Response by Chloe Hardy
HIV Ethics&Policy
Dear all
I think that President Zuma offers us an interesting case study, illustrating many of the reasons why we have an HIV epidemic in South Africa:
Multiple concurrent partners: I think the polygamy issue is a bit of a red herring in this instance – these days, polygamy is confined to wealthy traditionalists – but multiple concurrent relationships are extremely common in all sectors of South African society, whether rural or urban, rich or poor. President Zuma has several wives, but he still has relationships with other women at the same time. While the current public out-cry about this shows that there is a general moral view that extra-marital relationships are wrong, there is a also a level at which multiple concurrent relationships are considered normal and acceptable. As with any moral issue, there are many people who are happy to condemn it publically and practice it privately. There is of course an issue of gender stereotypes here, with men who have many relationships being seen as virile and “manly”, while women who have multiple relationships are seen as “sluts”, but despite the stigma, many women do have multiple concurrent relationships. There are complex social, psychological and economic reasons why people have multiple partners, and years of “be faithful” messages seem to have had very little impact on the situation.
Inter-generational sexual relationships: President Zuma has had a child with the daughter of one of his friends. Once again, this is supposed to be culturally and morally frowned-upon, but is in fact very common. As there is a tendency for there to be an imbalance of power in such relationships, it may be more difficult for young women to negotiate safer sex with older partners. While I don’t want to fall into the trap of stereotyping all young women as victims without any agency of their own, it seems that the younger the woman and the greater the age discrepancy, the more vulnerable she will be to HIV, STIs and unplanned pregnancies. Once again, there are complex social and economic reasons why older men (who are frequently married or in other relationships or both) have sexual relationships with much younger women.
Lack of consistent condom use: Well, it’s quite obvious in this case that President Zuma was not using condoms consistently. Many people start off using condoms in new relationships, and then stop using them as the relationship progresses and feelings of trust and intimacy grow between the partners. Many people also use condoms in transient relationships, but don’t use them with spouses or regular partners, even when they have more than one spouse or regular partner. And many people just don’t use condoms at all (according to his own evidence at his rape trial, President Zuma had no qualms about having unprotected sex with a woman who he knew was HIV positive.)
Education on HIV is not sufficient to change behaviour: It’s also very obvious that President Zuma has plenty of information about HIV – there was a massive public out-cry after his infamous “shower” comments during the rape trial, so presumably he now knows the facts. South Africa is awash with information about HIV, but this appears to have very little impact on behaviour.
So while we might wish that we had a President who was a paragon of safe sex virtue in the midst of the HIV epidemic, we in fact have one who neatly encapsulates the reasons why we have an HIV epidemic here in the first place. Instead of asking whether the President’s behaviour undermines prevention messaging like “ABC”, perhaps we should be asking whether these types of prevention campaigns work at all?
Regards
Chloe Hardy
(writing in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the SA HIV Clinicians Society)
From: policy...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:policy...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of HIV
Ethics&Policy
Sent: 08 February 2010 11:03
To: policy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [policy-ethics] Case Study 19: Zuma's sexual trysts and AIDS
policy
Dear All
Case Study 19 focuses on President Jacob Zuma's 20th child and his polygamous marriage, and its impact on HIV/AIDS in South Africa.
Some questions for discussion:
1.) Is the President's private life and his sexual encounters of consequence to HIV/AIDS policy in South Africa? If so, how?
2.) What is the media's duty towards Zuma's right to privacy? Did he as a public, political figure give up his right to privacy when he took up office as the President?
3.) Can the public expect Zuma to "be faithful" to his wives, or practice safe sex, or is that a matter of private, sexual morality? Does he bear a greater responsibility towards "being faithful" than other public figures (for example,sporting heroes Tiger Woods and John Terry whose extramarital affairs have also recently been exposed in the media)? Why, or why not?
4.) The "Recognition of the Customary Marriages Act" of 1998 gives the right to a man to marry multiple women [polygyny], but not necessarily to women to marry multiple men [polyandry] under customary law. Customary law is defined in the Act as "“customary law” means the customs and usages traditionally observed among the indigenous African peoples of South Africa and which form part of the culture of those peoples"
Does the existence of this Act undercut AIDS prevention work on multiple, concurrent partnerships and "being faithful"? Or should we re-conceptualise what "marriage" means in 21st Century South Africa?
Send your responses to <policy...@googlegroups.com>.
If you prefer to remain anonymous, send your response to <ethics...@gmail.com>, with Anon in the subject line.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Paternity Claim Challenges Zuma’s Stance on AIDS
By BARRY BEARAK
Published: February 1, 2010
______________________________________________________________________________________
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2010
Ethics, Zuma and the shield of culture
The controversy regarding President Zuma and his extramarital (and unprotected) sexual capers heated up significantly today. I was greeted this morning with the Cape Times headline: ZUMA DEFENDS LOVE CHILD. The growing media coverage, some speculative, provoked the President to react in the form of a press release. In the press release, the President decries the invasion of his privacy while admitting that he fathered a baby with Ms. Sonomo Khoza. Then he says something very strange:
I said during World AIDS Day that we must all take personal responsibility for our actions. I have done the necessary cultural imperatives in a situation of this nature, for example the formal acknowledgment of paternity and responsibility, including the payment of inhlawulo to the family.
That is certainly a new twist on the concept of personal responsibility. Translated into a new HIV prevention message, it runs something like this: when you have unprotected extramarital sex, and your sexual partner then has your child, do remember to pay compensation to the family. It's the right thing to do! This slogan should be all the rage on the international AIDS conference scene this year. Though perhaps a catchier version would be:clean up your fuck up. In a culturally appropriate way, of course.
Then the press release goes in an even murkier direction:
The media is also in essence questioning the right of the child to exist and fundamentally, her right to life. It is unfortunate that the matter has been handled in this way. I sincerely hope that the media will protect the rights of children.
When I read this, I couldn't get the image out of my mind of Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, in the scene where he picks up people and uses them as shields to protect himself from gunfire. In Zuma's case, he picks up a child (and its associated rights) in an attempt to shield himself from criticism: don't shoot the baby! In any case, the media has not focused on the right of the child to exist, if only because that boring issue does not sell papers. How the child came to exist is far more interesting.
The press release includes a statement about the possible impact of this revelation to HIV prevention efforts. The President assures us that intensified efforts in prevention, treatment and research will continue. The idea that his personal behavior could act as a template of rationalization for sexual waywardness in local communities ... that does not come into play. Nor his obvious personal dislike of condoms that he and his government promotes. Now you could argue that President Clinton had his affairs, so why shouldn't Zuma be allowed his Presidential flings? One answer is: that Clinton was not allowed, he was nearly impeached, besides being roasted in the press. But the better answer is: Clinton's actions did not take place during a heterosexually-driven HIV epidemic responsible for hundreds of lives every single day.
Labels: bioethics, HIV/AIDS, South Africa
POSTED BY STUART RENNIE, EDITOR AT 5:01 PM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Policy and Ethics" group.
To post to this group, send an email to policy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
policy-ethic...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/policy-ethics?hl=en-GB.