|
Story by David Ogot snr. © June 2003
 This is in reference to Kenya Television Networks’ (KTN) ‘Breakfast Show’ with Kathleen
Openda on Saturday 21st June 2003 in which the issue of drinking in rugby tournaments and the
issue of sponsorship by Kenya Breweries Ltd. (KBL) was again tackled.
This also afforded concerned members of the public who are of course the main stakeholders
of their children’s lives a chance to call in and ask pertinent questions from those who were
concerned in organising these tournaments who have recently been put on the spot by KTN and
the East African Standard as a result of the illegal and hazardous activities which go on
there.
The rugby expose has also born fruit albeit cosmetic on the part of the brewers. The
organizers of this years 'Tusker Safari Sevens' said they had put in place measures to reduce
underage drinking, and other incidents of misbehavior stemming from intoxication. including
educating bar tenders. All this is as a result of media pressure from the two houses KTN and EAS
and once again kudos to them.
Yet there has been media attention on these issues before, thus the question, which goes
begging, is what is different this time? The answer is simple. Sustained pressure. Not the
usual off and on token measures. This time the sustained effort has served to keep the outrage
fresh in the public mind, a Kenyan public that is also now increasingly intolerant of key
issues being swept under the carpet.
At the same time the media which is a business like any other is often swayed by other
financial implications namely in this case, advertising revenue. KBL has a one billion-shilling
advertising budget Therefore it is encouraging to note that the health of Kenyans and
especially the youth is still paramount to some.
Mr. Aggrey Chabeda the Secretary of the Kenya Rugby Football Union (KRFU) epitomised the
general ignorance Kenyans have concerning beer and other alcoholic beverages and its
capabilities. He seemed, as do most Kenyans, totally unaware, that beer is a drug with the same
ability to bring misery as heroin, cocaine, and bhang (cannabis sativa). This was evident
when a caller (on 'The Breakfast Show' ) named Kazungu pointed out that rugby's image would
be tainted by the images people had seen on TV.
Chabeda's reply that "this is a very small minority of fans and like in any place where you
have a large number of people, you just have to live and try and let live so long as people are
doing things in a good spirit you let them enjoy themselves and they move on" could be called
callous were it not that this is exactly what most Kenyans believe as far as beer is concerned.
To them beer is harmless and the worst that can happen is that people occasionally
over-indulge, leaving them with a severe but harmless hangover the next day. The brewers
also constantly and actively cultivate this benign image of beer.
Note when Mr. Eddy Kamau, Brand Manager Tusker was asked that what exactly did the breweries
mean with their constantly spouted platitude "responsible drinking" how many exactly
were enough Tuskers? Why did they have to have drinking alongside what was basically a sporting
event whichever way you paint it? Saying it is a social event is not saying anything - as
social is where several people have gathered to socialise.
Mr. Kamau replied "ours is a Kenyan brand with a rich Kenyan heritage and we like
taking pride and supporting and developing sports in this country." At the same time
"it is a social element and that is why we are putting measures and surveillance teams to
make sure these vices do not happen, at the same time not to penalise the responsible guy who
comes in, enjoys the game has his drink and takes off. So at the end of the day it's a call to
all of us because if for example I may, the issue of the clip of the guy we just saw passing
on the Tusker can to.." (a child) "that’s myself. It's an individual responsibility
and thus I think we need to drive own responsibility and take it forward. At the end of the
day we are what we portray so it’s all according to ourselves." In my opinion that father
probably believed the beer brand's slogan "makes us equal, has no equal". This
coupled with the fact that beer is viewed as 'mild' compared to say spirits, probably led to that
scene which was tantamount to child abuse.
Both these gentlemen seemed to be stating that the nature of the event demanded that alcohol
be present. That the so-called responsible drinkers and adults should not be 'penalised' for
the sins of the underage and 'irresponsible' drinkers. What has emerged from all the high
running emotions is that if alcohol is not sold and consumed on the premises the event will
have been a flop. What comes across as the bottom line is that the booze is an essential
ingredient in staging these games, the lack of which would seriously impede their success.
This then is the heritage our kids grow up with as they attend these functions and see their
teenage siblings, uncles, auntie's, and even parents guzzling huge amounts of beer fighting,
fondling each other in public, puking, driving and even passing out and believing this to be
par for the course when socialising.
Is this the "rich heritage" that the Tusker brand manager Kamau refers to? It
must be - a policy of drink more. Obviously the more people drink, the more profits for the
breweries. Why else did he constantly throughout the programme duck the repeated question of
how many drinks constituted responsible drinking?
When finally, unrelentingly, pinned down he replied "what we have done and Kenya
Breweries has initiated, it has initiated a research project into what responsible drinking is,
gone out there and talked to the consumers and with this piece of work we gonna know how to
move on and handle the element of responsible drinking because at the end of the day its me
and you who needs to be responsible but then again we are highlighting it and all together we
should be able to tackle the issue."
What research do they need to do into responsible drinking? This is simply the amount
calculated for alcohol in units, recommended per individual. In the case of Tusker it is two
Tuskers per day maximum for men and one for women. Pure and simple. But if every one
drank like this, where would the massive profits come from? And most of these profits come
from underage, heavy, problem drinkers and alcoholics - the so-called irresponsible drinkers.
That is why Mr. Kamau was between a rock and a hard place when it came to how much is too much?
How also does KBL go out to ask the consumers of its product, which is a mood-altering drug
how much, constitutes responsible drinking? What are the parameters that constitute responsible
drinking? Kathleen Openda also continued probing by reiterating that the caller wanted to know
how many cans of Tusker was enough?
Kamau: "First of all it's managed from an individuals practice for example you are encouraged
to have a drink on a full stomach, have a bite you'll enjoy your alcoholic brand. At the end of
the day do not over drink (my emphasis)" Note again a long sentence saying nothing! Just
"do not over drink." With this kind of doublespeak even the indomitable Kathleen
Openda had to let it go.
She instead took a different tack mentioning drinking and driving. Here again the Tusker
Brand Manager shot himself in the foot but probably not many Kenyans noticed. His response to
the drink-driving problem was that it was not encouraged and "what we have done this time
round is that we have Metro Shuttle as part of the co-sponsors and they are coming in and
telling people you can leave your car at Kengeles Nairobi West and there are shuttle service
and they carry you and if you want to be taken home they can do that."
Thus the perfect solution to drink as much as you want. You don't have to worry about
driving. By the time you have had enough for it to affect your driving, you are way over the
ration allowed. Being driven home or not having to worry about driving, is actually a subtle
inducement to tie one on and really let go. Throw caution to the winds and let it all hang out!
Why would one want to drink until you have to be taken home unable to do so yourself?
This answer brought to mind an advertisement KBL had been placing in the local dailies
stating six equals seven, where they show a picture of a six pack of Tusker and a Tusker
branded beer mug with the inducement being buy a six-pack and get a free mug. Everybody of
course likes something for free, while at the same time you can use the mug to drink there and
then - its classier. And if your buddy doesn't have a mug? Simple - buy him or her a six pack!
The message was still coming through loud and clear. Drink and we will take you home, drink,
and win gifts! Drink and be happy!
There was only one caller who called in and asked the public and media to lay off the brewers Tusker as
they were doing a good job sponsoring rugby, which even the government could not do. He went on
to say that responsibility of how one used the Tusker after purchasing was not the brewers but
of the person who bought. This was the individual who had to be disciplined and to discipline
his children if they couldn't do this, well don’t blame the manufacturer.
Well this is not an ordinary household product. This is a mood-altering drug. The
manufacturer has a responsibility to warn all users clearly the effects including side effects
and the dangers involved in using their product. Only then can they claim to be allowing the
consumer to make an informed choice over how to use their product or even whether to use it at
all.
For an alcoholic to recover, he must be honest with himself and admit he or she has a
problem. In the same vein, if Kenya Breweries Ltd. is really genuine that interested parties
work together to find a solution to this problem then they have to be honest from the word go.
If KBL and other liquor manufacturers are not ultimately to be regarded with the same loathing
and hit with the same or worse restrictions as the tobacco producers, then they must themselves
act responsibly now and it all starts with honesty.
The KRFU Secretary Mr. Aggrey Chabeda at least made a start, thus redeeming himself by
stating that there was a problem and by enumerating concrete steps that the KRFU was taking to
tackle the problem. Towards the end of the programme he admitted that they were even trying to
clamp down on alcoholic beverages being brought into the venue.
"This is a problem which I think we are aware of and this is something that any
organisation that is attracting large groups of people into an enclosed environment are usually
aware of. Sometimes you have people, not just young underage people, even adults who go out
into the supermarkets, they buy more intoxicating beverages.
They may drink some of them outside, they sometimes come with them into the grounds and you
may look at these people and think they have come into these grounds and been sold drinks and
that is why they are in the position they are in when its not the case. So to try and root out
that we asked the public that's coming 'a' to be responsible and not bring such items and also
to be patient and understanding at the entrance points as we inspect them especially when they
are carrying bags."
Finally the issue here is not rugby. Rugby just happened to fall under the spotlight this
time around. Previously venues as diverse as the Nairobi Agricultural Show have fallen under this media
spotlight. The issue is the drug alcohol and our Kenyan attitude towards it.
It has to be recognised for what it really is and is capable of and not the advertising and
other misleading misconceptions, which abound. We have to focus away from diversions and back
on and only on the drug. For it causes great misery, and poverty and even death touching
adversely the lives of millions of Kenyans. Kenyans must be educated on this drug only then
will we manage to co-exist with it. For co-exist we must as alcohol is here to stay - but we
can and must co-exist on our terms. Not that of the brewer, vintner or distiller. We must
co-exist safely! The alternative is a tragedy whose enormous proportions are now only gradually
coming to light in Kenya. Let us be honest and admit we have a problem. Only then can recovery
start.
P.S. Problem drinkers and alcoholics have a simple way of determining whether their
drinking has become a problem and that is if it has got to a stage whereby you are discussing
it at all - then it is a problem! We as a nation are discussing it therefore - there is a
problem!
David Ogot is a freelance
journalist/producer who has personal experience with alcoholism. He can be reached at
goinghomedotcom@yahoo.com or alternatively at info@goinghomedotcom.org
Back to top
| 