adminPathisa Nyathi
An article in the Chronicle of 22 September 2015 generated animated interest among readers. Many people made the article the subject of their discussion. It literally became the talk of town particularly among the senior members of the community in Bulawayo.
The screaming title attracted many a reader: “Small Houses Want Immunity.” One lady saw me and immediately drew my attention to the article. “This is your stuff, you should comment on it.” Knowing that I do not have a degree in small houses I just wondered what she was up to. But she certainly generated a lot of curiosity in me.
On the day in question I was engrossed in some challenging work whose deadline was fast approaching. I could hardly spare a minute to buy or let alone read the said article. Hardly an hour later the article was drawn to my attention by the Sunday News staffers who too requested me to write an article on the matter of the juicy substance of the article. Now I had no choice but to get down to read and make sense out of the article so that I could respond meaningfully. I reckoned I was being asked to cast the contents of the article in a historical and African cultural milieu.
The said article was about a Harare woman who was being sued for US$25 000 for allegedly having an adulterous affair with a man resulting in the man’s marriage being irretrievably breaking down. However, the woman’s legal representative contested the constitutionality of adultery damages against a third party. “In essence, the buck stops with the husband and wife who take it upon themselves to enter into a marriage and to make commitments and promises to each other,” argued the lawyer.
He further argued that the burden of staying faithful in a relationship and the blame for those who don’t should be on the couple involved, not any third party they pick up on the side as part of their marital dysfunction. The third party is not a signatory to a contract. It was further observed by the lawyer that the husband of the plaintiff was not even cited.
The article made reference to a similar case in South Africa where the Supreme Court called for the abolition of a law permitting civil litigation for damages for adultery. “In the light of changing morals on adultery, the delictual action based on adultery of the innocent spouse has become outdated and can no longer be sustained,” ruled Justice Fritz Brand who added that, “The time for its abolition has come.” Indeed, the relevant law was abolished by the Supreme Court.
In the case being cited by the Supreme Court a man had been ordered by a Gauteng High Court to pay R75 000 in damages to another man with whose wife he had an illicit affair. This is the essence of the story that generated a lot of interest. It’s a legal wrangle with complicated legal trappings. Was this what was generating so much hype? I figured out that the real draw card was neither the legal niceties nor the level of damages being demanded. It simply was the “small house.”
The “small house” is a Zimbabwe specific social term coined in reference to an unmarried woman who has an illicit affair with a married man. The term also draws its meaning from pre-colonial marriages among Africans where polygamy was a common feature of marriages. A man’s junior wife was literally referred to as “a small wife” or “small house”, indlu encane in contrast to indlu enkulu, literally the “big or senior house”. Generally therefore, a man’s “small house” is an unmarried lady who is younger than the legally married wife. In some cases the “small house” may produce children for the philandering man. When a man’s marriage fails to produce offspring the man sometimes looks for a “small house” to produce children for him.
However, the focus of this two-part series is firstly to throw the spotlight on the traditional marriage and see to what extent it weathered temptations towards adultery by the spouses. The second part will deal with what the South African Supreme Court terms “changing morals” that have necessitated a rethink on the constitutionality of the adultery legislation. Has Zimbabwean society faced similar moral decadence to warrant a closer scrutiny of relevant legal instruments?
It does appear that adultery has been witnessed even within ancient societies. The very reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Biblical texts bears testimony to that. Further, one of the Mosaic Laws given to the Israelites on Mount Sinai was an injunction against anti-social sexual relationships. What we ought to note though is that the vice and how it is dealt with varies from society to society. Be that as it may, all societies are riled by extra-marital sexual relationships.
In the case of Zimbabwe we need to understand why and how the “small house” phenomenon draws so much interest. Sex is an important social act by people in a relationship which is behind the perpetuation of the human race. In its absence humanity perishes. As a result, societies have crafted measures to control it and define parameters within which it can legally take place. Penalties for contravention of the crafted social guidelines have been put in place. Social institutions were designed within which sex was carried out. Marriage was that sacrosanct social institution within which blood lines were extended and multiplied.
In Zimbabwe the “small house” phenomenon has been popularised in the electronic media. Rebecca Chisamba has, through her television programme, Mai Chisamba Show, focused on the anti-social phenomenon. Extra-marital sex is an emotive issue as there are perceived villains and injured parties. The “small house” has received all the bashing and venomous blame.
Sympathy has gone to the man’s wife who, it is assumed, is the victim and the abused. On Zimbabwe television there was one time some drama series that went by the title “Small House Saga.” The media, both electronic and print, has reported extensively on the social phenomenon. Injiva have hogged the limelight with the focus on their wives who engaged in extra-marital relationships. The cartoonists have frequently portrayed profusely sweating men who would have been found or nearly found in compromising positions with injivas’ wives. In a nutshell, the “small house” is one of the most topical issues these days.
All this points to the fact that adulterous relations abound and attract a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons. In a traditional set up extra-marital affairs did take place but there were factors and arrangements that minimised their occurrences.
The sanctity of the marriage institution was generally observed. The Ndebele society was partriachal and perceptions of infidelity were coloured by power relations between genders. Polygamy was socially sanctioned.
The marriage institution existed for a very clear reason — extension of the man’s blood line. Indeed when the bride left her home she was told in unequivocal terms, “ufike uveze abantu.” As a result an old wife sometimes invited her relatives, either a younger sister or brother’s daughter to get married to her husband. What was considered important was inhlalo, ukuhlala kuhle which meant being well looked after in material terms.
Social stigma was an important factor to consider. Stigma was used to minimise occurrences of anti-social behaviour. The resulting embarrassment did not visit the culprit alone but all her relatives. Where society is group-based the entire group shares and shoulders the blame, zonelwa mvunye. The group support system helped keep women on the small and straight path.
As pointed out above the patriarchal society favoured men and shifted guilt to the women. Men, it would seem, were doing good by extending the male line. Their blameworthiness was somewhat minimised to a point where it would be said ezalelwe esibayeni ngeyakho. This is not to say men were free from guilt. A man was not allowed to “rub another man’s wife’s icholo (tuft of hair on the back of her head) on the ground”. Icholo was equivalent to the ring in western society. It marked a man’s forbidden territory.
Divorce of a woman was based on infidelity and witchcraft in the main. She could be sent back to her own people. Umfazi wenda, a woman left her home to join her husband and his people. Besides, society seemed to argue, lobola was paid to her parents. That was said in a way that seemed to diminish her rights.
Quite often we hear the expression indoda yinja (a man is a dog). This is an expression that seems to imply that a man’s extra-marital relationships are condoned. After all a dog is not confined or restricted to one partner just like a man in a polygamous marriage or when he has a “small house”.
There were no free women who ran their own households, which households could be used as dens of iniquity. In the traditional set up people lived in groups of extended families which provided intelligence on each member who was not free from the group’s prying eyes. Unmarried women lived with their relatives in particular their fathers or brothers. The phenomenon of umazakhela did not exist within Ndebele society.
This instalment sought to demonstrate how the marriage institution in the olden days was hedged through various social arrangements and sanctions where morals were compromised especially with regard to matters pertaining to extra-marital sex. Partriachy has informed the guilt or otherwise of spouses.
In the next instalment we shall interrogate the veracity of the claim that there have been changes on the moral front to warrant adoption of a new slant in perceptions concerning litigation where adultery is concerned.
derick.khumalo