Right off the bat, I want to make a distinction between the practice known in European and American nomenclature as female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision.
The former, even in its least violent and brutal iteration, mutilates female genitalia and seeks to curb, kill, or control a woman’s sexuality. In contrast, male circumcision — while also a form of genital mutilation — is arguably less harmful.
The key contestation in Kenya, for example, isn’t whether male circumcision has medical benefits, or not. Rather, the problem is the weaponisation of male circumcision to demonise political opponents and deny them access to the pinnacle of state power. In this piece, I want to explode this political idiocy in our democratic polity.
In its most elemental form, male circumcision is the surgical removal — by crude, or modern tools — of the skin that covers the tip of the penis. This part of the male anatomy is the foreskin and covers the glans.
While scholarship on male circumcision is inconclusive on its origins, it is believed to have originated south and east of the Mediterranean first in Sudan and Ethiopia among ancient Egyptians and Semites. It was then passed on to Jews, Arabs, and Muslims in the Middle East.
Somewhere in that custody of knowledge, Jews and Muslims came to see it as a ritual with religious or cultural value. Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals also practiced it. For Africa, the theory is that male circumcision was introduced to the Bantu by Jews and Muslims. What I know is that as a cultural Mkamba, it’s unthinkable not to be circumcised.
At least that was the common wisdom in my childhood. But no one has ever attempted to theorise to me why my foreskin had to be excised. The only person who attempted to explain was my maternal grandfather, who opined that it was a ritual of passage from early puberty to incipient manhood.
There was one unquestionable cultural benefit to circumcision among the Akamba. The ritual didn’t have any religious significance. However, it was performed in segregated environments where young boys were taught the whys and wherefores of sex and sexuality, including the avoidance of premarital impregnation by methods such as coitus interruptus, among others.
I think this reduced teenage or premarital pregnancies. Apart from sex education and sexual techniques, boys were also schooled on responsible manhood and citizenship. That was largely lost with the demonisation of our culture by the Church and colonialism.
Sadly, our “modern” educational system,which is based on fake Victorian morality, treats sex and sexuality as taboo subjects. Hence teen pregnancies and the proliferation of sexually transmitted infections.
Those who weaponise circumcision are not only ignorant, but also malevolent. Two-thirds of the world’s population doesn’t practice male circumcision. While most males are circumcised in the United States, in Europe less than 20 per cent are circumcised — 11 per cent in Germany, 16 per cent in the UK, 14 per cent in France, 6 per cent in Denmark, and so on. In Asia, less than 20 per cent are circumcised. In Latin America, less than 20 per cent go under the knife.
In Africa, however, about 60 per cent of males are circumcised. But these figures are high because of the large number of African Muslims and Bantu who circumcise. However, you will be surprised to learn that whereas most Kenyan Bantu circumcise, the opposite is true in Uganda where only 25 per cent of males are circumcised.
Proponents of male circumcision, including medical experts, argue that better hygiene, less risk of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of STIs and penile cancer are some of the health benefits of circumcision.
The UN and agencies concerned with health have recommended circumcision to combat HIV/AIDs and other STIs. The risks include cutting the foreskin too long, or short, failure of the foreskin to heal properly, mutilating the penis, serious infections, and the failure of the foreskin to reattach at the right places.
There’s no scientific evidence to show circumcision or lack thereof results in increased or decreased sexual pleasure or performance. It’s clear to me whether one circumcises or not should be a personal choice devoid of calumny and politics.
What we should be concerned about most is the weaponisation of male circumcision for political purposes to exclude and marginalise certain ethnic groups in our body politic. In Kenya, this has been used by xenophobic Bantu politicians to demonise some ethnic groups, particularly the Luo community.
I remember certain politicians using derogatory terms to refer to prominent Luo politicians. This is primitive and should be treated as hate speech.. The foreskin doesn’t possess any brain cells that can make one more brilliant or stupid as a leader.
- Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.
