Legalizing Polygamy Undermines Equality: Adil Soz Head Responds to MP Kuspan’s Proposal

Karlygash Zhamankulova, head of the International Foundation for the Protection of Freedom of Speech “Adil Soz”, has responded to MP Abzal Kuspan’s proposal to legalize polygamy.

In a detailed Facebook post, Zhamankulova called the idea “dangerous and legally untenable”, warning that it contradicts Kazakhstan’s constitutional principles and could harm women’s and children’s rights.

Orda.kz publishes her full, unedited statement below.

 
Karlygash Zhamankulova writes:

I can't remain silent, as they say. Mr. Kuspan's proposal to legalize polygamy is based on extremely dubious premises. I want to explain, in a well-reasoned manner, to the male population specifically, the flaws of this position.

He insists that the ban on polygamy doesn't work, and that if "the ban doesn't work," then what's the point? I suspect Abzal Kuspan is being disingenuous. He is, after all, a lawyer. And an excellent one at that. So I don't believe he simply made a mistake out of ignorance.

He's actually prevaricating in his arguments.

Firstly, the criminal liability that existed during the Soviet era has been abolished, and there are no administrative or criminal consequences for cohabitation in the country. That is, according to the principle of generally permissive practice, everything that is not prohibited is permitted; we are free to love whomever we want.

What is this "prevarication"? He argues as if marriage were a form of private behavior, appealing to freedom. But in essence, he is attempting to change the very nature of a public legal institution.

From the perspective of legal philosophers (and fortunately, we have them, and they will be able to provide more well-reasoned arguments), Deputy Kuspan's proposal is an attempt to "sideline" the state and reduce its interference in the institution of marriage.

He claims this isn't encouragement, but rather "regulation of existing practice." A strange argument for a lawyer. A legal scholar's proposal to legalize an illegal practice is like bees against honey.

Article 4 of the Constitution presupposes the rule of law, not the legalization of violations. By this principle, tomorrow we could end up legalizing corruption. Will we establish quotas? No more than a 10% kickback?

The law also implies equality for all citizens and equal rights for spouses. Does the deputy envisage introducing the practice of multiple-husband families? (Similar to the Tibetan family principle, where in remote areas, brothers can marry the same woman...)

Allegedly, current practice creates a legal gray area, and legalization will provide protection for children and rights for "second" wives. Again, he's not an ordinary person, but a professional lawyer. And he should certainly know that the existing legal framework protects property rights and inheritance.

Paternity can be established, and women's rights are protected through the institution of joint ownership, as enshrined in the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Therefore, a true legal expert knows for certain that protecting women and children requires not the erosion of constitutional equality between spouses by legalizing polygamous relationships, but the effective enforcement of existing legal practices.

According to a World Bank study, in countries with widespread polygyny, women's incomes are, on average, 30–40% lower, and their children are less well-off with resources.

In general, from a legal perspective, this proposal is tantamount to undermining Kazakhstan's legal system, legitimizing the institution of inequality, and reducing the state's ability to protect children and women in marriage.

But I have other arguments for men.

The Demographic Argument.

Officially, Kazakhstan's population is 51.1% women and 48.9% men, and at first glance, it seems like there's a serious imbalance. In reality, however, there are consistently more men under 36 than women in the same age group. And this, mind you, is the prime reproductive age.

Legalizing polygamy won't give more rights to men, but will instead give more opportunities to a handful of the wealthiest, most good-looking, and most influential. Consider the unfortunate experience of many traditional countries: men are forced to save for a " Qalym (dowry - Ed.)" until they reach 40 or older.

This not only demoralizes the male population and increases overall aggression in society, but, unfortunately, also leads to serious distortions in sexual practices. I won't dwell on this last point in detail — one can figure it out for themselves, especially if you've had experience traveling to such countries, not just as tourists.

Demographic Argument No. 2.

About the supposedly higher birth rates in countries with legalized polygamy. No, that's not true. In the absence of cataclysms or wars, the data is the exact opposite: birth rates decline. I believe this is because many men remain single during their peak reproductive years.

I'll add a practical argument: our TFR (fertility rate) is one of the highest in the region, 3.01. This is an excellent indicator. For example, in the US it's 1.62; in Russia it's 1.4; in China it's 1; and in Korea it's a mere 0.7.

The Political Argument.

Not a single country in the world has gone the other way: having legalized monogamous marriages, no one has returned to the old practice. Not in Tunisia, not in Ghana, not in Tanzania. Even if the practice of polygamy is not prohibited in Muslim countries, the number of such marriages there is declining — or at least not growing.

And this is primarily for economic reasons. Monogamous marriages have historically led to greater capital accumulation and growth. You can read more about this in Joseph Henrich, who presents a wealth of arguments and evidence linking capital growth and monogamy.

In general, if we are not preparing for war, are not trying to accumulate the potential for aggression in society, are not creating economic stagnation, and are not creating revolutionary conditions for the establishment of a caliphate, then we should abandon attempts to undermine the legal institution of marriage.

Original Author: Zarina Fayzulina