I wish to challenge the writer of this article, that 'there is still a long walk to freedom for South African women', and argue that the point is overstated to a point of exaggeration.

Yes, Zuma is the president of the Republic of SA, but he is also the citizen (1st one) and an individual, who is not above the law and the constitution. But what most neglect to emphasise is that he also enjoys rights and responsibilities under the same constitution as everybody else. It may be argued if his are more than the ordinary citizen. This is not to protect what indiscretion that he may have been involved in any way, but am concerned about the impression created, and how it relegates other important considerations into non-existence.

President Zuma is not a saint, that must be said upfront, and necessarily may not be without blame.

It is not for us (collective) citizens to judge his apology, belated or not about fathering a child out of wedlock with Sonono Khoza, but that he did apologise should be enough, then its up to the individual and their conscience to forgive him or not.

I dispute the assertion that he 'has taken the country back a few decades..', he did not do this alone, he was aided by a very modern and empowered woman. I support the argument that says 'these women are not without choice', they know what they are doing, either agreeing to marry him or to have a child with him knowingly that he is already married or that they are not one of his wives. The less said about the rape case the better, as the court pronounced itself on that one, what more do we as public must say, if we claim to respect 'Rule of law' and court judgments? The 'shower'-story is one that we cannot carry on harping on, unlike opposition parties who use it for political gains.

Indeed, 'polygamy is not illegal in SA', but this is a life-style of the greater part of the population, if we agree that blacks are the majority in SA, and this calls for the respect of this as a right, that must not be judged according to Western life-style and standards – now if you tell us of Obama and Michelle, you are telling us about people who have long lost their roots, they live according to what American life-style demand, they are as 'American' as Clinton or Jimmy Carter is, despite their colour of the skin. In SA, we do not look up to American life-style.

Zuma is a proud Zulu man and a traditionalist, further a Nationalist! This deserves protection and respect under the constitution as any other norm or practice.

The point is that practice of 'polygamy' should not be confused with 'promiscuity', if we indeed respect those practicing it.

Comparing Zuma and Mandela is just not going to help issues here, even to suggest that they come from the same 'traditional root'”, offers no solace.

I am not here going to pronounce on Zuma’s lessons on abstinence, faithfulness and using a condom as all this is self-evident. My point is the respect that other 'cultures' need same respect as mainstream Western style, and not be confused with derogatory terms like promiscuity.

Now, if you say 'include attitude towards women as a key of leadership' now that would open a can of worms, just look around, how many former presidents, sports stars and other influential people have been implicated for showing and practicing accumulation of numerous women clandestinely?

For answers to all these questions that the writer had asked, we can take up the issue of 'morality', as has been raised by the very same Zuma, look at racial composition of our society, determine how each and every race’s values should be related, what to expect within each, learn more about each and everyone of them and lastly, show unequivocal respect for what is dear to others!

Amandla!

* These views expressed in this letter are personal.