Polygamy: Public or Private Matter?
Sofia Tjiptadjaja

---

When the news that Aa Gym, a popular young cleric in Indonesia, had married a second-wife broke out at the end of 2006, it elicited intense, wide personal responses and disputes among the people. The government contended for updating the 1974 marriage law that would make engagements in Polygamy acts to be more restrictive. The effort was not continued though, partly because of the strong oppositions that came from the Islamic conservatives saying that the government should allow the things that their religion’s teachings already permit them to do. Some people argued that Polygamy issues should be kept as a private matter because it concerns a consensual agreement of marriage between a man and a woman. In the case of polygamy additional agreements would be required between a man and his existing family, and between a man and his religious faith. They believed that the government should worry about other more urgent matters such as the economic growth, foreign policy affairs, unemployment, corruption, instead of meddling in Polygamy issues.

People who are pro-polygamy have mentioned the benefits and opportunities it provides to orphans and widows. Other reasoning also tried to elaborate the fact that men and women are created differently physiologically and psychologically, thus they have different needs, implying that men might need more wives, but at the same time one husband would be sufficient for women. They asked for polygamy to be made optional for the people who want and need it. A polygamist and secretary-general of the Justice and Prosperity Party, Anis Matta, said in Tempo 11th December 2006 edition that Muslims should have the option: “If a good match for the woman is already married and she is willing to become the second wife, then why not?”. But what about the first wife’s option? If she gives her husband the permission to marry again, then they will have a Polygamy household. But if she is not willing for her husband to marry again, then her husband could choose to divorce her and remarry without receiving any significant penalty. In the first option, the first wife would usually experience emotional turmoil in having to share a husband as well as a huge shame to bear to have her husband proclaiming to the world that she is not fulfilling enough for him. Natural feeling of jealousy is very common between the wives and between the children since they now need to share a husband and a father. In the second option, even worse, the first wife could lose any financial protection and have to experience the emotional hurt and shame of becoming a divorcee “forced” out of marriage. There are emotional and economic blackmails concealed within the second option that subject many women to succumb to the first option even though it is actually far from ideal, even painful for them. In reality, those are actually not so much of real options to begin with.

Most people would agree that Polygamy household is born under a non-ideal situation, either the first wife can not fulfill her duties, the husband has unfulfilled needs (sexual or emotional), or some other woman (widows or not) who wants to have a financial and emotional protection within a wall of marriage even by marrying someone else’s husband. It can be safely acknowledged though that there are myriad of ways to help widows and orphans without including them in a Polygamy household. We could start by giving them respect that they deserve and voluntarily helping them out without expecting anything in return.

What about the sexual and emotional needs of the husbands, should it be a concern or not? The proponents of Polygamy argue that men are created differently than women and that their needs are legitimate. Part of being human, it is true we all have needs and even somewhat different needs. However, not all our needs should be fulfilled and have to be fulfilled if we are hurting other people or if we are depriving our wives and children’s needs in the process. Some people have threatened that men would go to prostitution if their sexual needs can not be met. Obviously prostitution should not be a viable option because it is an act of infidelity which is unlawful and against one’s religion teachings. Yet even if you marry another woman to have your sexual needs fulfilled, although in all technicality it is not considered an infidelity act, substantially it is. It is a disloyal act, a breach of trust, if the first wife has not fully approved of the union or even feels slightly betrayed. And most of the cases, the first wives do feel that way as they are human beings with feelings.

The balance of power (or rights) within a polygamy marriage is not one-to-one anymore as it is in a monogamy marriage. Instead it shifts the balance of power to be many-to-one, implicating a very natural proclivity to position the woman’s rights and power to be lower and less valuable than her husband within that household as well as slashing her dignity for now she needs to compete with the other wives for many things. Should it be a concern? Some people would argue that the value of women is intrinsically lower then men. Yet as part of a civil society, all should understand and accept that all human are created equal regardless of gender, language, color, race, religion beliefs and political convictions. In many families, men would be assumed as the head of the family and wives would often voluntarily give up their rights and support their husband’s headship out of respect, love, and religious devotion. But this does not indicate a lesser value of any kind. But in a polygamist household, that mechanism of voluntary power release is broken. Wife can not again put their rights away voluntarily, instead she is now “forced” to do that, to give up some of her rights and share them with other(s). The husband now has the power to choose among one of many, not to mention an ample opportunities and possibilities to abuse that power within his own household, unseen and undetected by outsiders. The demeaning impact of polygamy to women is so obvious. Additionally, even Annis Matta, a polygamist admitted in Tempo 11th December 2006 edition that it is next to impossible to be 100% fair and just in treating all the wives emotionally (and/or materially).

As per government involvement in the case: if the first wife does not approve of her husband’s decision to marry again, should her interest be a concern for the government or not? The author believes that the government should interfere in a justifiable pursuit to protect the first wife and the children. If a husband wants to marry again yet the first wife is not invalid, infertile, still fulfill her duties and she does not consent to her husband’s intentions, then he could not just divorce and dismiss her without getting some sort of penalty. If the first wife voluntarily allows her husband to marry again, then a Polygamy household could not be prevented. But if the first wife does not want to allow it, then the government should interfere so that by having that “help from the just law” the first wife would be released from the emotional and economic blackmails imposed on her by her husband.

The government could help diminish the impact of the emotional and economic blackmails faced by the wives through the right level of intervention. The government could acknowledge and make an official statement that Polygamy is not an ideal case since it creates an unfair predisposition for women. The government could also discourage Polygamy acts through laws that are unsupportive of it and making the practice to be rather difficult. Although to some extent the government has attempted to do that, additionally there should be some types of financial protection for the wives who do not support their husbands to marry again and are forced to be divorced on that basis. The husband should be responsible to support his ex-wife through some monetary compensation and financial commitment until she remarries. This would ease off the financial dilemmas that women must cope with when they are faced with the options of either being a part of Polygamy households or divorcee widows. So in this way, Polygamy is not totally banned and could still be an option for the few women who favor that family structure and lifestyle. But for those women who do not tolerate it, they would still be able to secure the financial protection that they deserve.

By having more government involvement to protect women’s rights in Polygamy cases, it is by no means endorsing the government to take sides neither to support nor against certain religion’s beliefs or teachings. Everybody has the rights to exercise their own values and their beliefs as long as it doesn’t hurt others. This effort is simply trying to better women’s position in that situation, so that they could receive more just treatments that they deserve and are not going to end up in the position of emotional or financial blackmail. The role of the government is to be a neutral arbiter that would consider the rights and the situations of all parties, both men and women, fairly.

Consequently, Polygamy should not only be a private matter; it should also be a public matter. It is the government’s duty to protect people with different religions and different interpretations of religions as part of their basic human’s rights (Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) which said Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance). Even if both the husband and wife are Moslems, but if the wife does not believe in the same interpretation of Polygamy as her husband, she should be protected as her husband’s interpretations will adversely affect her. Especially in a marriage, both the husband and the wife have equal rights as part of their basic human rights (Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 16(1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as marriage, during marriage, and at it dissolution and Article 16(2): Marriage shall be entered into only with free and full consent of the intending spouses). A logical construal and implication from Article 16(2) is that in the case of Polygamy, the act shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses, including the first wife’s since she is already inside the marriage institution and she has an equal right as her husband in that marriage. The government’s intervention does not mean that the government endorses some acts/beliefs and works against others. It just simply means that the government would forestall any persecutions (emotional and economic blackmails included) to women and protect the women when their basic rights are violated.

The civil society and the government’s focus should be to have and enforce laws based on human rights. Most importantly within a diverse population such as in Indonesia, where citizens have different religions and even different interpretations of the same religion, there needs to be an established set of laws that are “big” enough to accommodate these different people and can protect the basic rights of all these people. This set of laws is very important to govern a civil society that would enable these different people to work together towards the advancement of the society while their basic rights are securely protected. In the case of freedom of religion and conscience, every person has an equal dignity and rights (Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human’s rights said: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood). A larger number of people do not hold more dignity and more rights such that it can impose and crush one other person’s dignity and rights. The nature of a human’s dignity and rights are not additive. People’s dignity and rights can not be accumulated and measured based on the number of people. Each person has its own on equal stand before the law. Thus a majority of people can not impose their beliefs on others, which is why the role of government as a fair arbiter is very important. In the case of freedom of religion and conscience, majority does not equal fairness. This applies similarly in the case of polygamy: if a woman desires to have a polygamy household in accordance to what she truly believes as her religion’s duty then the government should allow it. But if a woman doesn’t want to have a polygamy household and it is not something that she believes in, then the man of the family and the people in her community can not impose their will to the woman and extort permission from the woman so that her husband can marry again. The government should protect these women from emotional and economic blackmails as well as offer them more workable options. Polygamy should be a public matter, because it has a major potential of degrading women’s rights. It represents a subtle apprehension that women’s dignity and rights are less valuable than men’s, and the implications of that notion would permeate to every fiber of the society and life facets. Thus the stakes of Polygamy should not just be a plight for Moslem women, but it is for all women. And in a spirit of brotherhood and solidarity of human kinds, it is also the plight for all men to protect the dignities and rights of their mothers, their sisters, and their daughters.

Sofia Tjiptadjaja currently resides in Chicago, USA. Her interests are cultural and social issues.

Back to top