With South Africans contemplating the very real possibility of having many first ladies, Lindiwe Mlandu and Ebrahim Moolla debate the question of polygamy. As a cultural practice, is there still a need for polygamy in the 21st century?

Lindiwe Mlandu reckons that polygamy is outdated and that Jacob Zuma is the perfect example of why it no longer works?

Here is the good example of why polygamy is no longer relevant in the 21st century: Jacob Zuma aka Msholozi.

He has put himself forward as the carrier of the Zulu culture and one of the aspects of this culture that he wears so proudly is polygamy. But Zuma has four wives and he is practically bankrupt.

Polygamy was traditionally practised by men who had wealth and authority. In many African cultures a man can have as many wives as he can afford. Clearly this is not the case in Zuma's situation. Fraudster Schabir Shaik's trial provided plenty of evidence that Jacob Zuma cannot afford his many wives and that to continually take more wives is perversion of a tradition.

So, is Zuma's case a unique one or is polygamy outdated?

In the past there were numerous practical and societal motivations for polygamy. These included the following:

  • Women were regarded as property and many wives were a sign of prestige and social standing.

  • Many children were a sign of wealth.

  • On a practical level, more wives increased the number of children and thus the chances the survival of the community.

  • If the first wife could not bear children or could bear only daughters then the man could take a second wife.

  • A polygamist relationship offered women security that they may not have otherwise had.
    • However most of these motivations no longer apply. Modern society has its own challenges which are not necessarily helped by practices such as polygamy.

    Some may argue that polygamy is part of their culture. I beg to differ, because culture is not static, it changes with time. Clearly, polygamy is no longer relevant in these modern times and it should, therefore, be left in the past.

    Firstly, in theory at least, women are no longer regarded as property. Our Constitution states that all people are equal. In a polygamist relationship there is no such a thing as equality ? the man is superior and the first wife is more important than all the other wives. How does a practice which infringes on women's rights have a place in our society?

    Secondly, the issue of population is no longer relevant. Our society is battling over-population as it is and perpetuating a system designed to increase the population will just make matters worse.

    Finally, according to the UN, polygamy is seen as a major driving force behind the spread of HIV/Aids in Southern Africa. While the risk of HIV/Aids is not limited to those in polygamist relationships, it certainly increases the risk. If someone from a monogamist marriage is unfaithful they may infect their partner but in a polygamist marriage if one of the eight people decides to be unfaithful he or she could infect all seven other people.

    So, is polygamy still relevant? Well, if you can afford to look after five wives, educate thirteen kids and figure out how to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids, then sure, go for it.

    Always controversial, Ebrahim Moolla draws on the Bible, feminism and cultural heritage to argue in favour of polygamy.

    The biblical King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives. While that may have proved to be a logistical nightmare (not to mention the incessant nagging), it is in man?s nature to acquire a harem ? the silverback alpha male concept as inescapable a part of our DNA as it was thousands of years ago.

    Give me a penny for any heterosexual male who wouldn?t want to pile drive 700 women and I?ll show you abject poverty. It is only this fallacy that romantic love is some kind of manna from heaven and a prerequisite for marriage, and a disavowal of lust that gives polygamy this unwarranted stigma.

    When polygamy was outlawed in the US in the 19th century, it was dismissed as a feature of African and Asian life, and considered odious by the nations of northern and Western Europe, as if this was a rationale in itself. Sadly, it is exactly this kind of antiquated thinking that mars debate on the subject. Polygamy definitely isn?t worse than the current Western alternative of serial monogamy, nor does it equal promiscuity or a kowtow to male superiority. In fact, polygamy can be considered empowering to women.

    Writer and one of six wives, Elizabeth Joseph calls the polygamous relationship the ultimate feminist lifestyle, providing her the environment and opportunity to maximize her feminine potential without all the tradeoffs and compromise that attend monogamy.

    Polygamy also places financial and ethical controls on men, creates skilled husbands, allows for diverse needs, childcare, with an increased emphasis on security and support networks, and ultimately increases the value of women in society. In an age where same sex marriage is legal, it is nothing more than hypocrisy to demonize polygamy. And what can be more liberal and progressive than gender equality?

    Before we dismiss polygamy as irrelevant, let?s first examine the jaundice of our blinkered Western thinking, that ignores the religious and cultural heritage, economic conditions and realities of a large part of the world in it?s quest for a Pyrrhic ?progress?. I can?t countenance that such petty discrimination is suitable fodder for a debate.

    Who do you agree with? Share your thoughts below?