Calls to ban gambling reveal prejudice against the poor
What you need to know:
- Most of the claims about Kenya being taken over by lotteries and betting houses are plainly overstated.
- For critics, banning all betting in Kenya is sensible economic policy because it would get the poor gamblers back to work.
- I find it essential to highlight that this debate is chiefly driven by flawed premises and prejudice against poor people.
Lotteries and betting companies have gained prominence in Kenya over the last year, culminating in the very public launch of one company a few days ago.
I have not found any data showing what the national split is among those who approve or disapprove of gambling. That notwithstanding, I traced comments in public and private communications which show a rising sentiment that there are too many betting companies, and that they should be banned.
Not only are these spiteful remarks about the owners of sports betting and lottery corporations, but also suggestions of a conspiracy to misguide Kenya’s youth and damage the economy.
While I have neither professional connection nor commercial interest in gambling, I find it essential to highlight that this debate is chiefly driven by flawed premises and prejudice against poor people.
An impressive number of Kenyans subscribe to one religious tradition or another, and some of these traditions view betting as a violation of moral codes.
This is respectable because the Constitution allows Kenyans to practice their faith, especially in personal domains.
An extension of that freedom means that the same Kenyans may also express views against betting and gambling. What this majority should be careful about, however, is to attempt to use religious interpretations as a basis for Kenya’s social and economic policy.
Most of the claims about Kenya being taken over by lotteries and betting houses are plainly overstated.
Urging the government to “do something” about gambling and betting corporations is a crude posture by Kenya’s “posh and serious” that uses a false posture of superior intelligence and moral standing to inform public policy.
FASCIST THINKING
While the posh and serious are entitled to feel morally superior to other people who gamble, they ought to understand that the Constitution of Kenya did not intend for government to be a parent to any citizen. Ridding society of vice is best left to churches, mosques and temples.
Kenya’s constitution has an impressive array of rights and personal freedoms. They include the right of an individual to use their money to speculate on a piece of land or even the result of a soccer contest, horse race or bull fight.
We may consider it a repugnant practice for another to spend treasure on such trivial pursuits, but the best the posh and serious can do is look away and let other Kenyans be.
A monoculture that believes that all must own real property, buy land or invest in creating the next mobile app is nonsense and gets us dangerously close to fascist thinking and a present danger to other people’s rights.
In a way, the undertones are that people who bet are often the poor and lazy, people who are not ready for hard work as the way to prosperity. For critics, therefore, banning all betting in Kenya is sensible economic policy because it would get the poor gamblers back to work.
However, there is no greater sign that people value economic prosperity than the fact that they dedicate a share of their income to an activity that could earn them money, even if the odds are bad.
Participation in sports betting markets has utility value for the players because they may derive fun, not only from seeing their team emerge as a winner, but also from earning a return for making the right call.
That is freedom to participate in economic activity and the returns should go to the person taking the risks. If they lose, as they often do, that is no business of government or the moral poseur.
FALLING PROFITS
It is true that most betting houses offer poor odds and skim away large profits from betting, but that’s no reason for a market to be banned or driven underground.
After all, the interest rates and exchange rates that apply in Kenya are also evidence of many other markets taking very good profits from their clients, as any credit card holder knows.
The only difference is that we adopt an unnecessarily aggressive moral lens when viewing betting companies that have not invested in posh offices, high ceilings and polished glass.
High profitability does not constitute evidence of exploiting poor morals in an investor. Indeed, the proliferation of betting houses means they will compete so aggressively that profits will fall and some may not survive.
In the meantime, those opposed to gambling ought to bet against the gamblers and drive them bankrupt sooner.
Those calling for tighter regulation and banning of gambling are expressing their moral prejudices while hiding under the guise of protecting children and Kenya’s youth.
I do not overlook the sad outcomes of gambling, particularly those who come to harm after losing big bets. However, we must consider the danger of using a family’s real tragedy to ban an activity that many adults partake with full knowledge of the financial risks involved.
Kwame Owino is the chief executive officer of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi. Twitter: @IEAKwame
