Response to ‘Gender equality rights versus traditional practices’ by John C Daly

The March 2001, 18(1) issue of Development Southern Africa has an article by John L Daly on ‘Gender equality rights versus traditional practices: struggles of control and change in Swaziland’, to which I would like to respond. The article is analytically superficial, interpretatively utopian and contextually thin, making several sweeping statements. The fundamental problem with the article is that it does not consider the literature that exists on the country (granted the literature is thin and limited). The impressive book, When the sleeping grass awakens, by Richard Levin, the seminal writings of Hilda Kuper, the extensive covering of Swaziland's international relations and foreign policy, by Paul‐Henri‐Bischoff and Phillip Bonner's Classes, the mode of production and the state in the pre‐colonial Swaziland among others, are omitted, a major research omission on a sensitive issue such as gender. The omission of this literature leaves the article at a basic level, presenting isolated and circumstantial dynamics of the Swazi people, misconstruing the social processes and misjudging the cultural context.

Daly makes the basic assumption that there is a ‘Swazi society’, which is essentially problematic in the context of this article. This concept underrates the practical experiences of the Swazi people, reducing them to ‘singlehood’ and ‘space boundedness’. To reduce a whole population of approximately one million people to a ‘Swazi society’ is a gross generalisation and a casual superficiality that has grave negative implications when dealing with gender issues. The concept lumps together both advocates and admonishers of culture, proponents and opponents of change, so much so that the intellectual quest that seeks to deal with this very utopia among Swazi people is undermined. The startling irony of this concept is born in the title of this article, as well as paragraph 2 on page 48, which states that the ‘government system is struggling to deal with the competing forces for change, one calling for increasing equality for women and the other calling for the return to traditional customary values’.

The fundamental flaw is that the author employs the propagandist language (e.g. ‘Swazi society’) of the incumbent government whose meaning, images and icons legitimise an oppressive process of gender inequality. In the presentation of a ‘Swazi society’ as a utopian collective, there are gross assumptions of a uniformity that has never existed and will not exist in any country. The use of the term ‘society’ in an almost ritualistic manner hides many divisions and cleavages that exist by way of political groups, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, ideological and mindset differences. In the process it hides inequalities, oppressive social hierarchies, discriminatory language and sexist attitudes. Levin (1997: 2–3) demonstrates how tradition was mobilised by the monarchy to create a ‘Swazi society’ depicted as ‘age‐old and unchanged’. This was used as the principal mobilising factor to maintain and develop the royal hegemony.

The liberal use of the concept leads Daly to the idea that ‘Swazi society is inherently one that prefers to avoid change’, as if Swazi people are a single entity. He substantiates this with Hall's view (an American‐converted Swazi himself) that Sibahle Sinje (meaning we are beautiful just as we are), adding ‘to change is unSwazi’ to depict the unchanging nature of the ‘Swazi people’. Thus, Daly argues, ‘the mores of the Swazis have been rock‐solid for many generations’. This is a flawed assertion. As Breytenbach (1979: 72–3) observes, ‘it is actually a misnomer to use “old” and “new” in describing the system of Swaziland, as the incumbents of new structures are essentially traditional authorities who have adapted remarkably to the needs of modern government’. Therefore, Swaziland is not resistant to change but embraces it. One needs to note, however, that it embraces change at a deliberately slow pace to manoeuvre a sociopolitical process that unmistakably favours the royalty and its aristocracy. It makes meticulous ‘face serving’ changes and adopts strategies such as signing treaties and setting up commissions and clubs that pay rhetoric service to gender equality while the royal hegemony is maintained. This political ploy has deluded many who attempt to understand the Swazi people to think that Swaziland is a single society moving forward as a utilitarian entity.

This conceptual rhetoric of ‘Swazi society’ creates an illusion of stability and a misrepresentation of silence as peace in the country. It threatens the minority, the individual, the unique or irregular, and the very core of gender equality. It is an ideological construct created and carried out by the aristocracy to serve its political and economic interests. As such, the people are not controlled through the barrel of a gun, but through socialisation of what they learn and believe in the Swazi social order. The ‘society’ becomes a psychological haven that weakens the determination of people to stand and fight oppression. According to Marxist arguments, such ideological constructs are an obstacle to revolution. Indeed, for a long time, Swazis have been viewed as a peace loving and docile nation. Inadvertently, both the literate and illiterate are aware of existing inequalities, but they view them as part of their Swazi order or as a practice that is hard to challenge due to the heavy‐handedness of the state (Levin, 1997). This, to a large extent, makes ‘activists in the country today to face the difficult task of convincing the public that resistance to an undemocratic government is not a betrayal of cultural identity’ (Salmond, 1997: 7).

Some academics have also fallen victim of the state and express their concerns using its language. For example, Daly's article projects the cultural group known as Sibahle Sinje as a representative reflection of Swazi people, which is a gross generalisation. Sibahle Sinje as a theatrical performance does not even begin to represent the Swazi people but appeases the mainline liberal perception that is purported in the notion of a ‘Swazi society’. In any event, any show is an oversimplification of reality. An interpretation from such theatrics is a misrepresentation of the social complexity of Swazi people. Even the Sarafina show (by Mbongeni Ngema) presented only a part of the maze of the spectrum of South African views about South Africa. An in‐depth research of Sibahle Sinje's activities revealed that this is an ambitious political youth group or wing of the incumbent government. The unveiling of this information would have empowered Daly to look critically at the institutions, structures, laws, social processes and the vocabulary that he implores in his article.

Furthermore, Daly states that ‘challenges to these social values will occur in the next quarter century’, assuming that no change in views on gender has yet occurred. This fallacy has been politically perpetuated in Swazi literature that pays tribute to the royal hegemony. Spiegel & Boonzaier (1988: 45) noted that anthropologists such as Marwick and Hilder Kuper were responsible for creating and perpetuating a picture of a people with traditions and lifestyles that existed and continue to exist in pristine isolation. Such (functionalist) writings have been used to highlight the significance of Swazi culture and tradition in order to control what people believe. As the Southern Africa Report (Anonymous, 1998: 19–20) argued, ‘invocation of “Swazi law and custom” being the common current of official political discourse from the conservative wing of government – serves an all‐purpose justification, or smoke screen, for activities deeply at odds with the interests of most Swazi people’.

Therefore, contrary to Daly's argument that the insulation and isolation from change have been a cause for gender inequality, I am of the opinion that the lack of change has created a playfield in which the vehicle of conservative thinking has adapted people to the dominating logic of the ‘Swaziana mentality or paradigm’ to maintain gender inequality. Thus, the domineering discourse of the Swaziana mentality has subjected alternative discourses of gender into subservience. Consequently, the higher the office of the female in the system, the more docile she becomes. Therefore, Daly's assumption that the impetus for gender equality will balloon in the next decade is an overanticipation. The very people who have privileges (the vice‐chancellor of the university, Her Royal Highness Indlovukati, to name one) and who use gadgets (satellite dishes, television, internet, etc., as Daly argues) contribute to the perpetuation of the status quo. The dominant culture of the royalist Swazi capitalist elite prevents the people from seeing the world in a democratic light. It is for this reason that Daly notes surprised that despite such dominant control, ‘Swaziland… is a peaceful country which has not been at war nor had substantial internal unrest in over a century’.

A closer look at the literature on women studies shows that the availability of technological gadgets has not always resulted in empowerment. In some cases, it has worsened the stability and harmony of relationships in families, as the acquisition of these material things has usually made men (who feel they are losing power) to be violent and abusive, causing single‐parenthood and other social anomalies such as divorce and unstable families. If anything, it is the changes in values, ethos and perception that facilitate democratic change which favour an improved status of women.

In Swaziland, family problems are huge. The Swaziland Association of Men and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are examples of attempts to promote gender equality rather than male dominance, but they are a drop in the ocean. This shows people do see the inequalities, but they are hindered by sociopolitical barriers to challenge them. This, in a way, is contrary to Daly's assumption that gender equality can only be realised through external influence and Westernised education. It is also contrary to Daly's assumption that no activity against gender abuse is taking place in the country. The state's philosophy of traditionalism prescribes maintaining old forms and institutions while changing content and meaning (McMillan, 1986). Unlike conservatism, which resists change, traditionalism is innovative and dynamic and emphasises infusion of new content and meaning into the old forms and institutions.

Surprisingly, although Daly assumes ‘an unchanging Swazi society’, he ironically argues that the structure of family (as if there is a rigid form of Swazi family) is breaking down ‘as men are forced to leave ancestral homelands to locate work in geographically distant settings’. The breakdown is unfortunately explained out of cultural context as he argues, ‘once the male leaves the home to find work, his spouse becomes solely responsible for the economic and nutritional well‐being of the children’. This assumes a total cut‐off of links between husbands and wives. However, some of the women are supported by their husbands' remittances while they are in the mines. Booth's (in Daniel & Stephen, 1986: 20) observation of the Swazi homestead is that, to the outside world, homestead life and cattle are under the exclusive authority of the umnumzane (the headman of a homestead), but internally the reality of ownership and responsibility are far more complex. In practice, wives normally have their own fields for cultivation which they and their unmarried children till, keeping a portion of the harvest for themselves while contributing the remainder for communal use.

Daly also ignores the traditional extended family set‐up that provides support through its networks, relations, memberships and associations. Daly's view is that the family is dying. However, there are clear signs that the family is not dead; rather it is transforming and assuming another shape. McDonald (2000) makes revealing conclusions against such myopia found in traditional research, the media and the general public, which assumes that people migrate to stay permanently in South Africa. McDonald shows that people only stay temporarily for contract jobs or hawking engagements. The book also shows that women make up the majority of migrants, contradicting Daly's statement that women are left behind. Further, it should be noted that when men leave to work in distant places, some find other women to satisfy their need for companionship, as noted by Daly. However, the reverse is also true, namely that the women left in the household may also find companions.

It is important to realise that beyond the Western traditional approach to gender issues, there are specific cultural issues of age, clan, status and history that effectively determine access to resources, power, freedom of speech and association in Swaziland (Kuper, 1965; Matsebula, 1972). To view gender issues outside the dynamics of these factors inhibits a proper understanding of gender inequality in the country. For instance, it is primarily the status of one's clan, age and family history that determines the dynamics of taking passports, opening bank accounts, moving from one region to another, and purchasing land or a home. Amongst the Swazi, the position of an individual within the order of the royal hegemony counts more than gender. Daly's Western view indiscriminately lumps different issues together, using uncontextualised circumstantial evidence to create an abrasive cultural environment of gender in Swaziland.

Subsequently, Daly does not distinguish between the practice of Swazi culture and the abuse of Swazi culture. According to Swazi culture and custom, inheritance is given to a mother or wife bearing the heir son – kubulawa idlu (translated literally: ‘designating a house’) [note that the notion of inheritance is not the same as in the Western sense]. The responsibility of inheritance is dedicated to a designated wife. Also, there are cattle that are ‘inherited’ by the wife when lobola is paid, known as umsulamnyembeti (Marwick, 1966: 44; Kasenene, 1990). The utilisation and distribution of such inheritance are supposed to be transacted in consultation between the mother, the son and family members. However, it is a well‐known fact that some sons abuse this privilege, and the abuse thereof does not make it Swazi culture. It is a mistaken view that ‘women’s inheritance rights are practically non‐existent in Swazi society', as Daly states.

It is also not true that those who ‘kick widows out of the house’ do so according to culture. Such cultural abuse emanates from economic pressures. Culture upholds strict respect of a person who has lost a husband; the same applies to the husband who has lost his wife (Marwick, 1966: 44). Another area that may mislead in this article is the United Nations statistic of 40 per cent of ‘women‐headed households’. This lacks qualification, as it is not clear whether this figure indicates exclusively those women with husbands working away from home, or constitutes those women who head the household by virtue of the fact that the eldest person becomes the head of the household in Swazi culture. As there are more grandmothers than grandfathers, numbers of women‐headed households are higher. (Life expectancy in 1994 was 52,4 years for males and 60,5 years for females; in 2001 it was 30 and 37, respectively.) Therefore, the high percentage is curiously questionable in a context where the extended family practice is strong.

Daly also quotes the traditional conservatives saying ‘women’s rights groups by demanding equality are really seeking gender superiority over Swazi males'. These are exactly the propagators of gender inequality and supporters of the current suppressive system of government. The Southern Africa Report (Anonymous, 1998: 19) noted, ‘some aspects of the traditional system are quaint to the point of comic opera’. This should clearly be seen as a particular mindset of a section of the Swazi people but not a general view, rather than a culture of the Swazis.

Furthermore, Daly points out that in Swaziland, traditional weddings account for 80 per cent of all marriages in which there is coercion in some instances. This figure is an overgeneralisation of the situation, as a deeper analysis of the Swazi people suggests otherwise. First, most traditional weddings occur after undertaking civil marriage. Therefore, this statistic does not distinguish between marriage and a wedding, which is different and often takes place at different times. A lot more couples undertake the civil and traditional weddings under a negotiated process of blending the traditional and Western processes of the ritual (negotiation leaves less room for coercion) known as Sishadawozi. Daly also needs to note that coercion is not fostered in Swazi traditional weddings, as it carries out elaborate processes of negotiation and acceptance between two families (e.g. lobola, inkhonto) (Marwick, 1966:44; Kuper, 1978; Booth, in Daniel & Stephen, 1986). Therefore, the negative sentiment imbedded in Daly's article about Swazi traditional weddings is single‐sided.

It is also important for Daly to note that a high political representation of women (in view of the fact that the Swazi Queen rules with the King) does not translate into gender equality. The fact that the chairperson of Sibahle Sinje is a feminist sets the epitome of the irony, as she heads the very structure that buttresses the suppression of women. In many cases, representation of women in organisations has not translated into enhancement of gender equality. Often the position of women has improved at the corporate level, but not at home. It is not a matter of numbers and position; rather it is a matter of cultivating values (social capital) that nurture respect of human rights and democracy between men and women without gender biases. These values are exhibited in the science of African culture, which emphasises solidarity, respect for life, humanity, generosity, hospitality, inclusion, friendliness, patience, tolerance and sympathy.

Daly points out that the culture accepts the dominance of males, with occasional beatings still considered an acceptable form of spousal control even by many Swazi courts. This is a sheer stereotype that comes with the abuse of culture by the current system of government. Culture does not accept the dominance of either male or female, rather culture purports consensus building – kukhulumisana (notwithstanding some abuse of this concept by the ruling elite). There is certainly no equality among Swazi people but it is part of the culture of the state. In Swazi culture it is said, indvuku ayiwakhi umuti (meaning: beating does not promote harmony in a family). At the time of a wedding, the person designated to lead the bride to her in‐laws also pleads with the in‐laws and warns them against beating the wife. It is stated, ‘you must not kill her or beat her if she gives you problems; bring her back to us’. Daly generalises on the basis of circumstantial observations misrepresenting the Swazi culture.

In addition, Daly presents the issues of prearranged marriage and childless marriages due to sterility as something that affect only women. He also mentions ‘Swazi law’ regarding adultery and sexually active single unmarried women, but again omits the male's side. Daly's tone harps the women's side only, and fails to grapple with the gender system that hoards it. Most of the issues about waxing the bride and declining sexual satisfaction in the marriage lack context and are written casually in the vein of argument that supports gender equality.

Nhlapo's writing is occasionally quoted in Daly's article, and thus warrants comment. His work raises practical issues of gender concern but falls into the traditional trap of recycling ideas of women's concern from a Western perspective. As such, his writing on marriage and divorce lacks a historical and contextual perspective that places the gender inequalities within the existing economic and political framework.

The issue of gender has a long history of inequality. However, it remains a ‘touch and go’ issue, one that politicians, churchmen, sportsmen and policy makers amongst others find hard to deal with. Often it raises difficult questions that are perceived to be troubling, out of place, risky and irritating. It nevertheless has to be tackled. The problem with the issue of gender is that ‘it addresses deeply ingrained prejudices and it challenges deeply entrenched ways of knowing, of theorising and of doing science’ (Beneria, 1995: 1839). Even more challenging is the fact that it is layered beneath other issues of suppression in the form of colonial capitalism, suppressive governments, social patriarchy, and so forth.

Daly, therefore, raises issues of critical importance, especially among Swazi people. However, his biased approach of criticising culture without unfolding the layers that surround it undermines efforts of social reconstruction towards gender equality. There is a fundamental need to engage a synthesis of both African and Western values to foster gender equality within the broader premises of human rights, democracy and culture.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

M Fana Sihlongonyane 1

Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Notes

Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.