Khama has the right to decide whether to get married

Lebohang Letsie* | Friday July 6, 2007 00:00

Many of the writers, whether or not they think Khama ought to marry before he ascends to the Presidency, seem to be firmly located within the functionalist and patriarchal perspectives, which they seem to regard as unproblematic, God-given and therefore generaliseable to everyone. This kind of thinking unfortunately fails to take account of the political issues of diversity and difference in society.

In this response, my position is premised on questioning and challenging dominant assumptions and discourses. This problematising stance seeks to uncover regressive tendencies in these discourses. This stance also subscribes to a political philosophy that, among others, denounces any form of institutionalised discrimination, marginalisation and oppression of any group in society. It also denounces selective application of issues of morality and human rights.

Many of the views about the Vice President's marital status fall into the ideological trap of portraying the conventional patriarchal 'male headed family' as the standard...in fact as the only standard and framework for a fulfilling family life. But in reality, the patriarchal 'family' is but one of many existing family forms, which include, among others, households headed by single females, households of cohabiting partners, households headed by single men, including families of same-sex partners. Granted, some of these may be in the patriarchal family mould but there are some women and men who consciously denounce the dominant patriarchal family values and who wage a political struggle to build alternative family forms based on family values that are anti-sexism, anti-classism and anti any social injustice. These values also denounce any form of gender and other violence.

 There is a whole spectrum of family forms on the ground but many of the writers on Khama's marital status seem to suggest, subtly or overtly, that the conventional 'male headed family' is the best and only acceptable family form and that it imparts the most socially desirable family values and norms.   This common assertion knowingly or unknowingly demonises other family forms and pretends that the conventional 'male headed family' form holds a monopoly to rearing well rounded and balanced children.
There is a puzzling and untested view that other family forms are dysfunctional and rear social misfits. But the reality on the ground strongly suggests that conventional family values are not always democratic and are to some extent premised on sexist intra-family physical, verbal, emotional, psychological and economic abuse of its members.

This kind of abusive environment provides a potent breeding ground for dysfunctional family members.  So the general posturing that the conventional 'male headed family' form provides the only trajectory for social stability is both a falsehood and a thinly disguised ideological tool that is employed to demonise other family forms and deny their value to society.

This of course does not suggest that all units of this family form are undemocratic and harmful to their members. Nor does it suggest that alternative family forms are beyond reproach.  It is more of a reminder of the dangers of assuming that the dominant is necessarily unproblematic.

Getting back to 'marriage' and 'family', it is important to emphasise that any discussion of the two must take account of the ideological minefield they evoke. 'Marriage' and 'family' are patriarchal ideological constructs whose stability and reproduction thrive on the subordination of women. The conventional 'family', provides a significant backbone for patriarchy and without subordinated women, patriarchy and the conventional family might be  an endangered species. 'Lenyalo le ya itshokelwa' is a common but loaded mobilising slogan for women to persevere in marriage and thus directly uphold patriarchal values. (Log Raditlhoka hits much harder in his articles on sexism and the heterosexual marriage and his piece in the Midweek Sun of 20 June 2007 are strongly worded, even though it shies away from exploring the theoretical underpinnings of unequal power relations between women and men).

(Once again it is important to acknowledge the complexity of social relations and note that not all women are oppressed and powerless all the time.  There are men who are subjected to severe forms of abuse by women. However, this scenario does not diminish the reality that the unequal power relations between men and women are informed, institutionalised and legitimised by the social order, which ever way different people may interpret that social order. Patriarchy as an analytical framework is of course informed by the philosophical positioning of the writer). 

Patriarchy does not only institutionalize gender discrimination. It also provides the trajectory for class, racial, ethnic and other forms of oppression. It has become a staunch ally of capitalism (some Marxist feminists aptly label it 'patriarchal capitalism') and has thrived on the 'divide and rule' political philosophy as it entrenches different forms of social injustice.  Revolutionary comrades who defend patriarchy but denounce capitalism are guilty of embracing one half of the devil while rejecting the other.
Perhaps they need to remember that class and gender do not exist in isolation of each other but are mutually reinforcing social categories. Capitalism itself is a gendered ideology and denying this dimension of it creates a lopsided, incomplete and exclusivist view of the social world and human experience.

But to come back to the issues of marriage and family.... my observation is that heterosexual marriage is not the simplistic coming together of a loving couple, despite the common pretence that it is. It is a major tool for patriarchal social organization and ordering, with the family acting as the major site for the socialization of children into patriarchal values and norms.

My point is that 'marriage' and 'family' pose problematic political questions and we need to dig deeper to expose the relations of domination and subordination embedded in them. Problematising these social relations is not easy, because the dominant voice in society is deeply hostile to challenges to its established assumptions, despite the unjust nature of those assumptions. These dominant discourses in our patriarchal and capitalist social order relentlessly seek to shape our view of the world to the extent where we assume their view as 'natural and God-given' and therefore as unproblematic. Alternative voices and re-definitions of the world are rejected and are portrayed as threatening to the natural scheme of life. But these totalising discourses must be challenged and problematised to expose their deceit and treachery.

This explains my reasons for this brief exploration of 'marriage' and 'family'. The intention is to challenge the taken-for-granted notions and meanings of the two and observe how we have been programmed to view them in simplistic terms, thus obscuring their ideological and inevitably problematic basis.

Should Botswana approve of an unmarried President? My attitude is that there are no simple answers. Bearing in mind the ideological complexity of 'marriage' and 'family', my reaction is that the Vice President should have a whole terrain of choices to make. He could remain single for the rest of his life....he has the personal autonomy to do so.
He could adopt children (and there are many orphans in our midst) and bring them up as a single parent. He could marry a woman and embrace alternative family values. Heck, he could even take the Michael Jackson route and have a surrogate mother bear him children in a strictly consensual commercial transaction.

The important thing is for us to wake up and smell madila and kabu!!!! Leave the man to make his own choice. I can only hope he will be honest to himself.  And then we should unconditionally support his choice...mindful of the complexity of issues of difference and diversity.

*Lebohang Letsie is Lecturer of Gender Studies
at the University of Botswana