In 2006 South Africa became the first African state (and the fifth in the world) to grant same-sex couples equal marriage rights. The country was a major pacesetter on the journey towards marriage equality which still seems to be an unattainable goal in Italy. South Africa really deserves the definition of “Rainbow Nation” coined by Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for outlining a proper coexistence project following the terrible times of apartheid. The country wants to celebrate all its diversities: ethnic, religious, linguistic and sexual.
Nonetheless, centuries-long colonialism and racist policies have left a heavy legacy when it comes to the recognition of marriage equality: for example, the law still does not recognize religious weddings celebrated by Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish communities. Rules on marriages clearly need to be revised (not least because it is not clearly prohibited to marry an underage person), which is why the Home Office collected comments and proposals from civil society, which were then gathered in the 76-page Green Paper. It deals with a large number of topics, including legal gender recognition for people who are already married.
Polygyny and polyandry
The controversy, however, has all been focused on one issue: polyandry, that is, marriage between a woman and two or more men. To properly understand the matter, we need to delve into marriage customs in the country. South Africa has different matrimonial regimes: civil marriage and customary marriages, that are different for each ethnic group, and that are 2-3% of all marriages celebrated in the country. Civil marriage is always and solely between to people, customary marriages of some communities allow polygyny, which is one man marrying two or more women.
Why is polygamy, i.e., marry multiple spouses, accepted for men but not for women? Many organizations have stressed this obvious discrimination and suggested to rectify it by openly acknowledging polyandry. The idea, like all others, was put in the Green Paper, and it specifies that “those who support polygamy [actually polygyny; ed.] oppose polyandry”. This was confirmed by the flood of outraged remarks that many religious leaders have addressed to the Home Office, guilty of wanting to impose a reform abhorred by their interpretation of African religion and traditions.
Misogynistic comments
Almost all comments were imbued with misogyny. Just to cite one example, Evangelist Reverend Kenneth Meshoe, who founded the right-wing movement African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), said, “If a woman is shared by three men and they all want her the same night, what will happen? It can lead to a fight. Men are jealous!”. Yet, Meshoe has no problem with polygyny, which he defends as part of tradition. Clearly, for this politician and religious man, a wife is an object that a husband should be allowed to use how and when he wants, and male jealousy justifies violence.
In an op-ed in the Saturday Star, Kevin Ritchie commented bitterly, “What the media did get wrong was the almost total failure to ask women what they think about having multiple husbands. It’s fairly obvious what most South African men want, although those who are married will say it’s hard enough keeping up with one wife. Given our rate of deadbeat dads, absent fathers and abusive husbands, maybe there might be some merit in legalizing polyandry. Maybe women want more than one guy; one to do the garden, one to cook and one to make the bed, literally and figuratively. We won’t know because no one deigned to ask them. Instead, it was the polygamists who seemed to make the most noise”.
Surprises ahead?
Precisely: what do women think? There are no reliable statistics on this (except an ambiguous Times Live online poll, where only 39% of voters oppose polyandry). Yet, it is interesting to read the arguments brought ahead by jurist Lize Mills and gender policy scholar Amanda Gouws, who have made a list of some possible advantages for polyandrous families: women would have more control over their bodies and lives, decision-making power would be shared, no one would be excluded from property rights, offspring would be raised collectively, and all potential fathers would be involved in the upbringing of children…
Mills and Gouws’ conclusions are perhaps a bit simplistic, but they show us reality from a point of view that is hardly ever taken into consideration. On the other hand, as the local newspaper The Star states, “The responses to the Green Paper have also been revealing because it has once again shown that, on the whole, South Africa remains culturally conservative”. There is yet a maybe more important element that the editorial highlights, “but while South Africans might be considered conservative, we are also tolerant of those who do not share our cultural practices, for ours is a country that is a melting pot”.
Pier Cesare Notaro
translation by Antonio Pauletta
©2021 Il Grande Colibrì
immagini: elaborazione da Dezalb (CC0) e South African Tourism (CC BY 2.0)
