Is Multiple and Concurrent Sexual Partnerships really a Cultural and or a Traditional Practice among Basotho?

One fact that we cannot deny is that Multiple and Concurrent Sexual Partnerships is one of the biggest drivers of HIV spread in Lesotho.  What I have a problem with is when it is called a traditional or a cultural practice.  Those of you who have been with me in fora where this kind of topics are discussed will bare me witness that I oppose it in the strongest terms.

Traditionally, there were contexts where a man could have sexual relations with a woman or women other than his wife, but this were sanctioned or regulated.  Look at the following contexts.

Traditional Contexts:

Ho nyalloa lebota –  This is where a family which does not have a boy marry a girl so that the children she fathers will be children of that family.  Lobola is paid, a girl is married, and a man (married or unmarried where the unmarried has been initiated) has relations with that girl for the purpose of fathering a child or children.  I am not sure in the case of the married man if his wife knew, but I want to believe it was made with the utmost discretion for her not to know.

Ho nyalloa lebitla – The same context as above but the difference here is that the family did have a boy and the boy dies before he could marry.  The girls who is married is called the wife of the deceased man and the children fathered are that of a deceased man.

Ho senya ngoana –  Basotho believed in proper spacing of children and if a woman was still breastfeeding, her husband was not allowed to have relations with her or even sleep in the same room with her.  Such a man would be allowed to have relation with a woman in the village or nearby village under strict sanctions of the elders (remember that he was not sleeping around with whomever he pleased but a woman sanctioned by those who had authority to do so).  Also remember that a child could be breastfed up to 3 or 4 years.

Ho ephola monna ea hlokang bana – If a man was impotent and could not give his wife children, a man of good standing and good genes, was selected by those who had authority to do so and he would biologically father a child or children for that family.  He did not have any ties to the child or woman and could never claim it as his own.  (Remember when there are no children in a household, it is still solely blamed on to a woman?  It is because a man could traditionally be covered in this manner if it was him with the challenge of fathering babies.)

Ho kenela – When an elder brother died before he could have children or if the wife was vulnerable and needed to be taken care of, the younger brother was expected to father children for his late brother.  If the younger brother was married, the same discreet methods to sneak him in to his brother’s household were used but if he was not married, he was expected to marry his late brother’s wife.   

Ho nyala sethepu – Though this is not traditionally a Basotho practice if you look at the literature far back, it became a norm among Basotho (have you noticed that Bathepu are Nguni and not Sotho and this kind of polygamous marriage is called Sethepu?)

Well even so, a man could not just go propose to a woman and marry her as his second wife.  Sethepu was sanctioned by the elder wife and she is the one who used to choose the second wife for her husband.  The first wife gained matriarchal powers by controlling the chores of the household, raising the babies from the second wife if she chose and drawing a time table about when the man of the house could be with which wife.  Sometimes it happened because the matriarch needed more children for the household and was not in a position to provide them herself.  It could be that she is barren or is too old to have children herself.  (do you remember Sarah and Hagar in the Old Testament?)

Ringing similarities about all the contexts above are:

·         Such relations were sanctioned by the elders or people who were authorised to do so and not the man engaging in them.

·         The man who is involved in these relations did not have his own discretion about who, to have those relations with.

·         It was always for a purpose other than the personal pleasures of such a man.

·         “Mosali ke oa likhomo” which means that all children born to a married woman are the children of the husband and of the family no matter if he biologically fathered them or not.

I must acknowledge that there has always been a practice (that has always and still is frowned upon) of Ho boka.  Since it was and still is frowned upon, can we honestly call it a culture or traditional practice? I think not.  Ho boka is a practice where a man acts on the affectionate feelings he has for a woman that he has not married.  You can simply call it adultery because the English meaning that is closest is just that.

Ho boka is not sanctioned by elders, it is at the discretion of the people doing it alone and the purpose is always for enriching one individual and pleasure of another (or both people).

In essence what is happening now that we have a tendency to wrongly defend as culture or tradition is Ho boka and that is wrong?

When the missionaries came to Lesotho with their new traditions, cultures and religion, a lot of the traditional norms highlighted above were gotten rid of and this created a socio-cultural vacuum.

Ho boka then became more prominent as the authorities that used to regulated social norms were gotten rid of.  Ho boka became even worse when men went to work for long periods in the mines in South Africa in order to pay hut tax and to provide the new western creature comforts that they never had or knew in the past.

By: Teboho C MOHLABI

Does Lesotho and Basotho Stands to Benefit from Dual Citizenship?

There is an old age debate in both Lesotho and South Africa about relations of the two countries.  We look at them differently and for different reasons, patriotism, opportunity, pride, policy and many others.  I just need us to weight our options and and see what would be the maximal benefit for the highest possible number of people looking at the scenarios below.

·         
      There are those who say that South Africa should return our Free State: The OAU Conventions which were signed just before most African Countries became independent from British and French Colonial Masters, resolved to leave the demarcations that were designed by Europeans.  The noble reason being that if they start meddling with the borders, Africa will be in civil wars over border disputes because some of them were really dubious and that Africa would be in deeper chaos than the Europeans left it.  This therefore means that Lesotho, being part of the OAU is part of this resolve and borders will NOT be re-negotiated.  If this was at all possible, it would have happened during Apartheid when RSA was an illegitimate state and if the world did not help us get Free State then, it definitely won’t help us now even those who continue this argument know this.   Chapter closed…

·         Lesotho should Join South Africa and Become A Tenth Province:  We may need a referendum for this one because I have a feeling that those who look at maximising the benefit for majority may look favourably at this option, but those with National Pride, Patriotism and Tradition, may not agree with the aforementioned statement.   Do recall that this will be two ways process where NOT only Basotho will move freely and get jobs in SA, but South Africans white, Coloured Indian and Black will also come into Lesotho, buy land properties and invest.  If you are already so paranoid about such a small group of Chinese, how Xenophobic  are you going to be with an influx of the whole Rainbow nation into Lesotho with the Madamara shoes, gold teeth and heavy accents?  How about the OuBasses with their Senqu shirts, Cowboy hats and Country Music? Some say  Lesotho will lose it sovereignty as a State.  My personal impression is: so? What if we lose our sovereignty as a State?  Do you need a hungry sovereignty or do we need Basotho who prosper under a different dispensation? I have made my decision and please also decide for yourself.
T
      There are also those who say  Our King will lose his powers and be like Good Will Swelithini well isn’t he already?  Isn’t he just a ceremonial figure head right now? What is so bad then when he moves from under a Prime Minister (to be then called Provincial Premier)  to under a President of a rich developing country?   It may be good for him as a person because his budget to run the royal house will also increase if Lesotho becomes part of South Africa.   The King’s subjects will increase (Remember some say he is not a Lesotho King but a Basotho King) and he will probably have another palace in the Free State somewhere.

·         A third argument is Lesotho should remain as a Sovereign State but Basotho who have birth links or job links with South Africa should be allowed to sort both a Lesotho and a South African Citizenship.  That’s it… Get the best of both worlds…  There is a lot of Basotho who work in South Africa now who are Professionals and Executives of big companies in South Africa.  When South Africans were busy toy-toying, Basotho, Zimbabweans and other South African black were busy going to school.  You will be amazed at how BEE and other Workplace Reforms in South Africa have benefited all black Southeners from the diaspora.  This black elite with Basotho among them have the muscle to make a difference here in Lesotho.     They can invest: Business, houses, bring skills etc.  They can stay longer in Lesotho, use their money thus promote Lesotho Tourism as well... It seems like Lesotho stands more to gain from this arrangement than loose.  I do not forsee lots of birthright South Africans wanting to come to Lesotho, but Birthright Basotho who have citizenship rights in South African will more likely come back.


L    Lets us continue this debate beyond the politics and share this ideas with other people.  Mohlomong re ka fumana namane e nonneng le litba tsena tsa re tsoela mosola.  Morokhotla ha u okoloe mafura...  

Does Gender Really Count In Leadership

Non-hierarchical style and relational skills make women better bets than men in the modern era of knowledge-based organisations

Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge?  A challenging new book by the Harvard University Psychologist Steven Pinker says that the answer is YES.

Pinker presents data showing that human violence, while still very much with us today, has been gradually declining.  Moreover, he says, “over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force. Traditional war is a man’s game: those who study history and social anthropology vouch that tribal women never band together to raid neighbouring village and claim territory for gathering roots, wood and vegetables.

As a mother, women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring and ensure that their genes survive in to the next generation.

Sceptics immediately reply that women have not made war simply because they have rarely been in power.  If they were empowered as leaders, the conditions of an anarchic world would force them to make the same bellicose decisions that men do.  Cleaopatra, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, ‘Manthatisi oa Batlokoa, and Indira Gandhi were powerful women and all of them lead their people and countries to war. Haebo!!!

What would Social Psychology say about this?  

But it is also true that these women rose to leadership by playing according to the political rules of ‘a man’s world order.’  It was their success in conforming to male values that enabled their rise to power in the first place.  In a world in which women held a proportionate share (one-half) of leadership positions, they might behave differently in power.  They might seek to make decisions that keep corporation and not competition.  It would be a nice feeling to see the UN General Assembly housing half men and half women.

So we are left with a broader question: does gender really matter in leadership?  In terms of stereo-types, various psychological studies show that the men gravitate towards the ‘hard power of command’ while women are ‘collaborative and intuitively understand ‘the soft power of attraction and persuasion’.  This is not rocket science of difficult psychological phenomenon; just think of raising children. The mother will even if harshly at times try to convince the child to do the right things while the father just concludes and gives the scary final rules about the order that should prevail in the house.  

In information-based societies, networks are replacing hierarchies and knowledge workers are less deferential.  Management in a wide range of organisations is changing in the direction of ‘shared leadership,’ and ‘distributed leadership’, with leaders in the centre of a cycle rather than atop a pyramid.  This is usually an acknowledgement that to be a leader does not mean you know everything; in fact there might be people under you who know something better than you do as a leader or manager.  A good manager manages the people and not the processes of work.

Even the military which was once very chauvinist faces changes.  The drill master of today will do better with ‘less shouting at everyone,’ because today’s generation responds better to instructors who play ‘a more counselling-type role’. Military success against terrorists and counter-insurgents requires soldiers to win hearts and minds and not just break buildings and bodies. 

Masculine Style

Women’s non-hierarchical style and relational skills fit a leadership need in the new world of knowledge-based organisations and groups that men, on average, are less well prepared to meet.

In the past, when women fought their way to the top of organisations, they often had to adopt a ‘masculine style’, violating the broader social norm of female ‘niceness’ in order to gain the majority vote – which is men.  Now, however, with the information revolution and democratisation demanding more participatory leadership, the ‘feminine style’ is becoming a path to more effective leadership.

In order to lead successful, men will not only tend to value this style in their women colleagues, but will also have to master the same skills.  That is a trend, not (yet) a fact.  Women still lag in leadership positions, holding only 5% of top corporate positions and a minority of around 25% in elected positions. (here Sweden is a trend setter with 45%  of the elected leadership).

One study of 1,941 rulers on independent countries during the 20^th Century found only 27 women, roughly half of whom came to power as widows or daughters of a male ruler.  Does this ring any bells?  How many women because leaders/chiefs because their husbands died or were removed from leadership for one reason or another? Did they perform any less in their leadership positions?  Do we still have kingdoms or constitutional monarchies with constitutions where a female cannot be an heir solely based on their gender?

Less than 1% of 20^th Century rulers were women who gained power on their own.

So given the new conventional wisdom in leadership studies that entering the information age means entering a woman’s world, why are women not doing any better?  Is ther purposeful barring of women? Is it culture or religion at play?

Lack of experience, primary caregiver responsibilities, bargaining style, and plain old discrimination all help to explain the gender gap.  Joalo ka ha Moruti eo ke mo ratang a tloaetse ho cho, BoMme kea le Zamela e reng “Ee.”  Traditional career paths, and cultural norms that constructed and reinforced them, simply have not enabled women to gain the skills required for top leadership positions and many organisational contexts.  Le sekolong se nang le Matichere a 13 moo BoNtate ba leng 2, one of them is the school principal.

Research shows that even in democratic societies, women face a higher social risk than men when attempting to negotiate for career-related resources such as compensation.  Women are generally not well integrated into male networks that dominate organisations, and gender stereotypes still hamper women who try to overcome such barriers.  U tla makala ha u utloa ba bang ba BoMme ba re, “Ache rone re ke ke  ra etelloa pele ke mosali, hobane BoMme baa seba”. What does gossip have to do with leadership?  Grapevine exists everywhere and it just has to be handles properly.  It does not by its nature make somebody a bad manager.  It is just like perceptions: it thrives where there is a lack of good communication and we simply have to improve on our communication.

This bias is beginning to break down in information-based societies, but it is a mistake to identify the new type of leadership we need in an information age simply as ‘a woman’s world’.  Even positive stereotypes are bad for women and men, and effective leadership: in essence ALL STEREOTYPES ARE BAD.

Leaders should be viewed less in terms of heroic command than as encouraging participation throughout an organisation, group, country, or network.  Questions of appropriate style – when to use hard and soft skills – are equally relevant for both men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional gender stereotypes.

In some circumstances, men will need to act more ‘like women’; and in others, women will need to act more ‘like men’.

The key choices about war and peace in our future will and should depend not on gender, but more on how leaders combine hard and soft skills to produce smart strategies.  Both men and women can and should make those decisions based on prevailing circumstances and not gender stereotypes.    

This article was inspired by a Book Called; The Future Power written by Joseph S. Nye Jr.

Article by; Teboho C MOHLABI