Has Jacob Zuma registered his multiple marriages? This question is vital as the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998 does not apply to “indigenous African” marriages that have not been registered. Its safeguards and benefits, therefore, would have no force in such cases.
The choice whether to register a customary marriage in terms of the act or not, is one of the main points of criticism against this law and also against the soon-to-be-tabled Muslim Marriages Bill. This escape hatch makes a nonsense of such laws which are supposed to extend basic rights regarding capital, assets and children to women in polygamous marriages.
Given the unequal power relations between men and women, it is conceivable that many women would have difficulty convincing their new spouses to register the marriage. Resistance can be expected from some men as the legislation provides rights to women and puts spouses on an equal footing.
The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act has already been successfully challenged in the Constitutional Court for not protecting women who were married before the adoption of the law.
Meanwhile, women are still not allowed to enter into multiple marriages despite several “indigenous African” examples, such as Rain Queen Modjadji; “ancestral wives” among the Zulu and “female husbands” among the Nandi in Kenya, the Calabar in Nigeria and elsewhere. But the latter raises the possibility of same-sex sex which is exactly one of those historical cultural expressions that patriarchal chauvinists want to destroy.
A recent Sunday Times article suggested that some black people embrace polygamy as a way to regain their heritage devastated by colonialism and apartheid. As pointed out in the previous blog on this subject, this “heritage” is a version fabricated by colonial administrators. It was eagerly embraced by chiefs keen on the absolute power that the colonial customary regime granted them over newly invented subjects and by men who wanted to re-establish their patriarchal grip on women.
But let’s briefly look at the historical reasons for polygamy. It is true that 19th century British colonialists wanted to change the system of polygamy. For example, in the labour-scarce Natal colony, polygamy was the basis of a gendered division of labour that placed both black women and men’s labour out of reach of the settlers.
Polygamy in pre-colonial South Africa was a socio-economic system built on control over women’s reproductive capacity and agricultural labour, according to the historian Jeff Guy in Women and Gender in Southern Africa to 1945 (1990). The labour of women and the children they gave birth to was pivotal to the pre-colonial economy in Southern Africa.
This is the system that colonialists were trying to dismantle at the time, through the racist stigmatisation of black men as “lazy” and black women as no more than black men’s “slaves”, and through hut tax and other measures to force black men and women to work in the settler economy.
Little remains of this system in which polygamy was pivotal. As pre-colonial social and economic arrangements broke down under the impact of the colonial onslaught, women lost their central role in production and the status that went with that role (which was arguably more significant than what Victorian bourgeois values granted the middle-class settler woman. See also Sifiso Ndlovu’s chapter in Zulu Identities [2008]).
Judging by the latest developments in the institution of polygamy, women in such marriages have been reduced to decoration and competitors for the husband’s capital and personal interest.
Polygamy would have changed radically and would quite possibly have fallen away over the past 150 years, were it not for the artificial preservation of aspects thereof in the formaldehyde of customary law.
Even without the earth-shattering effects of colonialism on “culture”, it would be absurd to suggest that such a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon such as “culture” can be a fixed set of rules that is transferred from generation to generation without alteration.
But there are many in this country who attempt to do exactly that — whether they are neo-Afrikaner nationalists or Africanist populists. Similarly, it is in patriarchal and ethnic chauvinists’ interest to insist that what customary law has bequeathed us is indeed “true African culture” — as though there has always only been one African culture of which the rules were carved into stone for all eternity.
The Zuma-inspired “fashion” of polygamy illustrates Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani’s point that the perpetuation of customary law in a post-colonial system draws a new line between “indigenous” and “non-indigenous”. (Read Mamdani’s chapter in William Gumede and Leslie Dikeni’s The Poverty of Ideas [2009] to grasp the full extent of the peril in this.)
As always, women’s bodies are used to draw the borders of these new and dangerous in- and out-groups. This time it is done through the continuation of polygamous relationships marked by unequal power relations and by the refusal to extend to women the right that currently only men have, that is, to marry multiple partners.
The polygamy “fashion” also shows how well patriarchy has adapted to undermine the achievements of feminism in this democracy: black women are no longer legally designated minors but customary marriages can still be utilised to discipline them into subordination.
Quite. Cultural laws are freeze the development of culture. As one Zulu commentator pointed out, the point of polygamy was to make sure no woman were left homeless when her husband died in the war. In a patriarchal warring society such as the one under the leadership of Shaka, yes, an absolute necessity and very humane. It is not that long ago that woman in Eurocentric cultures were not allowed to own land or to make any decisions about their fate. But culture does grow and change. Do those interesting people down under still eat their opposition? Is slavery still allowed where once it thrived? Should the Alaskans still be allowed to slaughter the South Right Whale, which is endangered through now action of theirs? Understandably the suppression of African culture in South Africa did incredible harm. But there is no return to innocence, for any of us. My own culture after 5 generations have more in common with African culture than European culture. Those guys up North are foreign. I could never go back to Victorian culture, that was just plain sick. Neither should anyone else be slaughtering the few remaining leopards for clothing either. It is fake when you wear an Italian silk suit the rest of the week.
“Polygamy would have changed radically and would quite possibly have fallen away over the past 150 years, were it not for the artificial preservation of aspects thereof in the formaldehyde of customary law.”
How can you be so sure? You seem to imply that there is some kind of telos or natural state of affairs that make monogamy inevitable, whereas monogamy is actually inherently dependent on the sanctions of law for its preservation. It is not even quite accurate anymore to speak of monogamy as descriptive of western societies, given the ease and high rates of divorce. In fact, what obtains nowadays is serial polygamy and in some cosmopolitan centres what has been described as hypergamy.
“For example, in the labour-scarce Natal colony, polygamy was the basis of a gendered division of labour that placed both black women and men’s labour out of reach of the settlers.”
Can you explain how it placed specifically men’s labour out of reach of the settlers? It is true that women were responsible both for growing the crops and raising the children, but what was the economic role of the surplus of unmarried, childless men?
Christi- you fight good and very very hard.A few things will trip you up I think. Lobola is one.I have yet to find a black woman among all the nurses doctors lawyers teachers secretaries and villagers I have known who does not want lobola paid for her.
You fight polygamy which is the extreme end of the unfairness of it all but lobola is the virus that affects every black woman.
Try talking a woman out of paying lobola and she will walk away- Jozi woman or not. They all demand it.believe me I have tried.
ALL black women i know want, demand lobola.That is the start of this treating women as a commodity.
Would you believe some women encourage their husbands to marry their sisters as a second wife.
There is a long way to go but good luck
Christi
If you have any involvement in the New Muslim Marriages Act, I would like to point out to you that Muslim women are better off under the current law, provided they sign a pre-nuptial agreement, through a Muslim attorney, where the husband agrees not to take another wife. Such an agreement can not be broken. Any father of a Muslim daughter who does not insist on that needs his head read.
As for Britsh colonialism – you really have it arse about face. The Brits had no desire to have more than the Cape Colony and the port of Natal – their interest was in the ports en-route to the East. They were forced to colonise by the missionaries causing a stink. But the costs of administration had to be paid, which is why the taxes. If the chiefs refused the labour, prefering to send their men to the mines(using that money for taxes) – Indian indentured labour was imported instead.
The missionaries did their best, and they had a lot of influence, to stop the blacks from being denied education – but many black men did not want their children educated (like in Zuma’s case). My ancestor, Daniel Lindley, was with the Zulu before the boers started acquiring land in Natal, or Natal was annexed – and they were definately polygamous. 100 years ago last year,Sol Plaatjies wrote passionately about the re-tribalising of the black people, and also against the re-introduction of the circumcision ritual as barbaric
Christi
The Homelands included Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland. No whites were allowed to own land there. And missionaries were in all 3.
How come they are still polygamous?
Here is Taki (of Spectator fame) on the Zuma affair:
http://www.takimag.com/index.php/blogs/article/inhlawulo
Quote:
“In a front page commentary with the huge headline “Shame of the Nation,” a Sowetan newspaper said that in other democracies President Zuma would be forced to resign, but the paper did not mention which democracies. Not in France, that’s for sure, where past presidents have had children out of wedlock with much younger women, and once the news got out, their popularity had skyrocketed. Certainly not in Italy, nor Greece, and most likely not in Spain or Portugal.”
SA is now in the grip of neo marxist/fascist radicals who will bend the rules or stoop at nothing to consolidate their grip on power and such niceties as the Eurocentric feminist movement must give way to their version of what is or is not correct.
The only salvation is for Black women to rise up, as they did against Apartheid, and take no more crap. The shame of current SA is that Black men are proving to be no better than White men were.
Brent
@ Christi:
Well said and spot on. Unequal power relations legitimise and perpetuate patriarchy.
A perfect example of the problem is the latest post from “Sumo”. He draws an archetypal portrait of the patriarchal male railing against the liberation of women from domestic slavery. His resentment of women who are doing just fine without husbands is palpable. Such women are characterised as ‘selfish’! A risible accusation coming from a male! Men are the most unconsciously selfish creatures on the planet. They take it as an ‘entitlement’ to be ‘looked after’ by women who work as hard they do and usually for much less money–and far fewer ‘percs’.
Men have been getting away with games like ‘Just an obtuse bloke, what can you expect?’ and ‘Creative Incompetence or how to avoid all domestic chores, especially nappy changes’ for far too long. The ‘obtuseness’ is cultivated by a lifetime of directing attention to the irrelevant: sports, computer games, gadgets, and…did I mention sports?
Ask a man to ‘watch’ a toddler whilst you go the bathroom then count the seconds until the toddler cries because the ‘big man’ was busy–switching channels or reading the sports page. When you are outraged, he replies: “What I was supposed to do? I was here the whole time”. “Yeah, I see the dent in the sofa cushions”…
Males expect nothing of themselves so we will do the same. Just existing doesn’t cut it, guys. Game over.
Aikona Seesee! Your feeble attempt at trying to downplay the prevalence of polygamy in ancient cultures across the world, is ludicrous!
A simple Wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy) will show you the prevalence of polygamy and to a lesser extent polyandry across the world and across ALL cultures that have survived for thousands of years despite the scourge of the crusades, colonialism, imperialism etc. Ever since the dawn of time, ALL major religions, that represents the MAJORITY on our planet, tolerate various forms of polygamy – Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam…
I totally get that your social conditioning from apartheid’s Christian nationalist education and feminism forces this expected knee-jerk reaction but please don’t misrepresent the truth! If only you can unshackle yourself from your “western” indoctrination, you may just be able to see our world from an entirely new perspective – one of greater compassion, tolerance and understanding.
Great piece. Sadly, those who should read it won’t, or if they do, probably won’t understand it.
Very interesting that you make reference to one of Jeff Guy’s analysis of the foundations of ‘pre capitalist/pre-colonial’ Africa societies and the control of women’s labour and reproductive capacities by the patriachs. I have found his materialist anlaysis, which incooperates anthropologica, archaeological and historical evidence, very eye opening. What he also emphasise is the reality that it would be misleading to apply language and concepts that are used in today’s society to analyse these ‘pre colonial’ societies. Marriage, unlike in today’s world, amounted to a social arrangement between two families, meaning two homeasteads, the centres of production and other activities, where cattle were exchanged, as lobolo, for the woman’s reproductive and productive capacities. It needs to be stressed that these societies were founded on completely different basis compared to the globalised capitalist world we live in now. And these impacted on the culture, customs and lifestyle to a large extent. For me, this then questions the notion that men, in the 21st century globalised world, are practising polygammy because ‘it is our culture’, with insinuations that it has been practised by Africans/Zulu people for generations. As fallacious as these rgauements are, but they tend to be populist within the context of what many think are the failures of ‘modernity’ and the bad influences of ‘unethical’ ‘Western culture.’ Calls to revert back to ‘our tradition’ and give dignity to ‘our practices and institutions’ that were undermined by colonialism and apartheid are gaining momentum.
Before we go any further with any form of marriage we happen to adopt as an acceptable form across the antlatic ocean or not, within our social lives, we better ask ourselve one question before giving prejudcing judgement across the racial board.
Why do we get married ? are men marrying women to restrict their movements of choice to insubordinate, control or enslavement? in either polygamy form or monogamy?
if equality exist why should it aways be men who proposes marriage?
Than polygamy and monogamy communities, why dot we have higher rate of prostitutions among the polygamus society where we see a higher rate of prostitutions within the monogamous society?
To me it looks as men are the same but the monogamous society are forcing men to monogamy thus resort to prostitution to meet their needs without responsibility , whereas, polgamous society are free to make choices thus no need to cheat, as they are free to make choice and take responsibility without hypocrits.
Considering the fact that in both marriages women are consenting. however cohabitaion is not different from any form of women abuse or prostitution because women rights are not protected there , neither the security of their future after prolong abuse by non accoutable partner.
“…As pointed out in the previous blog on this subject, this “heritage” is a version fabricated by colonial administrators…”
And of course, in the world you inhabit, Africans did not have anything approximating a “culture” before the arrival of your forebears on the shores of this continent, eh? I mean, why else would you keep insisting on trying to explain African culture only as it relates to colonialisms impact on it?
But then that’s really irrelevant, what astounds me is that, for a feminist, you seem to have a very reductive view of women (or, as it appears, African women specifically) Have the women in this narrative of yours have no agency? Are they just subjects to be affected by the actions of men (African?) and (white?) feminists but having no voice in the discussion/debate on their own lives? Is it so hard for you to conceive of independent free-willed African women who might make choices which you don’t like or agree with but might not, necessarily, need YOUR approval?
The other question which I had, and which you dodged last time I asked; you don’t like polygamy…fine. But what do you suggest is done about those (adults) who still insist on entering into that kind of relationship? Once we allow the state (if that’s what you’re suggesting) to intervene in our sexual lives, where does the individuals rights end and where does the state’s jurisdiction begin?
haiwa tigera
Labola and polygamy are 2 seperate maters. There is little difference between labola and the dowry system -except the European dowry the women paid.
When the American missionaries first started work in Zululand, the young men and women were eager to abandon polygamy – they said it was a system for the old men to get the young girls.
But they were NOT prepared to abandon labola – they said the system showed they valued their women.
It was debated for months in the church, and eventually the missionaries accepted their point of view.
How ridiculous that this so-called “Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998″ and the “soon-to-be-tabled Muslim Marriages Bill”allows poligamy for some, but the rest of us poor fools do not receive those rights. What about the mormons and women with lots of money and appetite for more than one husband? I think we should start a new movement for multiple marrages to all citizens of SA (maybe we see a large inlux).
Hi Christi – your question “Has Jacob Zuma registered his multiple marriages?” is vital and needs to be answered. What benefits and safeguards do his wives have? It sounds like a grey area… I am not officially married but my understanding is that by SA law Marion and I would have been regarded as common in law husband and wife after being together after six months and thus have legal recourse and Marion can argue to have my estate, assuming we had no will.
I still think you make heavy weather of polygamy. Quite frankly, and I stand to correction, very few of us – men or women – want more than one spouse. By focusing all this attention on one custom practiced by the few in SA, we can be blinded to the fact that the abuse of women and “patriarchal chauvinism” exists in many monogamous relationships and throughout the fabric of society. We need to address those, and look at our sexuality and our gender values, not just focus on one custom. It is not a custom, again, I doubt more than a few of us would wish to practice. And I am not talking about “illicit” out of marriage affairs, or “serial polygamy” as some would put it.
@ Lyndall Beddy- Ah so the missionaries thought it was a good thing then so it should stay- Me bad.
Whats the missionary position (no pun) got to do with lobola.Who gives a frigging hoot what a bunch of bible waving land stealing foreigners think about a custom the know nothing about. So they said its ok it must be ok then. Is this why there is so much hullobaloo about polygamy because these great men did not ok it?
Dave Harris – You read WIkipedia and venture an opinion!? Go figure.
@Silage – I quite agree. All these special laws for special groups should be scrapped. All it leads to is social inequality between different groups and it makes criminals of people who aren’t.
Sgubusenkwishi asks: “why do we get married?” My (modern) version is – marriage is a contract between two individuals to pool their resources and support each other in realising each person’s chosen goals. According to this version there is no limit to the amount of people of whichever sex who could form such a legal union. My only reserve is that the persons involved be adult (able to take responsibility for their actions) and that these contracts be as difficult, legally, to enter as exit. Why, and where am I going with this? When one form such close ties to other people, one basically expose oneself to abuse and use. The polygamy as practiced by Zuma and the monogamy as practiced in traditional western cultures both lend themselves to that kind of use and abuse of woman because the women are not equal partners. This is the crux of the matter. Not how many partners you decide to marry but how equal the relationship is. “control over women’s reproductive capacity and agricultural labour” is what is wrong not how many woman (or men) are involved. It creates a lack of freedom for those so controlled. Why have we not heard from even one of Zuma’s wifes? Are they not allowed to comment? Allowed?
Lyndall: “There is little difference between labola and the dowry system -except the European dowry the women paid.”
This is actually quite a big difference, aside from the fact that dowry isn’t “paid” to the parents of the groom, but is the bride’s contribution to the newly established household. The quid pro quo was of course that the groom would be expected to be the breadwinner. The quid pro quo for lobola, on the other hand, is that the wife was expected to work for the husband. If she became too ill to work or failed to produce children, the husband would be entitled to reclaim his lobola from the parents.
X-cepting: “As one Zulu commentator pointed out, the point of polygamy was to make sure no woman were left homeless when her husband died in the war.”
According to the Bible, that was the how the Hebrews justified polygamy, but in African culture men have traditionally been allowed to take more wives irrespective of whether they were widows or not. It was rather the case that the unmarried men were encouraged to go into war for the purpose of winning their own cattle, the main form of lobola.
haiwa tigere
The missionaries did not say whether it was OK or not; the were persuaded by the blacks that the practice was not un-Christian, which was the only point that mattered.In other words the practice in no ways conflicted with the words of Christ.
Which polygamy does because Christ’s own words were “the TWO shall become ONE”
The missionaries did not own any land – they worked in the homelands where no whites could own land.
But the Afrikaner offered my ancestor a farm as a gift. He refused the farm but said he would like it if they named the farm after him.
Do you think I should put in a land claim for the town of Lindley?
@RodMacKenzie
“I am not officially married but my understanding is that by SA law Marion and I would have been regarded as common in law husband and wife after being together after six months and thus have legal recourse and Marion can argue to have my estate, assuming we had no will.”
There is no concept of Common Law Marriage in South African law – http://www.meumannwhite.co.za/family-law/ (it’s towards the middle).
“…very few of us – men or women – want more than one spouse.” I think that’s a personal experience, and your feelings are no doubt formed by the cultural norms you grew up with. It’s like saying “most people want to be Christian”.
Hi Foom, on very few people wanting more than one spouse, virtually everyone I know, various races, different religions, non-religious, don’t want more than one serious spouse. I would love you to prve me wrong statistically. But then you would want me to prove you wrong and I can’t – statistically. But I firmly hold that opinion. But what I said is not as, you say, ‘ like saying “most people want to be Christian”’. That is not tenable.
Thanks for updating me on that Common Law Marriage. However, I know of legal battles where partners who never got married in any way still use the length of their stay together to fight for for various material things. So the SA law does allow for that interpretation. I am not a legal expert, I hasten to add.
Here in Malawi African society is tolerant of multiple partnerships of various forms. Amongst the Ngoni people (to whom the Zulus are related)polygamy is still openly practiced. It does not have the sanction of the churches so many avowedly Christians do not openly practice it but still continue to have multiple partners. The traditional insurance of lobola is thus denied the second and subsequent partners and many temporary arrangements are entered into without stability. Amongst the other peoples whose practices are matrilocal many ‘marriages’ under the pressures of modern life away from the village become unstable to the detriment of ‘wives’ and children. The men become very mobile and thus serially polygamous. As society modernises so traditional family systems crumble. As a libertarian I see no reason to condemn a system with which society has no problem and condones by lack of open debate. Whilst we can decry the breakdown of traditional family life, we must realise that it is only the oppressed who can free themselves. Ask George Bush about regime change. Feminists and others concerned with injustice can only encourage and educate the apparently oppressed African women. But, what I have noted is that the women are very predatory in their pursuit of married men and seem to accept polygamy and men’s infidelity. Many of the women are now practicing hidden but effective polyandry. It is only AIDS education that is helping to reduce it.
@Robard – I am neither christian nor Zulu so I will take the viewpoint of a Zulu on Zulu culture and that of a christian?
It made sense though. The young men might have been enticed to war with the promise of lobola for the best woman just as the woman, I suspect, would have been placated by the promise of another husband should their’s die. The decisions of an astute leader who wishes to continue having the support of his men (and woman).
In older times, I suspect that polygamy was reserved for the chief (most able leader). It made sense for the strongest male to father the most children (good husbandry). I do not see the chief having any of his power diminished by untested rivals taking as many wifes.
This is all surmise though. None of it was ever recorded, except perhaps by missionaries, who understood from a Christian-European perspective and could have got it all wrong. I prefer to stick with the simplest solution that would have served the interest of the tribe as a whole. People are people the world over and do things mostly the logical way to fit a given set of circumstances. To suggest that Zulus are any different from other human beings is to insult them.
X Cepting
Obviously, no matter what the marriage customs of a tribe, if the tribe manages to survive over time, those customs do serve the interests of the tribe as a whole. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it serves the interests of the men and women constituting the tribe in equal measure. To suggest that any kind of equality is possible under polygamy is easily refuted by the mere application of numeracy and logic. Given that there are more or less equal numbers of males and females born in any given population, it is numerically impossible for every man to have an equal number of wives under polygamy – as you seem to suggest. Also, I cannot see how the circumstance of one man with many wives can imply anything but subordinate positions for his wives.