Dear Colleagues,
I thought this article, "What about the pursuit of happiness?" - a response to Nicholas Kristof's "Moonshine or the Kids?" (NYT, May 22nnd 2010) might be of interest. 
Mukoma

What about the pursuit of happiness?
Mukoma Wa Ngugi
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/02/poverty-new-york-times

When it comes to talking about what can be done to alleviate poverty, the first thing we expect is for the poor to sacrifice their pursuit of happiness.

But the 1776 US Declaration of Independence which speaks for millions worldwide, states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable is an important word because it means that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are part of what makes us human. And one cannot prioritise one over the other, or attain one without the others. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are as important as the right to life.

For Nicholas Kristof, the right of Africans to pursue happiness is not so evident. In his 22 May column, Moonshine or the Kids?, he argues that the poor and more specifically poor African men when faced with a choice between spending 12 or so dollars a month on alcohol, or rent and school fees, often choose to drink. In short the African poor seek pleasure at the expense of more practical needs.

As part of the solution, Kristof argues that international aid agencies ought to give money to African women whom studies have shown to be more likely to spend on meeting family needs. Also such money can be put into "microsavings which will work to turn a consumption culture into a savings culture". More bluntly he argues that "the family money now spent on wine and prostitution" should be redirected into schooling the children". If only it were that categorical.

To begin with the poor are not just spending money on tobacco and moonshine. The study by two MIT economists, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, that he uses to bolster his argument give the examples of Udaipur, India where in a year "more than 99% of the extremely poor households spent money on a wedding, a funeral, or a religious festival," and South Africa, where 90% of households living under $1 per day spent money on festivals.

The study reaches a conclusion that Kristof does not take into consideration: that spending money on festivals, weddings and funerals gives the poor a sense of community. The coming together fulfills the human need for fellowship. And also that the poor who might chose to buy sugar, or the more expensive rice instead of the less expensive but more nutritious millet are doing so because they too want to eat what they perceive as rich people's food.

The poor know it does not add up to spend on pleasure. So when Kristof asks one of his interviewees why he drinks when he could pay rent, "he looked pained". Exactly how we, the credit and mortgage middle class, respond when asked why we are amassing debt on things we do not need. Short of saying we are terrible and irresponsible parents, what other answer is possible?

That the poor may choose immediate pleasure over long-term security appears counter-intuitive and illogical. Until you factor in the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right, something as innately in us as the need for food and shelter; it defines who we are as human beings. We cannot ask the poor to prioritise one unalienable right over another.

Kristof also argues that cell phones that cost a poor couple ten dollars a month are an extravagance. But in today's globalised world, communication and access to information have become unalienable rights. Cell phones have changed rural Africa. Money is exchanged, goods traded and market prices debated using them. Texting, the ability to communicate without censorship is now a tool of protest. To the credit of the framers, The Declaration of Independence does not preclude future unalienable rights emerging with human progress. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are "among" other "certain unalienable rights".

Finally, African politicians, religious leaders, and human rights activists have been calling attention to the destructive nature of alcohol abuse among the poor for generations. The former president of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, as early as 1973 threatened to resign, famously declaring that he was not going to "to lead a nation of drunkards". He continued to preside over a nation where 60-70% of Zambians lived on less than a dollar day, until 1991.

Where politicians see drinking primarily as a matter of personal responsibility, human rights activists hold the government responsible for spawning the poverty, violence, corruption, and fostering unequal trade between nations that perpetuate the poverty in the first place.

This not to say that drinking is a right in itself, though we know how the story of prohibition ended. In fact in countries like Kenya, changaa (illegal moonshine) not only destroys homes but also leads to blindness and death. But we have to see it in the larger framework of the pursuit of happiness.

As part of the solution to ending cycles of poverty, the poor can invest in community theatre, soccer fields and other pleasurable events that are not self-destructive. They can also put a spending cap on weddings and funerals. But we cannot ask them to forgo a right that defines who we are as human beings – the unalienable right to pursue happiness.