3-mob.com 
14th century Arab Historian Ibn Khaldun best known for his work Muqaddimah argued that cities, states and empires could not exist or survive without societal solidarity.
He argued for the need for internal consensus, about its aims. This is not a claim for the throw-away pop psychology lipstick on a pig style of democracies pandered as a coalition of the willing.
As a whole, a successful society, Ibn Khaldun believed in an ultimate goal.
A Harare woman, Priccilar Vengesai, has approached the Constitutional Court to have the practice of lobola abolished, according to The Herald. And if that does not work it must be paid both ends for gender equality.
The subject is something that divides opinion sharply, with many seeing it as a form of commercial exploitation, others the sale of women, even more a rite.
In her argument Vengesai says she felt ‘like an object’ when in previous marriages a ‘lobola price’ pegged without her input was something that ‘demoralised’ her and left her under her ‘husband’s control’. She adds that she was deprived of an opportunity to pay the family of her husband for lobola.
She also made the argument that greedy parents were now exploiting the custom and not using it for what it was originally meant.
In essence some of those arguments including what some other customs have, where dowry is paid as form and respected.
In effect section 56 (2) and (3) of the constitution speaks to right to non-discrimination and equality for all under the law. It also includes the culture in that respect.
And in her own right Vengesai has that right to feel discriminated.
However it can become problematic in that this right can be classified as lacking that collective approach, the societal internal consensus.
While she means well, when Vengesai refers to herself of being of the Shona tribe, she paints a complex group of ethnic groups as having a homogenous experience with a singular emotion and interpretation. By that alone there is a flawed argument as she cannot lay claim to representing the values of all groups and clans identified as such for purposes of contextualising an argument.
Secondly, this opens up a whole can of worms. What does it mean for the Tonga, the Sotho and other minority groups who will obviously be affected by her personal grievances with a custom. Do we also start looking at white weddings as many of the traditions therein came from a place less fashionable now eg giving away the bride (traditionally fathers gave their daughters as payment for debt etc), the best man (was meant to be armed backup in case the bride tried to run away), bridesmaids dress (dress was meant to trick evil spirits and ex boyfriends from the bride) etc. Does that mean that Christian who are infatuated with these customs will have to ask the state intervene?
Also section 60 of the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience. This protects that of Vengesai but also of those she disapproves of and add 63 (b) which says:
Every person has a right to participate in a cultural life of their choice
Marriage is an institution which by its nature is a backed by the intentions and will of those involved in it. If entered into without that, where one does not feel the person they marry holds the same values as they do, it becomes difficult and sometimes impossible.
Which leads us to the most problematic of them all…
Allowing the state to police the private lives of individuals. Today it is how they decide to get married, tomorrow it is how much is too much or too little sex. Then it will want to preside over what religion you and your partner should have and what to do if you disagree over whether you should sadza rezviyo or mupunga. Once that door opens it means that you ask the state to be involved in many things that it should have no business sticking its nose in, where common sense must prevail.
While many will see problems with lobola, getting the state involved, cannot be the answer.
Back to Ibn Khaldun. He said nomadic societies tended to be more cohesive because they existed with high degrees of internal bonding and little material culture to lose. Urban societies did not need this to survive and so tended to be more self-indulgent and lacking both “martial spirit” and the concomitant social solidarity.
Given that scenario, while we in the city can walk about and think we are more enlightened, seduced by the pleasures of urbanisation, we think that the customs that formed the basis of what we built are now repressive, because well, there is no blood that binds us.
It is a dangerous path to walk down.
Comments
Loading…