Kenya’s policy on family faulty on many fronts

Anyone interested in social issues would be excited about the National Policy on Family Promotion and Protection 2023 published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. But that excitement lasts only until you read the document.

The policy defines a family as “a societal group that is related by blood, adoption, foster care or the ties of marriage of two persons of opposite sex” (sic). This disqualifies intersex persons from marriage.

Similar discrimination is inherent in the Marriage Act, which defines marriage as “a voluntary union of a man and woman”. In chapter two, the policy defines a family as “a unit of people connected by natural genealogical links”, which is at variance with the earlier definition.

Read: Reimagining marriage and its original values

The document regrets that the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics collects information on the family but has never synthesised this into a thematic report. Thus it recommends a state of the family report after every five years.

At different points, the words “family” and “household” are used interchangeably, yet these are distinct concepts.

The statement that “polygamous households are one of the types of families found in Kenya” makes it manifest that the authors lacked a coherent approach to classification of families.

In addition, the analysis of challenges facing the family is extremely superficial and uninformed, probably an indication that no sociologist was involved in developing the document.

Under marriage in chapter three, the document observes that existing legislation does not provide guidance on how to “strengthen the marriage” but does not clarify what is meant by that phrase.

Read: Married but single: The wives paying all the family bills

What is clear is that the policy champions a normative ideology that marriage is imperative. Thus, it states that “the key policy issues are related on how (sic) to promote a culture of marriage” so that the result is “a true foundation for social order in Kenya”.

This seems to suggest that without families, there can be no social order.

The policy then proposes some vague but conservative interventions to be undertaken by the government.

These include promotion of “gender-responsive and age-appropriate programmes that help people understand sexuality framed in the context of marriage as the best option,” encouraging and promoting “dispute resolution mechanisms that safely keep couples together,” promoting “values and life skills programmes that encourage chastity and strengthen the marriage institution,” and protecting “the family institution from disruption by not allowing emerging cultures”.

Although the meaning of “emerging cultures” is not stated, it is a veiled reference to non-binary sexual orientation.

Read: Every marriage is pregnant with divorce, let’s leave room for the latter

Inlaid in these proposals are some ludicrous assumptions. One is that it is the government’s responsibility to keep couples together. This arises from the notion that marriage is a union in which people should, and can be coerced to, stay even if it is dysfunctional.

The other is that it is the government’s role to ensure sexual fidelity within marriage, notwithstanding that adultery is not a crime in Kenyan statutes. The superintending role given to the government is tantamount to meddling and erosion of the autonomy and responsibilities of couples.

The document creates the impression that Kenya is just about to invent something called the family and needs a framework on how to make it functional. The vagueness of the policy proposals means that an implementer would be at a loss as to what to do practically.

What kind of action, for example, would one initiate under the intervention to “integrate family needs in planning and property/assets acquisition and disposal?” The proposals are also littered with the word “promote,” technically an escapist and lazy way of making commitments that are not measurable.

This document has glaring, irritating and embarrassing grammatical errors. Sample this. “The role of men in ensuring family fulfils this primary function is paramount. Empirical evidence has made abundantly clear that involved and caring fathers are important to the optimal development of children.

Read: If you were to grade your marriage, what would you score?

Whether it is biological, adoptive or stepfathers, living in or outside of the home, fathers impact their children at every stage of development, and their absence has long last repercussions.”

The policy lists various statutes of relevance to the family but curiously omits the Law of Succession (Amendment) Act and the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. 

The section on family safety and security does not even feature obvious types of violence such as spousal battery, rape and incest.

Reading this document leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It makes one wonder whether government officers who approved and signed this product actually read it.

In short, this is a pedestrian document that should not be called a national policy. The ministry would do the country a lot of justice by withdrawing it for a total overhaul.

The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected]).