Is Jacob Zuma entitled to more wives?

I have always worked on the assumption that for every topic there is one individual in the world who is the ultimate expert on it. Of course the subject has to be narrow enough for an absolute expert to exist. By my reckoning this should, in all fairness, preclude the rest of us from ever discussing that particular topic without involving the established super-brain on it.

Using this watertight logic, I’m guessing that someone out there is an expert on the practice of polygamy. Whoever they are, they are about to become the second-best polygamy expert. Here goes:

I think that by not having the polygamy discussion now, we’re headed for a crisis in the near future. I personally prefer to be prepared for these things. As things stand, it’s really open season on JZ about his serial-wedder tendencies. Of course, people being the cowards that they are, no one is waging an overt, conventional war on Zuma and his posse (kings Zwelithini and Mswati III being the most prominent members of that posse). Everyone is employing hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and not allowing Msholozi to respond. I’d like to declare this debate officially open.

I think it’s unfair for me to continue writing about this without declaring where I stand on the subject. Readers like to know that sort of detail. It helps them make up their own minds about where they stand. Those who think I’m generally a moron who wastes prime space on Thought Leader by writing about my wet boxer shorts (your emails have not gone unnoticed) will be pro-polygamy if I’m anti-polygamy and vice versa. The converse is also true for the minority who think that Pulitzer is just round the corner for the Spear Chugger.

So I’ll take everybody out of their misery and declare which side I’m on. My view on polygamy is rather simple: when I grow up I want to be His Majesty the King Zwelithini kaDinuzulu. Feminists can barbeque my nuts. (Dear, you’re exempt.) There, I said it! I think people should be free to have as many wives (not spouses) as they can handle without having to explain themselves to anyone. On that note, allow me to explain.

If I were an attorney hired by the Annual Nuptials Club trio I cited above to defend them against the anti-Gillette (geddit?) crowd baying for their collective blood, they’d get their money’s worth. Once I was done working behind the scenes to ensure that the presiding judge was a middle-aged man, I’d be all set. It wouldn’t be too difficult to dismiss the idea of a female judge entirely. I’d argue very strongly that the case was too volatile and probably too emotional for a member of the aggrieved gender to adjudicate objectively. When the Gender Commission and all those other angry feminists took exception to my sexist argument and issued a passionate statement in protest, they’d be playing right into my hands. I’d simply respond with a short, sound-bite-laden statement such that the newspapers would lead with quotes from me that swayed public opinion:

‘So much anger! I think my point has just been made for me,’ says polygamy lawyer
Multiple-wives lawyer says ‘females just too emotional on this issue’
‘Please calm down, ferchrissakes!’ pleads JZ, kings lawyer

Public opinion would definitely swing “our” way and a male judge would be installed with the blessing of the ANC Women’s League. That lot is not dictated to by such ridiculous dogmatic considerations when it comes to women’s issues. Wathint’ abafazi wathint’ umhlanga. (Oh, ferchrissakes, look it up! This is Africa, after all.) And now with the bowling pins all set up for me, I’d move in to knock ‘em down.

Men will cheat anyway is the argument I’d open with. As all the feminist pressure groups collectively rolled their eyes heavenwards at the bankruptcy of this argument, I’d direct all the cameras towards their gallery to draw attention to the “sarcasm inherent in the system”.

“Do we want this kind of cynicism in our society?” I’d ask out loud to no one in particular.

And then I’d bring a string of marriage-counselling experts, divorce lawyers and family court magistrates to the stand. Witness after witness would testify how the number-one cause of divorce in this country was male infidelity. I’d bring an expert to testify how 87% of all married men had confessed to having had at least one affair with a woman during their marriage. When the opposing attorney inquired about the other 13%, my expert witness would testify that 10% of those had affairs with other men and that the remaining 3% was made up of the criminally unattractive and well-known Mamelodi Sundowns supporters. That Sundowns fact would elicit a collective gasp from the peanut gallery.

And then for the coup de grâce I’d take a 30-second pause, narrow my eyes into tiny slits and place my index finger on my chin. “Tell me if this is what we want,” I’d ask in a barely audible whisper. “Do we really want to undergo the same constitutional crisis that the Americans experienced in 1998? Do we want a scandal when the president is caught being Lewinsky’d at the Union Buildings?”

Do not impose Western values on us is a good argument to advance. It’s as good as playing the race card — and no one wants to be seen to be a racist, especially feminists. That lot has ism-phobia. I’d argue that my generation is only two or three generations from when polygamy was an acceptable way of life and how apartheid laws had contributed to the collapse of traditional systems, traditions and norms. My sound arguments would be loudly echoed by Dr Motshega over at the Kara Institute, for sure. And I bet you Dr Mosoko Pheko would struggle to contain himself and enter the fray. The court of public opinion would be getting ready to pass judgement by this point.

What does the Bible have to say about polygamy anyway? That is the question I’d pose to the Reverend Meshoe, subpoenaing him as a hostile witness for dramatic effect. He’s a favourite of mine, the good Rev, in case nobody has noticed. God bless that gentle, bearded man with a perm. I’d quote liberally from [insert appropriate verses from the Bible here]. I would wait for him to talk about not taking the Bible literally before I pounced on him: “A-ha! So we can pick and choose which verses we follow, huh? So why are you picking on Zackie Achmat? What has he ever done to you?” Irrespective of what he said, I’d score a little victory for the persecuted little ole polygamists in any case.

God or nature created us for polygamy would be my debate-ending argument. It wouldn’t really be necessary at this point because of all the excellent points I would have already raised by then. But I wouldn’t let up on the big guns.

I’d point out an interesting anomaly between the male and the female of the species. I’d point out that women can only fall pregnant and become a mother once a year. And then I’d argue that males could potentially father a child every hour if you gave them time to recuperate in between and you made them watch Debbie Does Dallas all day long. I’d put on my fake serious look as I castigated the members of the public gallery for their immaturity if they sniggered. They’d have to hang their heads in shame and allow this pearl of wisdom to sink in.

“So why did nature do this, I ask you?! Let me tell ya. This was done to allow men to have as many partners as they wish for the survival of the species. This was so that the alpha males with the good, strong and desirable genes would add as much of those genes to the pool as possible. Do we want women in our society to have to settle for Sundowns supporters and contaminate the gene pool?!” You know the drill by now — this would be delivered in an appropriately shrill, sharp voice for effect. The judge would have no choice at this point but bang that thingamajackhammer on the table and strike the case off the roll.

If anybody knows the polygamy expert in the country, please direct him to this piece. I’d love to hear what anyone could offer against this impregnable fortress of truth.

I thank you. (Delivered in my best Madiba voice.)

[email protected]