishment is emotional. In my view, there is nothing like an emotional argument, because an argument is composed of propositions rather than emotional expressions. You claim emotions are affecting my thinking: who can truly say their emotions do not affect their thinking? Would that not suggest two persons in one – an emotional one distinct from a rational one? I do not see the error in the argument as you have summed it up. You only think it is faulty because of your presumption that rape does not deserve capital punishment.

 

I am aware that many now find my position out of place, but I think this is due to the vigorous campaign against capital punishment both in the Western-dominated academia and media rather than due to the actual demerits of retaining Capital Punishment. Let the sober discussion continue!

Luo Concepts of Time and Numbers: A Response to Oby Obyerodhyambo

I am not on facebook, but my sister Janet Osiro has drawn my attention to our brother Oby Obyerodhyambo’s excellent Facebook Post on the Luo concept of time and numbers.

 

In my blogpost on Friday 30^th December 2016 titled “Why I Do not Make New Year Resolutions” (http://kenyancrossroads.blogspot.co.ke), I sought to demonstrate that the idea of a “year” is always religious, and that the January New Year is foreign to Africa: this fits well with Oby’s point that in Luo cosmology there is no twelve-month cycle.

 

Oby’s highlighting of the Luo use of base 5 rather than base 10 has confirmed what I had suspected for some time.

 

Oby’s exposition of the Luo focus on seasons rather than years is “right on”. In my blog post I had also highlighted the fact that even the ways in which weeks are understood all over the world is religious. We have three popular weeks in Kenya - the Muslim one beginning on “Juma Mosi (moja), the biblical one beginning on the so-called “Sunday”, but which the Bible calls “the first day of the week”, and the civil week which begins on Monday “Wuok tich” (“the day people set out for work”), “tich ariyo” (literally “work two”), “tich adek” (“work three”), “tich ang’wen” (“work four”), “Tich abich” (“work five”). I would appreciate any information on the Luo week, if even such a thing exists!

 

Oby’s outline of the way in which the Luo divided the day is excellent: it agrees with what our late maternal grandmother, Posia Yiembe Odera, had told me when I was doing my oral literature research for my A levels and undergraduate work in the 1980s. My only reservation is with his use of “saa” which is a semitic word (“shaa” in Hebrew, “saa” in Arabic”). I would therefore simply delete “saa” from the divisions of the day as he outlines them. Well done dear brother! Let us proudly continue to examine our cultures and correct the myriad lies unleashed on them by Western imperialism!

Traditional Luo Funerals Were not Costly like Current Ones

In a recent article, Dr. Bitange Ndemo referred to the splashy houses that many members of the Kenyan middle class are putting up in their ancestral homes as “dead capital” because they are difficult to sell or to present as collateral for bank loans. For this he has received both praise and blame. One of the arguments that I have read against Ndemo’s position is that if people do not put up such houses, their children will be irrepairably ashamed in the event that they (the parents) die. Some have even called such buildings “socio-cultural investments”, thus diverting themselves and others from Dr. Ndemo’s focus on economics. Here I want to focus on Luo funerals in earlier times, because the issue of “tradition” keeps on popping up in the debate on the logic of putting up splashy homes in ancestral lands.

 

Many now believe that traditional Luo funerals are terribly expensive. The truth is that the current splashy Luo funerals are very different from the traditional ones.

 

My grandmother, the late Posia Yiembe Odera, who witnessed the aftermath of the so-called “First World War”, told me the following regarding traditional Luo funerals:

1.      If a person died before sunset, he/she was buried the same day. If he/she died after sunset, he/she was buried the next day (there were no elaborate funeral preparations for days or even weeks).

2.      A person was buried naked inside his/her hut. This is why the Luo word for a widow is “chi liel” (“the wife of a grave”) - she lived in the hut where her husband was buried. In-laws only came to the funeral once they were sure the dead had been buried to ensure they did not see him/her naked.

3.      There was no cooking in the bereaved home before the burial: instead, neighbours brought “nyoyo” (“a mixture of boiled maize and beans”) and other foods to feed those who had come from far.

4.      The day after the burial, a single cow was slaughtered and shared among the in-laws (the numerous cows slaughtered in a single funeral these days were unheard of).

5.      All the above changed drastically when Luo men, who had been conscripted for the “First World War”, came back with loads of cash to show off. They went to the homes of in-laws who had been bereaved while they were away in the war, and splashed their cash in the name of “mourning in arrears”. Another elderly lady informed me that it was also at that time that Luo men violently forced their own wives to smoke cigarettes as a status symbol.

 

I will never forget a time when Raila Odinga challenged the extravagance run-away spending in Luo funerals: that was one of those rare occasions when they essentially shouted him down; and as an astute politician, he retreated. It will take courage to challenge all this unrealistic spending for the benefit of the many widows, widowers and children whose resources are heartlessly squandered in the name of mourning the dead. This desperately needed reform will come through those members of the Kenyan middle class who undertake a critical evaluation of their impoverished and impoverishing value system that leads them to spend money on luxury rather than on investments - on status symbols rather than on ventures that truly raise their status.

The Real Secrets of Wealthy Western Europe and Her Satellites: A Reply to “Secrets of Developed Nations”

Over the last few days, I have received, on different WhatsApp groups, a document titled “Secrets of Developed Nations”, the thrust of which is that citizens of the wealthy Western countries have a lofty work ethic and outstanding levels of personal integrity. However, a sober look at history indicates that the account of the economic advantage of Western countries given in that article is clearly misleading.

     In his celebrated book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney singled out three historical facts that have resulted in Africa’s gross economic disadvantage in our day, namely, the slave trade, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. It is important to emphasise at the outset that in Rodney’s usage, “Europe” includes the European-dominated North America.

     Rodney points out that about six hundred years ago, Europe and Africa were at an equal footing economically – they were both agrarian, and both only had cottage factories. Then Europe began to conduct exploratory expeditions to other continents and to trade with them, but the trade was imbalanced in Europe’s favour. In that trade, Europe took away valuable African natural resources in exchange for largely valueless items whose allure for Africans was simply their “foreignness”.

     To make matters worse, Europe embarked on a trade more virulent than the HIV/AIDS pandemic – the slave trade. For several generations, Europe robbed Africa of its most resourceful segment of the population – the youth – leaving behind the elderly and the very young. Europe also made sure that the African youth she took away were those who had already contracted and recovered from small pox. All this negatively affected Africa’s productivity, because the elderly and the very young could not engage in significant economic activity. Furthermore, the loss of Africa’s youth meant that inter-generational transfer of technology from the aging to the youth was interrupted. Consequently, new generations of Africans emerged without receiving the benefit of centuries of experience from their elders, resulting in economic regression. Thus while for several centuries Africa’s youth worked European plantations, African populations back home continued to slide into greater and greater poverty.

     With the advent of the Western industrial revolution, Europe no longer needed African slaves to work her plantations. Instead, she needed much more raw materials from Africa to feed her factories. That is when it suddenly “dawned on” Europe that slave trade was inhuman, culminating in the official abolition of slave trade and slavery. Yet that was certainly not the end of the story; for Europe realised that to maximise her acquisition of Africa’s raw materials, she needed to have political control over Africa, giving rise to the advent of colonialism. Thus Africa, which had been grossly weakened by centuries of slave trade, was relatively  easy to subjugate politically in the advent of colonialism. Indeed, “colonialism” is simply a euphemism for “robbery with violence at a politico-cultural level”. Europe forced Africans into the European monetary economy by imposing taxes on Africans, knowing very well that the only way Africans could get money to pay the taxes was by working for the colonialists, first in their forcefully acquired farms, and later also in government offices.

     Once the structures of Western domination were firmly in place in the forcefully created African countries (numerous ethnic groups forcibly lumped together into single states that were later to be misleadingly referred to as “nations”), Europe was ready to “grant independence” to these political units, knowing full well that she would continue to control their economies and politics. Indeed, the “national flags”, “national anthems”, written constitutions, and other symbols of power in post-colonial African states were all copied from Europe. Thus “independence” was simply the transition from colonialism to neo-colonialism – a situation in which Europe no longer controls Africa through open brute force embodied in the colonial administration, but rather by puppeteering post-colonial states to do her bidding. In this way, Europe continues to ensure that trade between her and African states is imbalanced in her favour.

     In sum, the real secrets of wealthy Western states, misleadingly referred to as “developed nations”, is oppression and manipulation for the purpose of exploitation. This is why, contrary to the poisonous message of the article “Secrets of Developed Nations”, Africans must not succumb to the temptation to hate themselves because of their economic disadvantage. Instead, they must realise that they are where they are because of a vicious foreign invader who has oppressed and exploited them for more than four hundred years. They must therefore decolonise their minds and embark on serious planning for the welfare of future generations.

     That the majority of African youth today are unaware of Rodney's timeless analysis is evidence of the precarious condition of future generations that are being denied the opportunity to know their true history. In this regard, the words of Steve Biko continue to ring in my mind: “The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

 

Reginald M.J. Oduor, Ph.D.

Beyond Liberal Democracy: The Quest for Indigenous African Models of Democracy for the Twenty-First Century

 

DATES: Monday 22nd and Tuesday 23^rd May, 2017

 

TIME:

Monday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Tuesday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

 

VENUE: Mini Lecture Room 5, fourth floor, University Towers, Main Campus, University of Nairobi, Kenya

 

ORGANISERS: The Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies of the University of Nairobi, Kenya and the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP), Washington, DC, U.S.A.

 

Background

Democratisation in post-colonial African states has met with a multiplicity of challenges, chiefly the subversion of the liberal democratic independence constitutions through self-serving constitutional amendements by civilian governments as well as through the setting aside of constitutions by military regimes. What is more, there is growing evidence that the second generation liberal democratic constitutions that have emerged on the continent from the last two decades of the twentieth century are also being subverted through similar processes. Thus a number of scholars now speak about “the failure of democracy in Africa”. However, others contend that what has failed in Africa is liberal democracy rather than democracy as such. They hold that liberal democracy, with its emphasis on the pre-eminence of the freedoms of the individual above communal responsibilities, is alien to the continent and therefore doomed to fail as often as it is tried.

 

Consequently, the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies of the University of Nairobi in collaboration with the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP) is organising a two-day international conference to evaluate democratisation in Africa.

 

Focus

The papers will address the following three questions and any other related ones:

1.      Is democracy universally applicable, or does it require adaptation to cultural realities?

2.      To what extent has the adoption of Western liberal models of democracy hindered democratisation in post-colonial African states?

3.      How can indigenous African political thought be utilised in the endeavour to design models of democracy that are suited to the socio-cultural realities of post-colonial African states?

 

Programme

 

Conference Chairs:

 

Dr. Reginald M.J. Oduor, University of Nairobi

and

Dr. Hu Yeping, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP)

 

 

Conference Programme

 

 

Opening Ceremony

22^nd May, 2017, 9:00-10:00 a.m.

Master of Ceremonies: Dr. Reginald M.J. Oduor

Time	Speaker
8:00-8:50 a.m.	Registration
9:00-9:05 a.m.	Remarks by Dr. Oriare Nyarwath, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Nairobi
9:05-9:10 a.m.	Remarks by Dr. Hu Yeping, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP)
9:10-9:15 a.m.	Remarks by Prof. S.I. Akaranga, Chair, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Nairobi
9:15-9:20 a.m.	Remarks by Prof. Peter Wasamba, Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Nairobi
9:20-9:30 a.m.	Remarks by Prof. Enos Njeru, Principal, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Nairobi
9:30-9:55 a.m.	Speech by Prof. Peter M.F. Mbithi, Vice-Chancellor, University of Nairobi
9:55-10:00 a.m.	Vote of thanks by Dr. Wamae Muriuki, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Nairobi
10:00-10:30 a.m.	Tea break

Session 1

Critique of Liberal Democracy in Africa (1)

 

Monday 22^nd May, 2017, 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Chair: Dr. Oriare Nyarwath, University of Nairobi

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
10.30am-10.50am	Prof. J.N.K. Mugambi, University of Nairobi, Kenya	A Critique of Notions of Democracy as Applied in the Twenty-first Century
10.50am-11.10am	Prof. Jack Anselm Odhiambo, University of Nairobi, Kenya	Who are the “People” in a Democracy?
11.10am-11.30am	Dr. Hu Yeping, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, U.S.A.	Democracy and the Common Good
11.30am-11.50am	Dr. Dennis Masaka, Great Zimbabwe University, Zimbabwe	Colonialism and the Challenge of Western-style Democracy in Africa
11.50am-12.10pm	Prof. Winnie V. Mitullah, University of Nairobi, Kenya	Liberal Constitutional Democracy Deficit in Africa: Interrogating Opportunities and Challenges
12.10pm-12.30pm		Discussion
12.30pm-1.30pm		Lunch break

 

 

 

Session 2

Critique of Liberal Democracy in Africa (2)

 

Monday 22^nd May, 2017, 1:30-3:30 p.m.

Chair: Dr. Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana

 

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
1.30pm-1.50pm	Prof. Sirkku K. Hellsten, The Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, Sweden	African Political Ideology and Practice in the Era of Globalization: From Communitarian Socialism to Authoritarian Neo-liberalism - The Next Steps?
1.50pm-2.10pm	Mr. David Jesse Oduor, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya	The Fallacy of Liberal Democracy in Africa
2.10pm-2.30pm	Mr. David-Ngendo Tshimba, Makerere University, Uganda	The Pitfalls of Liberal Democracy: Lessons from Electioneering in Democratic Republic of the Congo
2.30pm-2.50pm	Dr. Munamato Chemhuru, Great Zimbabwe University, Zimbabwe, and University of Johannesburg, South Africa	The Quest and Limits of Liberal Democracy in Post-Colonial Africa: An appeal to the Communitarian Model
2.50pm-3.10pm	Prof. J.P. Odoch Pido, The Technical University of Kenya	A Design Perspective on Democracy and Democratic Models
3.10pm-3.30pm		Discussion
3.30pm-4.00pm		Tea break

Session 3

Critique of the Quest for Africa-Specific Models of Democracy

 

22^nd May, 2017, 4:00-6:00 p.m.

Chair: Dr. Jacinta Mwende Maweu, University of Nairobi, Kenya

 

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
4.00pm-4.20pm	Prof. Edward Wamala, Makerere University, Uganda	The Rule of Law versus the Rule of Good men (Philosopher Kings): A Classical Solution to a Contemporary Problem
4.20pm-4.40pm	Ms. Robinah S. Nakabo, Makerere University, Uganda	Gender Sensitive Followership and Leadership in Africa: the case of Uganda
4.40pm-5.00pm	Dr. Donna K. Pido, The Technical University of Kenya	Democracy as Falsehood: Seek But Do Not Expect to Find
5.00pm-5.20pm		Discussion

 

Session 4

Indigenous African Models of Democracy (1)

 

23^rd May, 2017, 8:30-10:30 a.m.

Chair: Dr. Wamae Muriuki, University of Nairobi, Kenya

 

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
8.30am-8.50am	Mr. Kisemei Mutisya (United States International University, Kenya) and Dr. Joseph Situma (University of Nairobi, Kenya)	Tentative Elements of African Indigenous Models of Democracy
8.50am-9.10am	Dr. Khondlo Mtshali, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa	Consensual Democracy and the Expansion of the Mind
9.10am-9.30pm	Dr. Jacinta Mwende Maweu, University of Nairobi, Kenya	From Liberal to Consociational democracy: Which way for Africa?
9.30am-9.50am	Dr. Siphetfo N. Dlamini, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa	Ake's Model of Consociational Democracy: A New Perspective of a Holistic Development in Africa
9.50am-10.10am	Dr. Emefiena Ezeani, Federal University Ndufu-Alike Ikwo, Nigeria	Cooperative Collegial Democracy: An Alternative African Context-relevant Political Model
10.10am-10.30am		Discussion
10.30am-11.00am		Tea break

 

Session 5

Indigenous African Models of Democracy (2)

 

23^rd May, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 12:40 p.m.

Chair: Prof. Edward Wamala, Makerere University, Uganda

 

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
11.00am-11.20am	Dr. Francis Chigozie Ofoegbu, Federal University Ndufu Alike Ikwo, Nigeria	Democracy in Africa: the Need for the Practice of Universal Communalism
11.20am-11.40am	Dr. Solomon Ochepa Oduma-Aboh, Kaduna State University, Nigeria	Communalism as an Authentic Basis for an Enduring Democracy in the Twenty-first Century Nigerian Society
11.40am-12.00noo	Dr. Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana	The Traditional Roots of Democratic Verbal Discipline
12.00pm-12.20pm	Dr. Moses Oludare Aderibigbe, The Federal University of Technology, Nigeria	Democracy and the Right of the Minority in Africa
12.20pm-12.40pm		Discussion
12.40pm-1.40pm		Lunch break

 

 

Session 6

Indigenous African Models of Democracy (3)

 

23^rd May, 2017, 2:00-4:00 p.m.

Chair: Prof. Winnie V. Mitullah, University of Nairobi, Kenya

 

Time	Presenter	Title of Paper
2.00pm-2.20pm	Dr. Reginald M.J. Oduor, University of Nairobi, Kenya	In Defence of Ethnically-based Federations in Post-Colonial African States, with Special Reference to Kenya
2.20pm-2.40pm	Dr. Tayo Raymond Ezekiel Eegunlusi, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria	Critical Reflections on Africans’ Consideration of a (Monolithic) Democratic Alternative to Liberal Democracy
2.40pm-3.00pm	Prof. Dan Chitoiu, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Romania	Reconsidering Hierarchy: Justice and Responsibility in an Alternative Social Scenario
3.00-3.20pm	Dr. Thomas Menamparampil, Guwahati, Assam, India	Strengthening Indigenous Values to Facilitate the Emergence of Suitable Forms of Democracy
3.20pm-3.40pm		Discussion
3.40pm-3.50pm	Dr. Hu Yeping, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy	Closing Remarks
3.50pm-4.00pm	Dr. Reginald M.J. Oduor, University of Nairobi	Closing Remarks