Zulu Queen Mantfombi Dlamini’s death has been extensively covered, warts and all – especially the ugly warts seeking power and financial gain. These indigenous monarchies usually operate quietly, doing their own thing, unlike the British where they’re part and parcel of the nation at large.
It has also highlighted something of which unenlightened South Africans are unaware. The cost of running these royal houses are born by taxpayers.
But what I personally find intriguing is another underplayed fact. Polygamy, outlawed in most countries, is a way of life; also putting great strain on the fiscus. This aside, is polygamy a good or bad thing?
There’s still one religious fraternity in the US still actively engaged in polygamy. This despite being against the law and societal norms.
Perhaps one reason they’ve been left in peace is that, save for the bed hopping, they’re an honest, hardworking lot. And according to a writer who researched the group, wives are carefully selected, each with a particular interest and expertise.
Among them is a cook, or seamstress, or cheese maker, or teacher. So, not all are partial to bedtime stories all the time – thus giving the husband enough breathing space and energy to tackle the multitudinous tasks called for in a community having to survive on its own steam. Farming is a major contributor.
Here’s the rub. Family planning is top priority. How many children can they cope with? How many can they financially afford to feed and educate? How many can comfortably be housed in the available space?
Here sexual restraint and discipline are called for, so the hubby can’t let rip when the mood takes him.
In a nutshell: a balanced lifestyle that flies in the face of critics who fail to see the serious shortcomings in their own so-called normal societies. The words rape, murder, robbery are not part of the vocabulary – no wonder the absence of law enforcement.
This can’t be said for polygamy as we know it.
Evidently here the husband, or king, calls the tune and dictates terms as to the number of wives he wants, and measures his sexual prowess by the number of children each wife conceives. And the taxpayer picks up the bill.
Comparing the two cases, which is more acceptable? A no brainer?
+If you thought this easy to answer, try this for size: Currently it's being debated whether it's acceptable for one wife to have more than one husband! What do the ladies think?