Polygamy isn't African - It's patriarchal

South Africa's president Jacob Zuma is at it again. In the traditional ceremony for his fifth marriage, this time to the beautiful Thobeka Madiba, he once again delved into the archives of history and emerged with a relic which he imposed on modern life. The other time he did this was when he sang a liberation song "Bring me my machine gun" years into post-apartheid South Africa. The song would become the deadly anthem of poor black South Africans who lynched African immigrants whom they considered the new colonial masters.

Worst of all, Zuma feels that he is doing the world a favor.

He is doing his wives a favor because, he argues, many other men have mistresses and children whom they hide from the rest of the world. He says he is giving legitimacy to his wives whom he loves and his children whom he is proud of. Granted, he does deserve some credit for doing openly what many other men do in secret. But that argument does not point to the intrinsic value of polygamy; it simply tells women to suck it up - it could have been worse. It essentially says that the problem with men having several mistresses/wives and children is that the men are not open about it; not that the men are relating to women as less than equals and reducing them to child bearers. That is why it is instructive that the only woman who divorced Zuma is now the home affairs minister.

The other thing that the justification of polygamy does not say is that polygamy reduces the responsibility of men as fathers to that of siring children and transforms families into small fiefdoms. By the time a man has three wives and over 10 children, and has the responsibility of governing a powerful country like South Africa, it is unlikely that he has time to do anything else but bark orders and ensure that everyone is contained so that disputes between the wife-units do not spiral out of control. Fathers might have gotten away with not being intimately involved with their children in the days villages raised children because morals were strong and adults took interest in the welfare of all children, not just their own. But in urban society where people barely know their neighbors, or where the president's family is separated from the village by virtue of his national responsibilities, cursory fatherhood should not be an option.

Moreover, being open about something does not make it right. We say the same thing about American conservatives and their European counterparts who spew racist statements in political gatherings and on the airwaves and argue that they are being honest and not hiding behind political correctness. Those arguments suggest that we are stupid enough to expect them to change what they really feel, when in actual fact the problem is with the fact that they are leaders of government or opinion. Similarly, Zuma's marital set-up becomes more disturbing by virtue of his national position. What is he saying to men, and to his society, by showing so much disrespect for women? Zuma's behavior is a far cry from that of great men like Thomas Sankara who recognized that healthy marriages and empowered women were the foundation of social revolution.

Zuma and his sympathizers will also have us believe that he is doing Africa favors by upholding "African" traditions in the modern era. That is sad, because there are better and more important African values and traditions to uphold which will empower African societies. As Fanon said, culture is not a relic imported from the past and imposed on the present, but that which captures the living aspirations of the people and helps them confront the challenges they face. I would refer to Sankara's harnessing of African mythical values attached to forests in order to promote the re-forestation of Bourkina Faso. As part of this effort, he encouraged families to plant a tree every time they commemorated milestones such as marriages.

This endeavor becomes significant on the heels of the Copenhagen summit, during which African leaders barely raised a voice as Western countries avoided taking responsibility for reducing global warming which will impact Africa the most by turning the continent into an oven. Copenhagen might have been a better forum for Zuma to sing "Bring me my machine gun," since the West has basically declared war on us by using the climate as its weapon. And getting married in such an elaborate ceremony was not a good idea coming on the heels of the political disaster that was the Copenhagen summit. Of all the issues that the continent is facing in this day and age, it is an insult for an African leader to harness only "traditions" which enhance his ego and not the welfare of the society.

Some justify Zuma's marriages by arguing that they connect him to the rural South African folk who endorse polygamy. Again, this seems to be a petty platform to seek camaraderie when the voters are faced with more concrete needs such as education, employment and infrastructure. On the other hand, the folly of democracy is that the masses in the lower echelons of society are often fascinated by the rich and famous. They vote for people they aspire to be - rich, beautiful and in this case with multiple wives - rather than ordinary people like themselves. They are flattered when the rich talk as if they are the ordinary people they are obviously not, or when the rich occasionally roll up their sleeves to mingle with ordinary people in traditional dances, meals and ceremonies.

Hence in the US voters would choose actors such as President Reagan and Governor Schwarzenegger, sons of senators such as Al Gore, or the Havard- and Georgetown-educated Obama and Clinton respectively. Even when the men come from humble beginnings, the rule of the thumb is that they have left those humble beginnings and are living a relatively glamorous life before people will give them the vote. That's why magazines like People and the tabloids are still in business. And why the busloads of people transported to Zuma's wedding may not have noticed that the wealth which allows Zuma to afford a huge family and lavish ceremonies and which obscenely contrasts their living standards. What matters is that he makes them proud by seeming to live according to the same lifestyle and values.

Calling polygamy African suggests that there is something intrinsically and uniquely African about marrying several publicly recognized wives, when the facts demonstrate the opposite. Countries in the Middle East accept polygamy, which, according to Islamic principles, can be entered into as long as the man is able to treat all wives equally. A number of significant Old Testament characters were polygamous. And even if polygamy was outlawed under Christianity, European kings and nobility over history had official and unofficial mistresses who were bankrolled by the state, and more notorious figures such as Henry VIII had a succession of wives in addition to the mistresses. In the modern day, Clinton, Kennedy, Mitterand and other presidents frolicked with women other than their wives. So what is the common link between all these men? Wealth, power... and chaos.

Abraham enjoyed the African man's ideal of having his wife Sarah suggest that he has a child with Hagar, her servant. But the tables overturned when Sarah got her own son. With the animosity that followed, Abraham caved in to Sarah and sent Hagar and his son to almost certain death in the dry wilderness. God intervened, but the legacy of that relationship continues to be explosive to this day.

The "wise" King Solomon must be the most notorious case of a fool who invited disaster. With his 700 wives and 300 concubines, he fulfilled the Prophet Samuel's prediction that having a king would subject Israel to unnecessary taxation in order to fund the king's excesses. The bitterness caused by Solomon's expensive lifestyle would lead to a split in the kingdom immediately after his rule. African epics about the great Mande and Songhai empires also tell of sibling rivalries over succession in the polygamous imperial families, which ultimately weakened the empires. It is therefore difficult to believe those who try to portray an era in Africa in which polygamy was an idyllic peaceful agreement that wives enjoyed and in which children interacted amicably.

Moreover, while polygamy may seem rampant in many African societies because it is accepted, the fact is that it has always been the reserve of the rich because few people can afford it. Few women would agree to be the second or third wife of an obviously poor man. They typically marry into polygamous marriages to gain access to actual or perceived wealth. If the woman is from a wealthy family - as is the case of the Swazi princess Zuma is reportedly engaged to - the marriage is for sealing political alliances and would be no different from the marriages between princes and princesses of different European kingdoms which make European royal families, from England to Russia, all related to one another. However, people are often willing to overlook or minimize these problems,confirming the Gikuyu proverb which says that the fart of the rich does not stink.

It is therefore justifiable to argue that Zuma has been able to marry his five wives, and is set to marry a sixth, largely because he is the president of South Africa. And the so-called "traditionalists" who supposedly connect with him on the principle of cultural integrity are simply men who admire and envy him for his wealth, status and women. But more sadly still, in an era in which Africa confronts complex issues, Zuma offers not leadership but hyper-masculine and retarded model of African manhood. This manhood reduces African men from human beings to caricatures. It gives men like Zuma tastes and habits which are unnecessary but funded by taxpayers in a country where many citizens live in poverty. It exploits women and endorses their status as second-class citizens who do not relate to their husband as equals or pursue their own potential and ambitions. It reduces a nation to one not ruled by freedom and concern for fellow human beings but one subjugated by distorted and exploitative masculine values.

There is nothing "African" about demeaning half of Africa's population and leading the other half to follow suit. Neither is there anything "African" in offering leadership based on bogus manhood and ego-centrism rather than on vision and principles which pull society out of traditional escapism into a living culture that empowers people through education, social services and economic empowerment.