Introduction
The recent ruling of the South African Constitutional Court, in Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs, has been hailed as a victory for gender equality. By declaring it unconstitutional for only wives to assume their husbands’ surnames, the court extended equal rights to husbands, allowing them also to take their wives’ surnames or form double-barreled combinations. On the surface, this represents ‘progress’ towards dismantling male bias in South African law. Yet, when critically examined through the lens of African cultural systems, particularly those of Bantu societies, questions arise. What is the impact on clan identity, lineage, children and traditional marriage customs? King Sobhuza II warned in 1972, when rejecting the British-imposed Constitution, that emaSwati must ‘take what is good from the white man and leave what is bad’. His words echo today, as South Africans confront the question of whether Western models of individual rights align with or undermine traditional communal systems.
The court’s reasoning
The court based its judgment on Section 9 of the South African Constitution, which prohibits unfair discrimination. It found that permitting only wives to change their names, based on marital status, while denying that same choice to husbands, entrenched gender inequality. It reasoned that dignity, autonomy and equality require a gender-neutral approach. From the present constitutional perspective, the ruling is consistent with South Africa’s democratic values and human rights framework. However, rights are never exercised in a vacuum; they exist within social and cultural contexts that give surnames a deeper meaning.
The role of surnames in African traditional marriage
Unlike in Western societies, where surnames are largely markers of family units, African surnames and clan names carry ancestral, spiritual and communal weight. They are the living memory of entire lineages. In Bantu societies, a surname is not merely a tag, but an identity linking one to a clan, its history, people and its land. Take the emaSwati practice observed when a woman marries, she keeps her surname, but adds ‘La’ before it, signaling she has joined another household. A Maseko woman becomes LaMaseko at her in-laws. This practice allows her to retain her lineage, while also acknowledging marital status. Crucially, she does not erase her surname altogether, but keeps it alive. The home is known as kaLaMaseko (home of Make Maseko). The system balances respect for both families, while maintaining clear lineage for children; because in African tradition, the marriage is between families, not two individuals. If a husband assumes his wife’s surname, the children’s lineage becomes ambiguous within African kinship systems. They might belong to a clan they are not blood-related to – potentially causing cultural and even marital complications in the future. I cannot even begin to imagine what the lobola culture will look like under this law.
Lineage, clans and potential confusion
African villages, historically, organised themselves around patrilineal clans. Children carried the father’s surname, ensuring continuity of the clan across generations. Uncles, cousins and brothers of the wife were easily traceable through the wife’s surname. If naming becomes fluid and subject to personal choice rather than lineage, confusion is inevitable.
Consider this: If a man named Dlamini marries a woman named Maseko and takes her surname, their children will be registered as Maseko. In the traditional sense, however, they are born of the Dlamini clan. In generations to come, descendants might mistakenly believe they are of Maseko blood. This could result in situations where two young people, thinking they are from different clans, enter marriage, only to later discover shared ancestry. Such outcomes would be devastating in societies where clan purity and exogamy are central to marriage customs.
Sobhuza II’s warning and the clash of worldviews
King Sobhuza II’s rejection of the 1968 independence Constitution in Eswatini was not opposition to democracy or women’s rights, but a stand against imposed systems that clashed with African traditions. He argued that constitutions should reflect the soul of the nation, not foreign templates that ignored lived realities.
South Africa’s Court ruling, while noble in intent, raises the same challenge: Is it another imposition of Western liberalism, that ignores African communal identity? Africans do not see themselves primarily as individuals with autonomous rights, but as members of extended families and clans. Rights must, therefore, be balanced with responsibilities to the community and heritage. A purely rights-based interpretation risks undermining this balance.
Is this a threat to African culture?
One could argue that the ruling risks making a mockery of Bantu clan systems. For centuries, identity has passed from father to son, preserving cohesion. If husbands freely change surnames, children may inherit identities detached from their ancestral line. This weakens the clan system and could be seen as part of a larger erosion of African traditions under globalisation.
Yet, defenders of the ruling might counter that culture is not static. They may say the right to choose a surname does not erase African traditions; families are free to continue their customs. Only those who wish to deviate will do so. However, law often shapes practice: What begins as choice may become expectation, especially among urban Black elites, seeking to showcase modern gender equality. Over time, this could muddy or marginalise traditional systems.
The conspiracy question
Some may see in this ruling a subtle conspiracy to dismantle African tribal systems, which was planted in 1994 within the Constitution. The Apartheid monopoly capitalist negotiating at CODESA sought to weaken African individuals through their clans, following the weakening of the traditional leaders.
By replacing clan-based identity with nuclear family models, Africans were easier to govern, given their love for anything white. In this sense, surname flexibility could be interpreted as another wedge, undermining communal structures. Whether or not it is deliberate, the effect may still be disruptive to the continuity of African heritage.
Is this part of Western practice?
It is also useful to ask: Which Western countries widely practice husbands taking wives’ surnames? The reality is that in much of the West, while legally permissible, it is rare. In the United States, the United Kingdom and much of Europe, it remains overwhelmingly the norm for wives to take husbands’ surnames, not vice versa. Only in small progressive pockets, such as some Scandinavian countries or among individual couples in North America, do husbands assume wives’ surnames; and even there, it is often viewed as unconventional.
This reveals a paradox: African societies may be encouraged to embrace a practice that even, in the West, is marginal. Why then should Africans risk disorienting centuries-old clan systems for a model not deeply rooted even where it originated?
Comments: septembereswatini@gmail.com
Leave a comment