Supporting the family of any president is going to be expensive but in this case, the number is considerably higher than in the past. The new South African president has three wives and twenty children. The estimated budget for supporting the family of the new president is over $2 million which is almost three times the budget of the last family. Most costs are going to be much less in South Africa where the average household income is around $10,000 so these costs are noticeably high. Surely the issue is also an attempt by others to highlight the issue of polygamy as well as his tribe (Zulu) which accepts polygamy.
There was some friction a few weeks ago when Zuma visited the UK and he fought back against the UK press who repeatedly attacked his culture, in his opinion. At the time, I had noticed that even the normal press on left had one article about Zuma that somehow included a photo of him in tribal clothing though the article was about his visit to the UK. Seemed like a stretch and a silly attempt to diminish his position. I take issue with Zuma's history, his recent support for Mugabe and polygamy but am tiring of the cultural attacks. Does a large family really encourage corruption? That hasn't stopped individuals or leaders with smaller families, has it?
Is it fair to criticize such expenses or is it just another cheap shot against a different culture? The Guardian:
A bitter row has erupted in South Africa after it emerged that taxpayers are spending more than 15.5m rand (£1.3m) a year to support President Jacob Zuma's three wives and some of his 20 children.
The figure, almost double the presidential spousal budget a year ago, was condemned as "exorbitant" by the opposition leader, Helen Zille, who claimed the size of Zuma's family "makes corruption almost inevitable".
This prompted a sharp riposte from the governing African National Congress, which accused Zille, who is white, of "cultural intolerance". Zuma, 68, is a member of the Zulu tribe, in which polygamy is a traditional practice.
