Bride price is based on harmonising relationships, not market price rules

It is very important to note that bad behaviour by spouses is never necessarily based on the gifts (price) given since some men have mistreated girlfriends before giving any bride ‘price’ or gifts.

Watching a news commentary on traditional and cultural marriage process on NTV recently, one could easily notice that there are many issues on the subject which are terribly confused and mixed up, calling for more education and clarification. For instance, which authority decided on the term ‘bride price’? A quick survey showed that it was the translators of the vernacular languages into English who called these bridal gifts ‘bride price.’

In a bid to improve on the term, this has come to be known as ‘bride wealth’ although others refer to it as ‘dowry’ copied from the Indian practice. However, the survey showed that all these terms are erroneous and are, therefore, misleading.

It is very unfortunate that very many people have picked and capitalised on the ‘erroneous’ word ‘price’ to the extent that human rights activists and even courts of law have pronounced themselves on it and it continues to generate heated and sometimes bitter debate.

Some people argue that the discussion and agreement on the number of cows and goats or any other animals is equivalent to the fixing of a price, since failure to agree could jeopardise the marriage process.

But they forget that in very many cases, the numbers of animals talked about in public are actually never given. And even where they are all given, many of the animals, plus a lot of other property, are given back to the couple by the woman’s parents as a start-up capital.

And, also, the terms used in western Uganda such as enjugano, eby’aboorozi, ebishebo, and in Luganda, omutwaalo, ebirabo, are all symbolic since no amount can buy a human being. In fact, all these terms do not indicate or include the word price in them.

The whole context of marriage world over is actually “the creation of son-daughter relationship” between all the parties or players involved in these marriage processes.

In many cultures, the man or the suitor requests the woman’s family to be allowed to be born there in order to qualify for the bride he is looking for and this can never be a buyer/seller relationship or transaction. This relationship is confirmed by the titles, “son-in-law” and “daughter-in-law” given to those who come into families through marriage.

The marriage process does not follow the ‘market price’ rules, rather it is based on negotiation between two families wishing to have a permanent relationship. That is why in some communities, the marriage process is the same as that of ‘blood friendship’ and so coffee berries are shared and eaten, milk and other drinks exchanged and drank, and other rituals done all to cement the marriage relationship.

In many of the cultures in Africa and Uganda in particular, any visitor or guest is supposed to go with a gift for the host and this is freely given without any price tag attached to it. In the same way, visitors going into a family intending to marry one of its daughters must ordinarily and as expected, go with a gift or gifts for the host. Secondly, and especially in the past, any visitor or even a passer-by could not be refused a drink and food where possible.

For instance, in the communities of West Africa portrayed by Chinua Achebe in “Things Fall Apart,” every official visitor had to share a drink from the kola nut and very many feasts were enjoyed in honour of visitors. All these were not done and are not done today for a price.

In many societies and traditions, gifts are shared out in the marriage process, including rings, clothes, food and drinks at receptions, equipments of all types and sizes, trips abroad, and very many others and all these are usually not quantified or refundable.

It is very important to note that bad behaviour by spouses is never necessarily based on the gifts (price) given since some men have mistreated girlfriends before giving any bride ‘price’ or gifts.

It follows, therefore, that the cruelty of some men who mistreated their wives and went to the extent of demanding for the gift cows they had given was not the norm or even the indicator that what had been given was at a price. In fact, in such cases it was only where the woman was guilty that such a demand would be made. Alternatively, many men were subjected to various types and amounts of fines for the mistreatment of their wives.
Spouse mistreatment and harassment have their causes independent of how the two people came together to form the marriage and those who perpetuate cruelty, incidentally both men and women, should be disciplined according to the available laws and other codes of conduct.

In conclusion, allow me to say that the debate which has been going on and the issues and cases taken to courts are based on wrong interpretations of terms through the erroneous translation of what was happening in the marriage process.