The Paradox of Jacob Zuma

When he became president Nelson Mandela famously spoke of his vision of a ‘rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.’ This was not only a call for equality between races, but between all people of South Africa, regardless of gender, culture or religion. While this statement was met with rapturous hope, over the last decade the challenges of nurturing such diversity have become apparent, not least the necessity of a South African government to strike a balance between the country’s ancient heritage and its current drive towards social reform. Jacob Zuma’s recent polygamous marriage to a thirty-three year old woman from Durban has once again ignited dialogue concerning this often-strained relationship, and the suitability of Mr. Zuma to lead South Africa into the future.

While traditionalists have stood by the politician’s decision to embrace Zulu culture, many progressives and feminists have been outraged by the contradictions inherent in the ANC’s political stance, and the way in which its leader conducts his private life. 

By its very nature polygamy sits uneasily with calls for gender equality and the idea that marriage should consist of a partnership built upon mutual trust and respect. When a man takes multiple wives this sense of partnership is necessarily compromised, and some fear that this leads to a situation whereby women become little more than commodities or appendages to their husbands. Such inequality, when nurtured in the privacy of the home, is bound to expand to the public sphere, and is particularly worrying when seen in the household of the possible future leader of the country.

The voter may also wonder why Mr. Zuma feels the need to marry again. He has repeatedly championed his first wife who recently told a reporter that she ‘would love to be the first lady should he be elected’, and yet his marriage to a much younger woman whom The Mercury describes as a ‘Durban socialite’ has raised questions about the motives behind the match. Has Mr. Zuma chosen a new, more youthful and attractive wife because he considers her to be a more suitable public figure, and if so, are these really the qualities that a leader should focus upon and extol?

Nor is this the first time that Mr. Zuma’s treatment and opinions of women have been called into question, or that promises of reform by the party have clashed with his so-called ‘traditional’ ideals. Whilst on trial for rape, for which he was later acquitted, he demonstrated a startling lack of understanding of gender equality and the sensitivities that surround it, stating in his defence that the plaintiff was wearing a provocative traditional wrap-around skirt and that in Zulu culture it is a crime for a man to let a sexually aroused woman go unfulfilled. 

While ANC supporters have publicly professed that Zuma’s private life can coexist with the party’s progressive manifesto, an early denouncement of the marriage reports as ‘lies’ by an ANC spokesperson in January surely suggests an uneasy acknowledgement of tension. The party may have hoped to keep separate the two sides of its leader, but in a global network of media and information communication technology, private and public lives are inevitably conjoined.

The ANC has promised to increase female representation in government to 50% in 2009 and to promote access to employment, healthcare and education facilities, but through his bullish attitude to traditionalism, Zuma is fast losing the confidence of his progressive female voters who fear that his personal hypocrisy will manifest itself in the policies and priorities of the party. The history and heritage of a nation should not be ignored, but the honouring of cultural practices must never be used as an excuse for the promotion of inequality, or for the inaction that allows for such inequality to exist. Whether or not Mr. Zuma can deliver his promise of gender reform whilst so zealously contradicting it in his personal life remains to be seen.