Why reversing 'Ilobolo' roles harms tradition

WHEN South Africa adopted its Constitution in 1994, the promise was not only political freedom but participatory governance.

- PRINCE AFRICA ZULU KAMXHEGU

“ILOBOLO” is not a transaction – it is a sacred bond between families, culture, and generations, says the writer. I Supplied

(Supplied)

It was a commitment that laws would be shaped by the lived realities of the people they govern. And for many African communities in South Africa, this promise carried a clear meaning, as it meant the protection of culture, family systems, land (property rights) and customary law developed with communities and not imposed upon them, as was the case in colonial days.

Today a widening disconnect continues to emerge between lawmaking and lived experiences of African descent. Parliament, on the other hand, increasingly legislates on living social systems while relying on formal processes that fail to translate into real understanding. Nowhere is this disconnect more evident than in the growing attempt to normalise the idea of women paying ilobolo (bride price) to men.

One thing for sure is that ilobolo is not a transaction; it also is not a reward, as it is a living system that binds families, affirms responsibility and maintains social balance. In Zulu tradition, Venda tradition, Swati traditions, Pedi traditions, Xhosa traditions and across many South African customary systems, the notion of a woman paying lobolo is fundamentally incompatible with cultural order; it is not a variation, as it is a taboo even attempting to reverse this structure, and it does not modernise the custom. It removes its meaning and its purpose.