Egypt's sexual harassment 'cancer'

By Magdi Abdelhadi BBC News, Cairo
Sexual harassment of women in Egypt is on the increase and observing Islamic dress code is no deterrent, according to a survey published this week.
The Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights (ECWR) describes the problem as a social cancer and calls on the government to introduce legislation to curb it.
The findings contradict the widely held belief in Egypt that unveiled women are more likely to suffer harassment than veiled ones.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EGYPT
Experienced by 98% of foreign women visitors
Experienced by 83% of Egyptian women
62% of Egyptian men admitted harassing women
53% of Egyptian men blame women for 'bringing it on' Source: Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights
Participants in the survey were shown pictures of women wearing different kinds of dress - from the mini skirt to the niqab (full face veil) and asked which were more likely to be harassed.
More than 60% - including female respondents - suggested the scantily clad woman was most at risk. But in reality the study concluded the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing Islamic headscarves.
ECWR head Nihad Abu El-Qoumsan said that even veiled women who were victims of harassment blamed themselves.
Western women who took part in the study demonstrated a strong belief in their entitlement to personal safety and freedom of movement, she says, but this was totally absent among Egyptian respondents.
No-one spoke about freedom of choice, freedom of movement or the right to legal protection. No-one showed any awareness that the harasser was a criminal, regardless of what clothes the victim was wearing.
Shocking attitude
The centre is campaigning for a new law that clearly defines sexual harassment as a crime and makes it easier for women to report it in Egypt - women like Noha Ostath.
The young film-maker told the BBC she was repeatedly groped in broad daylight by a van driver in a Cairo traffic jam as she walked on the pavement.
His behaviour made her so angry she ran after the van and held on to the side mirror to force the driver to stop so she could take him to a police station.
She was equally shocked by the attitude of other passers-by. Some tried to dissuade her from going to the police - others blamed her for what she was wearing (a baggy sports outfit).
In the end, after a tussle with the man that lasted for more than one hour, the strong-willed Ms Ostath dragged the man to the police station.
But even there, police officers refused to open an investigation and insisted on the presence of her father despite the fact that she is not a minor - she is 26.
Impudent allegation
After Noha's story was published in the Badeel daily, editor-in-chief Muhammad El Sayyed Said wrote that the behaviour of the crowd was characteristic of oppressed societies, where the majority identified with the oppressor.
He blamed the increase in sexual harassment on what he said were "three decades of incitement against women" from the pulpits of some of Egypt's mosques.
"This verbal incitement is based on the extremely sordid and impudent allegation that our women are not modestly dressed. This was, and still is, a flagrant lie, used to justify violence against women in the name of religion."
The British foreign office says Egypt is one of the countries with the highest number of cases reported to embassy staff regarding sexual offences against visiting women.
It warns them to be extra cautious in public places especially when alone because of the risks.
Ms Abou El-Qoumsan says Egyptians need to re-evaluate their value system and school curricula and to ensure that the rule of law prevails and prevents offenders and criminals walking free because of a breakdown of basic notions of right and wrong.
Thanks to surveys like this, one encounters an endless number of newspaper articles reflecting the feeling that Egypt is in the grip of a moral crisis.
Perhaps nothing illustrates Egypt's loss of a moral compass than the responses of some men in the ECWR study.
Some said they harassed a woman simply because they were bored. One who abused a woman wearing the niqab said she must be beautiful, or hiding something.

Gadget to help women feign virginity angers many in Egypt

Conservatives condemn the Artificial Virginity Hymen Kit as technology that will promote promiscuity. Others say the furor over the device raises disturbing questions about double standards.
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan
October 7, 2009
Reporting from Cairo

Whether it's seen as a clever little gadget to help a woman keep a secret or a devilish deception that threatens Islam, the Artificial Virginity Hymen Kit is not welcome in Egypt.The kit allows a bride who is not a virgin to pretend that she is. A pouch inserted into the vagina on her wedding night ruptures and leaks a blood-like liquid designed to trick a new husband into believing that his wife is chaste. It's a wink of ingenuity to soothe a man's ego and keep the dowry intact.Egyptian conservatives condemn the device as technology that will promote promiscuity in a culture that forbids premarital sex. Their protests are arising in a nation that over the last 40 years has gone from miniskirts and secularism to hijabs and religious devotion. But seldom have conservatives faced such brazen advertising."No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your first night back any time," states the website of Gigimo, a Chinese mail-order company that sells the kit and other sexual products, including sex dolls and bondage toys, worldwide. "Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable."Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which controls 20% of the seats in Egypt's parliament, have called for banning the kit and arresting anyone selling it on the black market. Cleric Abdul Moeti Bayoumi has issued a fatwa urging that peddlers of the $29.90 device be charged with banditry and punished for spreading immorality and sin."Egyptian girls are normally afraid to lose their virginity before marriage," Sayed Askar, a lawmaker and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, recently told parliament. "A product like that can make it easier and tempting for girls who don't have strong wills to commit such a sin. It will be a crying shame and a blot on the government if they allow the selling of this product in our markets."Lina Samaan, an accountant, said the furor raises disturbing questions about her country and the double standards that often apply to women:"I think it's a shame that we are discussing a product like this. If most girls don't have sex prior to marriage only because they want to keep virginity, then there is something wrong with the way we think," she said. "Sex is a right for every woman but unfortunately we started turning to products like these because men -- even non-religious ones who have sex before marriage -- wouldn't marry a girl if she's not virgin."The emotion over the kit speaks to a traditional society that is increasingly pious, whether it's rich professionals seeking moderate Islam on websites of progressive imams or poor and middle-class families adopting strict religion as a buttress to the influence of Western media and a loss of confidence in a state that has failed to provide prosperity.The government of President Hosni Mubarak is troubled by ultraconservative Islam imported from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Egypt's leading Muslim cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, is considering forbidding the niqab, or face veil, at the university and schools run by Al Azhar, Sunni Islam's top educational institution. A similar edict barring nurses from wearing niqabs has been loosely enforced.The Egyptian media quoted Tantawi telling a student that the "niqab has nothing to do with Islam. . . . I know about religion better than you and your parents."Many parents, however, did not grow up with the economic and social problems that their children face. Single women have traditionally lived with their families until they found a husband. But today's inflation, joblessness and poverty are forcing many couples to delay marriage until money is saved and dowries are accumulated. With men and women single longer, dating, breakups and natural impulses challenge religion and tradition."Having something like the virginity kit can cause complete mayhem within the Egyptian social life," said Farid Ismael, a member of parliament's health committee. "It can lead to the spreading of vice and the loss of all the good morals and values we had and that totally contradicts with our Islamic beliefs."The kit -- like surgical repairs to the hymen that Middle Eastern women have relied upon for years -- is marketed to offer a sleight of hand. Such secrets keep prospective brides in the graces of their families and avoid what in rare cases are honor killings of women accused of promiscuity.Choosing to have "sex or not is something every girl and woman should decide regardless of the society's perspective toward her," said Samaan, the accountant. "Even if she is religious then she shouldn't do it because of her religious belief and not in fear of other people or fear that she will not get married if she's not a virgin.""If a girl decided to have sex before marriage," she added, "then God already knows it and she shouldn't hide it from anyone else."jeffrey.fleishman@latimes.comHassan is a special correspondent.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

On the right to self-determination

By Messay Kebede August 19, 2009

This article is a public reaction to a long email letter sent to me by an Oromo interlocutor. The email states that unity between Amhara democratic forces and Oromo freedom fighters is necessary both to defeat the undemocratic Woyanne regime and initiate a promising future for Ethiopia. However, the letter blames the lack of unity on the resistance of Amhara democratic forces to concede the right to self-determination to the Oromo people. The imposition of an unconditional unity prevents the Oromo freedom fighters from effecting a serious move toward a rapprochement, while the refusal of some Oromo fighters to even give a chance to unity deeply upsets Amhara democratic forces. The letter suggests a middle ground based on a common goal, namely, a union of independent nations that recognizes the self-determination of each nation, and so provides the condition of a voluntary union. In other words, the pledge to give a chance to the integrity of Ethiopia should satisfy the Amhara democratic forces, just as the recognition of the right to self-determination should suit the Oromo by convincing them to enter into a free union with the Amhara and other peoples.
Though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization. Also, my purpose here is less to respond to my interlocutor than to propose some general reflections concerning the right to self-determination as a condition of union. Let me begin by what amazes most: the defenders of the right to self-determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except his view of nations and nationalities. It is for me next to impossible to understand how scholars and politicians stop short of being critical of the Stalinist doctrine of self-determination even as they know that Stalin have been entirely wrong in everything. What are the chances for a doctrine whose inherent perversion led to such disastrous consequences to be right on the crucial issue of nation-building?
My contention is that, far from promoting free union, the right to self-determination actually blocks it. It is when union becomes unconditional that it forces peoples to find a form of accommodation that suits them all. Here is an illustrative analogy: if two competing individuals decide to build a house together, their cooperation makes sense if the house becomes their common interest, that is, if both intend to live in the same house. However, if one of the partners is at the same time building another house, whatever partnership they had becomes so suspicious that it comes to an end.
The right to self-determination cannot provide the common goal for a lasting union. Moreover, nobody is inclined to make serious concessions if the outcome is so precarious. It is when we decide to live in the same house, no matter what, that we would be inclined to better the house. While Stalin recognizes the right to secede, Rousseau maintains that a nation means an indivisible unity for only indivisibility creates a common goal. Obviously, a conditional unity is hardly able to produce a serious commitment to the idea of a lasting union.
The Stalinist approach has no historical foundation as nations did not emerge as a result of peoples exercising the right to self-determination. The politics of either lumping people together or splitting them apart according as they want or do not want to stay together is too artificial to be anything more than a manipulation of political elites. Instead, modern nations have come into being through inner movements smashing the oppressive structures of conquests and empires. With the exception of overseas colonial empires––whose difficulties to modernize relate to the absence of organized democratic movements in the pre-independence phase––the resolution to build a common house guaranteeing freedom and equality for all is the cornerstone of modern nation, not the right to secession.
Those who truly care about democracy and freedom must understand that the refusal of self-determination alone can bring about the changes that they hope. What the refusal means is that we make unity unconditional so that everything else becomes negotiable. But if the union is conditional, the blackmail of secession seriously jeopardizes the exercise of democratic rules. What is more, a union is formed without the equal alienation of rights since one of the partners reserves the right to secede. As Rousseau puts it, the condition of modern democracy is “the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.” (The Social Contract).
It is clear that the act by which a people join a political union is also the act by which it ceases to consider itself as a nation. It becomes part of an organic whole and its distinctive characteristics, such as language, religion, customs, etc., become regional expressions of a larger union. How the specificities integrate into the union is negotiable, and various forms of arrangement can ensure their protection. By contrast, union defined as a collection of autonomous nations is a Stalinist aberration and a contradiction in terms. Let us listen to Stalin:
“The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights.” (Marxism and the National Question).
What Stalin says here applies to an entity like the United Nations rather than to real existing nations whose characteristic is precisely to be sovereign in an indivisible way."
What this shows is that political unity among democratic forces has become impossible in Ethiopia because we find ourselves in an ideological muddle inherited from the Soviet Union. No more than Stalin could the Woyanne regime preserve the unity of Ethiopia without the creation of a party based on the rigid and oppressive principle of democratic centralism. The result is a tyrannical government that keeps peoples together by force after telling them that they are indeed nations and nationalities. On the other hand, opposition forces cannot unite because they are faced with the impossible dilemma of uniting elites who claim to represent nations.
It is high time that we understand that the political failure of opposition forces emerge from the fact that they want to solve a problem that is made unsolvable. The divagations of a deranged man (Stalin) on the right to self-determination has put Ethiopia in a political impasse, which if left as is, will lead to a breakup with disastrous consequences for the whole region. The best alternative is to renew the commitment to unconditional unity, thereby creating the conditions of a satisfactory solution for all. If the union is abiding, then serious talks can start on how to build the common house.
That is why I was more than happy to read in the recently released political program of the organization known as Medrek a strong reaffirmation of unity. The program plainly states that members of the organization believe that any challenges to the unity of Ethiopia must be dealt with on the basis of unity and democratic progress, and not through recourse to secession (page 22). This rebuttal of article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution allowing the right to self-determination, including the right to secession, became necessary as a condition of unity among opposition forces.
The rebuttal is indeed a great step forward, even though it is not bold enough to reject the usage of the terms “nations” and “nationalities.” This lack of boldness exposes the program to the charge of being contradictory, since the term “nation” implies, by definition, the right to self-determination. I recommend the term “ethnic groups,” with the understanding that the Amhara and the Tigreans are no less ethnic groups than the Oromo, the Gurage, the Somali, etc. In so doing, we define Ethiopia as a multicultural nation rather than as a multinational state, a feature that requires a federal arrangement with large autonomy and self-rule. In this way, we avoid the present impasse without, however, sacrificing those rights necessary to realize the full equality of Ethiopia’s ethnic groups.

Working mothers' children unfit

Children whose mothers work are less likely to lead healthy lives than those with "stay at home" mothers, a study says.
The Institute of Child Health study of more than 12,500 five-year-olds found those with working mothers less active and more likely to eat unhealthy food.
Other experts said more work was needed to see if the results applied to other age groups.
The study is in the Journal of Epidemiology and Child Health.
About 60% of mothers with children aged up to five are estimated to be in work.
Results
The mothers were asked about the hours they worked and their children's diet, exercise levels and sedentary activities.
“ With many more mums having no choice but to work these days and with government policy actively encouraging it, it is difficult to know how mums can do better ” Sally Russell, Netmums
A third of the mothers had not worked since the birth of their child, but the mothers who were employed were spending an average of 21 hours a week at work.
They took into account factors likely to influence the results, such as the mothers' level of education and socioeconomic circumstances.
They found that five-year-olds whose mothers worked part-time or full-time were more likely to primarily consume sweetened drinks between meals.
They used their computers or watched television for at least two hours a day compared to the children of "stay at home" mothers who spent less than two hours on these activities.
They were also more likely to be driven to school compared to the children of "stay at home" mothers who tended to walk or cycle.
The children whose mothers had a flexible working pattern did have healthier lifestyles but when other factors were taken into account the researchers said there was little evidence that these children behaved more healthily.
'Time constraints'
Professor Catherine Law, who led the study, said they had not looked at fathers in this study because fathers employment levels had not changed whereas the numbers of working mothers had increased dramatically.
She said: "For many families the only parent or both parents will be working.
"Time constraints may limit parents' capacity to provide their children with healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity.
"Our results do not imply that mothers should not work.
"Rather they highlight the need for policies and programmes to help support parents."
The same children took part in an earlier study by the Institute of Child Health (ICH) which found that those with working mothers were more likely to be obese or overweight by the age of three.
In the latest study, many of the five-year-olds were engaging in health behaviours likely to promote excess weight gain: 37% were mainly eating crisps and sweets between meals, 41% were consuming sweetened drinks and 61% used the television or a computer at least two hours daily.
'Controversial research'
Glenys Jones, nutritionist with the Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research, said the study was interesting because of limited research so far on the impact of maternal employment on child health choices.
"More work is needed to take into account factors such as how related health behaviours are affected and if the age of the child alters the relationships observed."
Sally Russell, a spokesman for Netmums, said: "The stress and guilt associated with being a working mum is something we are all too well aware of. This report adds to that guilt.
"With many more mums having no choice but to work these days and with government policy actively encouraging it, it is difficult to know how mums can do better. "
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Our Change4Life movement is already helping over 370,000 families eat well, move more and live longer by helping them to understand the harm that fat and added sugar can cause to children's health, and offering them simple yet effective ways to make changes to their diet and increase their activity levels."
BBC website readers have been sending in their comments on this story. Here is a selection of their thoughts and experiences.
I was a lone parent working mum. My son is now 25 and for about half his time at school I worked full time. He always walked to school and ate healthily. He is very fit and a perfect weight for his height. I guess he is pretty typical. Eva McDiarmid, Glasgow, UK
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Never mind the fact that most of us don't have the luxury of choice in the matter. Thanks for reporting this so widely and making my commute to work just a little bit more rubbish today, BBC. Debbie Newton, Leeds, UK
I'm cross on so many levels, but mainly a personal one! I work, my husband doesn't, he is our daughter's main carer. He walks her to school, he looks after her after school stuff and cooks her meals every day. She has restricted TV time and is not allowed sweets. Why do people insist on saying 'mother' when they often mean 'parent'. It's wrong on other levels too of course, but for me it's the stupidity of assuming a mum should stay at home and a dad should work - are we still in the 50s? Naomi, Sussex, UK
As a lone mum to one daughter, I work full time because I cannot manage financially any other way. I feel like I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. I get encouraged to work over 30 hours a week and get a financial incentive for doing this through tax credits, but I feel like I am also heavily criticised for not being a 'proper' mum by not spending enough time with my daughter. I leave the house at 8am every day, get home at 5.30pm every day, my daughter goes to bed at 7pm. I'd love to know where I'm supposed to shoehorn in some quality time with my girl! Jane Crabtree, Middlesbrough, UK
This does make me feel even more guilty for working. Being in full-time work and handing over my three year old to childcare is bad enough, and then having to spend a lot of time during the evenings and weekends doing 'house stuff' really doesn't leave me much time to spend with him, doing the things we want to do. I almost wish we could go back to the days when the mother was expected to stay at home, and the father provide. Sadly, this isn't financially possible in my case. Hannah Steward, Oldbury, UK
Well this story is of no surprise. But why should it be mothers who stay at home? Surely in these days of equality fathers should be discussed as well. My wife and I decided one of us would be at home to bring up the children ourselves. We based our decision about who would stay home on earning power. I hear many parents say they can't afford to not work yet they will lavish money on unnecessary extras. It's often about priority not ability. Too many children these days are treated like 'hobby children'. N Bair, Glossop, UK
I can't win. I don't want to work, I want to look after my family and ensure my kids have a good life. But unlike the many teen parents, I was pregnant at 16 and I married the father of my kids. We purchased a house when I was 18 and we work hard to pay our mortgage. I see this as what all parents should do to instil pride in themselves and their children. I don't live off other people's tax, I pay for the lazy people who live off the state. If a mother or father stays at home because their income allows them to then I feel this is the dream for all parents and this is very lucky. Catrina Stephens, Trowbridge, UK
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8278742.stmPublished: 2009/09/28 23:30:23 GMT© BBC MMIX

Cut-throat competition

Sep 17th 2009 PARIS From The Economist print edition

Feeding Europe’s Muslims is a growing business

JUST before the beginning of Ramadan, the month-long Muslim fast which ends this weekend, an unusual advertisement appeared on French television. Panzani, a pasta-maker, was touting its Zakia line of halal ready-meals. In a secular nation it seemed like “a little revolution”, as Le Parisien, a newspaper, put it. The French can presumably take it in their stride. The trade in halal food is growing fast, and is likely to continue to do so.
Big food producers have long catered to Muslims, a market worth some $630 billion globally according to KasehDia, a consulting company that specialises in the trade. Nestlé has produced halal goods since the 1980s; 75 of its 456 factories now have a halal certification. But only recently have big European shops followed suit. Carrefour, the world’s second-largest retailer, launched a new range of products just in time for Ramadan. Casino, a French supermarket chain, has a halal line, and British outfits Tesco and Sainsbury’s carry halal products. KFC, an American fast-food chain, is conducting a trial of halal food in eight of its British restaurants. All its French ones are already halal certified.
The main reason for growth is demographic. Although many European countries do not tally Muslims or any other religious group (estimates in France range from 4m to 7m) it is clear that Muslim populations have grown quickly as a result of immigration and higher birth rates. Many of the people who sought asylum in Western Europe in the first half of this decade were Muslims from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Mohammed, Muhammad and Mohammad were all among the 100 most popular baby boys’ names in England and Wales last year.
Although Muslims are disproportionately poor, they spend plenty of money on food. Islam is associated with a strong tradition of communal feasting. Antoine Bonnel, who runs the Paris Halal Expo, reckons that the average French Muslim spends a quarter of his or her income on food, compared with 12-14% for non-Muslims.
Nearly a third of the money goes on meat. That demand, which contrasts with a drop in meat-eating among health-conscious Christians and godless folk, has helped transform the global livestock market. The slaughtering of all lamb and goat meat in Australia for export is now done in accordance with halal custom, which involves killing animals with a single cut and draining their blood. A tenth of Australia’s total meat exports, worth about $570m a year, is halal. Brazil dominates the global market with a 54% share of exported halal meat, according to KasehDia.
As the halal market grows, two problems are emerging. The first is the lack of broad standards. Halal regulations vary widely both between countries and within them. In Australia, all slaughter for halal meat is regulated by the government. In France, by contrast, there are over 50 certification bodies, all in competition with one another. Mr Bonnel describes it as “a huge nightmare” that can lead to charges of impurity. The Malaysian government’s Halal Industry Development Corporation has tried to create a global standard, with little success so far.
The second problem is squeamishness among non-Muslims. Animals slaughtered according to halal custom are supposed to be alive when their throats are cut, a practice that animal-rights groups condemn. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden forbid it outright. Some governments have reached a compromise that allows for animals to be partly stunned before being killed. But not all Muslims are happy with this. The halal market may be buoyant, but the waters are choppy.
Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

Fetewa on Virginity

Mufti's 'hymen fatwa' causes shock waves among scholars
By Yasmine Saleh
First Published 2/20/2007
CAIRO: Reconstructive hymen surgery for women who lost their virginity before marriage is halal (religiously permissible), said to Aly Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt.
Gomaa, the highest authority with the power to issue a fatwa (religious edict), appeared the popular terrestrial Channel Two’s talk show El Beit Beitek, where he condoned the controversial fatwa, released by Soad Saleh, the ex-dean of the faculty of Islamic studies at Al-Azhar University and noted scholar.
Shiekh Khaled El Gindy, an Al-Azhar scholar and member of the Higher Council of Islamic Studies told The Daily Star Egypt that he agrees with the new fatwa.
"Islam never differentiates between men and women, so it is not rational for us to think that God has placed a sign to indicate the virginity of women without having a similar sign to indicate the virginity of men," El Gindy said.
"Any man who is concerned about his prospective wife’s hymen should first provide a proof that he himself is virgin," he added.
El Gindy voiced his full support for Gomaa.
Not only did Gomaa acknowledge the fatwa but asked women who will undergo the contentious surgery not to tell their future spouses about it, since this is not a question of honesty.
"If God wants us to know everything about each other, He would have given us the ability to read each others' minds, so why did he not do so? Perhaps maybe someone would have a wrong idea about you now but will change it later," Gomaa said.
Even more shocking to many observers, Gomaa said that if a married woman had sexual intercourse with another man but truly regretted her actions and asked God for forgiveness, she should not tell her husband.
"According to Sharia, if a husband knew that his wife had sexual intercourse with anyone else, he should divorce her, so by not telling him she would be protecting her home and her life," he explained.
The fatwa has led to much controversy within Al-Azhar and Egyptian society as a whole.
In Upper Egypt honor crimes are still committed. If a woman loses her virginity out of wedlock, she is considered a big shame on everyone and deserves to die.
In response to such ideas, El Gindy told The Daily Star Egypt that, "Islam does not care for the feelings of ignorant people, just as the law does not protect the idiots."
http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5719

Democracy and Poligamy hand in hand

Can a democratically elected president be polygamist? Yes. Where? In South Africa. Is it only approved by men? No. Women elected him too. Even his party Women's League approves it. This is the new version of Africans democracy. This news appeared on different news media, the following appreared on Washington post.

Which Mrs. Zuma Will Be South Africa's First Lady?

By Karin BrulliardWashington Post Foreign ServiceSaturday, May 9, 2009
JOHANNESBURG, May 8 -- To the rarefied ranks of first ladies such as Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, South Africa will add Sizakele Khumalo.
Or will it be Nompumelelo Ntuli?
Or Thobeka Mabhija?
Though South Africa's recent general election featured all the mudslinging of a fierce political battle, it was long expected to result in the victory of ruling party leader Jacob Zuma, who is to be inaugurated as president Saturday. The real mystery -- one that has intrigued South Africans for months -- is which of Zuma's wives will be the nation's new first lady.
Zuma, a 67-year-old Zulu traditionalist, is about to become South Africa's first polygamist president. Confronted with the first lady question, spokesmen for his party, the African National Congress, have typically declined to respond or noted that the constitution does not touch on the issue, thus allowing Zuma to choose or alternate. The party, in fact, had stayed mum on just how many wives and children Zuma has -- figures that even his biographer could not nail down.
New clues emerged this week, however. At the bottom of an ANC statement that extolled Zuma's liberation-movement credentials and ballroom-dancing skills, the party casually noted that he is a father of 19 and a husband to three: Khumalo, Ntuli and Mabhija.
On Thursday, local news media reported that all three women were on Zuma's guest list for the inauguration, which is expected to draw 5,000 dignitaries.
But speculation remains rife about what the Times newspaper called the "protocol nightmare" of whether the state will be obligated to cover medical care, jet transportation and security for the entire Zuma brood. And South Africans are still in the dark about who will be Zuma's date to galas and have dibs on the spousal office in the east wing of the president's hilltop residence in Pretoria, the administrative capital.
"As a family they are supportive of each other," said Lindiwe Zulu, an ANC spokeswoman, noting that one of Zuma's daughters has often accompanied him to official events. "That family has got their own unique way of dealing with those issues. If they didn't, I'm sure we would have heard about it by now."
While providing fodder for headlines and comics, fascination with Zuma's polygamy is rooted in deeper dilemmas in democratic South Africa, whose ultra-progressive, Western-influenced constitution enshrines equal rights for women but also protects tribal traditions that were suppressed by the white apartheid government. Among them is the mostly rural practice of polygamy, which was legalized in 1998, though only for men belonging to tribes in which it is a custom.
"South Africa is a very modern, secular country with a great constitution, but it's also an African country. To some extent, Jacob Zuma sort of brings it full circle," said Penelope Andrews, a law professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana who has written widely on polygamy in South Africa, her native country. "And a lot of people are obviously fine with it."
But not everyone. As elections approached, the leader of the African Christian Democratic Party attacked polygamy as "abuse of women." In an open letter to Zuma in the Mail & Guardian newspaper Friday, gender rights activist Colleen Lowe Morna wrote of Zuma's wives: "I doubt you would countenance any one of them having several husbands." One recent opinion poll found that 74 percent of respondents opposed polygamy.
But that survey was conducted in urban areas, and Zuma's backers say that is part of the problem. Critics, they maintain, are elites whose opinions are out of touch with many of their compatriots, particularly those who live in rural areas like the one where Zuma, who grew up herding cows, keeps a homestead. The ANC swept the elections with almost 66 percent of the vote, a resounding victory attributed in large part to Zuma's appeal.
"Jacob Zuma's pride in his culture is what has played such a large part in his hyper-popularity in this country," one reader wrote in a letter to the Star newspaper on Friday, saying Zuma was a victim of "pandering to overseas European values."
Zuma draws vigorous support from the ANC Women's League, which approves of polygamy as long as wives enter into it willingly and the husband takes good care of all spouses and children, said Zulu, the ANC spokeswoman. Though Zulu said she "may not agree with it," she said she is certain the Zuma marriages meet those standards.
"There are plenty of politicians who have mistresses and children who they hide so as to pretend they're monogamous," Zuma once told a television interviewer. "I prefer to be open. I love my wives, and I'm proud of my children."
By most counts, Zuma has been married five times. One marriage, to Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, ended in divorce in 1998. Another wife, Kate Mantsho Zuma, committed suicide in 2000.
Zuma has been married since 1973 to his first wife, Khumalo, who lives at Zuma's country home and rarely appears in public. He wed Ntuli, who is in her mid-30s and often attends high-profile soirees, at a traditional Zulu ceremony last year. Early this year, news broke that he had paid lobola -- a sort of bride price, often given in the form of cattle or cash -- to the family of Mabhija, a socialite in her mid-30s. But there was no confirmation of their marriage until this week's ANC statement. His children range in age from infancy to older than 30.
Zuma's first lady situation is not unique, though his counterparts on the world stage tend to be kings, not presidents. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is reported to have about four wives. King Mswati III of Swaziland is expected at the Zuma inauguration -- most likely with one of his 13 or so wives on his arm.
First ladies in democratic South Africa have not been major figures. Nelson Mandela, South Africa's first black president and a bachelor for most of his presidency, was often accompanied to events by his daughter. Thabo Mbeki's wife was well recognized but hardly the subject of scrutiny or adoration.
The wife of Kgalema Motlanthe, South Africa's interim president since September, was such an unknown that a newspaper launched an investigation in January to find out who she is. That backfired after the newspaper reported that it had discovered a young and pregnant mistress of Motlanthe along the way, then retracted that after the woman recanted her story.
Even so, pundits and observers do not doubt that each Zuma wife would like the title. One Zuma insider has been quoted as saying Khumalo, as the oldest, is the most likely choice. Other reports predict the younger and more social Mrs. Zumas will vie for the job.
"You know the TV show 'Desperate Housewives'? It's going to be Desperate First Wives," said Andrews, the law professor. "I imagine there's going to be a little bit of controversy for the first year or two."