Case Study 19: Zuma's sexual trysts and AIDS policy

[HIV Ethics&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.

___________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/africa/02safrica.html

Paternity Claim Challenges Zuma’s Stance on AIDS

By BARRY BEARAK

Published: February 1, 2010

______________________________________________________________________________________

http://globalbioethics.blogspot.com/

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

[HIV Ethics&Policy]

A reminder about the questions under the discussion.

 

:-)

M.