This country hasn’t gone to the dogs, it has gone to the beers, or is it DeBeers? It is a subject on which everyone has an opinion; and rightly so. I must confess that I don’t drink alcohol. I am a teetotaller. My mother raised me well; away from the bottle and closer to the Holy Scriptures. It is minimally surprising that the first time I tasted alcohol was 10 years ago at Lincoln College at an Oxford chapel ÔÇô drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the Lamb. That was the first and the last time I had wine. The government’s recent concern about alcohol abuse is not misplaced. If anyone has seen wrecked families, broken teeth, drunken women raped after parties, the door mat morals, car accidents as well as the forsaken, abused and neglected children, they will better appreciate the need for action to halt the train before it crashes. Our society has gone to the beers. We are a society which worships at the shrine of the bottle-store. From the most educated to the most uninformed; we are a people ruled by the beer bottle. Yes the quality of the alcohol we imbibe is different. There are those who drink the most exquisite whisky, while others will do with a larger or a draught. Others elsewhere delight themselves in tshwene, bojalwa jwa setso, khadi and other local brews prepared in the dingy corners of some round mud hut or matlhakwana. Wherever we may be, our lives are intrinsically bound to alcohol. We either drink or we know someone who does.
We are the beer people. Our weddings, parties, traditional worship and associated rituals are all done with copious flow of alcohol. What is beyond debate is that something must be done to reduce the amount of alcohol abuse. The massive differences of opinion relate to how we should tackle the problem. The problem is actually not new. My grandmother informs me that in the 70s and 80s Kgosi Bathoen Gaseitsiwe tried to get rid of alcohol in Kanye without any success. Before him, way back, Khama tried in Gammangwato and equally failed. The government’s dominant approach to solving the alcohol abuse crisis has been to hike the alcohol levy. The justification for such a hike is to make alcohol so expensive that people who wish to have a drink would think twice before indulging.
Another approach has been to limit opening hours of alcohol outlets. The reality however is that the two approaches do not deal with the root causes of alcohol abuse. People don’t drink because alcoholic drinks are cheap; such that making alcohol expensive would reduce the amount of drinking. Additionally, limiting the hours of alcohol outlets might create a lucrative black market for unconventional brews and the smuggling of cheap alcohol into our country.
The danger however is this; the more the government hikes the alcohol prices; the more people will continue to drink without changing their habits. The more they continue to drink; the more they will lose their money. The more they lose their money; the more they will sink into poverty. This will choke an average citizen in particular when you consider other hiked taxes such as vat. The implications of these are grim. Many households will be plunged into a poverty hole. Debts will pile, families will be under stress and the gains made will be reduced. The problem is obviously that the government is not addressing the root cause of alcohol abuse. It is taxing the abuser and the moderate drinker. Additionally, the government is not punishing alcohol abuse since the government’s measures are not directed at abuse. Instead the measures are addressing alcohol purchase or access by everyone, regardless of whether they abuse alcohol or not. The question to ponder obviously is whether a country should legislate against issues such as alcohol. We may all agree that a state needs to do something about dangerous behaviours such as alcohol. But where will it stop? Alcohol is not the only problem that we have as a consequence of our reckless lifestyle.
One of the problems with the country is that of obesity. Batho ba nonne, ba thama ka kgoro, ba roba difenechara le dishoko tsa dikoloi tsa puso. This, as the doctors tell us, is because of our bad eating habits. We eat too many sugary and fatty foods, re a kgamutsa, and we engage in minimum exercise. Our bellies and behinds balloon at an alarming rate. Soon, before we know it, we have sugar diabetes, high blood pressure or a heart attack; all because of our reckless eating behaviour. How will the state respond to this situation? The government may indeed raise the price of cooking oil and institute a fried food levy to ensure that we remain fit. The government may instruct every employer to build a gym for its employees and ensure that each employee spends at least an hour daily off-loading the weight on a tread mill. The government may begin a leaf campaign. Everyone must eat leaves everyday to stay healthy. But what about the HIV Aids scourge? How are we going to address it? Perhaps we should introduce a condom levy, so that condoms are so expensive that people will think twice before having sex ÔÇô talk of sex in moderation. But I may be way off the mark. This levy is not about reducing alcohol consumption. It is about aiding cash strapped government finance its youth programmes. That is a ridiculous claim to make, isn’t it?
Perhaps! But this is exactly what the president articulates when he says: “Over the past year Government has been able to double its contribution to the Youth Development Fund from P30 million to P60 million thanks to money from the Alcohol Levy. I wish to announce that an additional P60 million has recently been allocated to this Fund. Overall the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Culture has now received P160 million from the Levy, which was distributed to youth empowerment programmes across the country.” In other words re godisa banana ka madi a bojalwa. “To date, 367 youths have benefited from the Fund, which has disbursed over P 142 million. With further support from the Levy, additional funds have been spent in support of emerging youth industries.” Is there mention of whether the levy has reduced the level of alcohol abuse? No. Actually the president acknowledges that the whole campaign is a failure: “I am, however, worried about continued cases in which alcohol was found to be a contributory factor. For example, 21%, 11% and 27% of murder, rape and unlawful wounding cases respectively between November 2009 and October 2010, were attributable to alcohol consumption.” Obviously the claim is inaccurate. What it means is that persons who had committed these crimes had drunk alcohol ÔÇô but no one can claim that alcohol caused them to perform such acts. So where does this leave us? The government has much to thank the beer-holders for, for if they dared reduce their drinking, they will terribly frustrate one of the main sources of government funds. We are finally the beers people, or is it De Beers?
