The polygamy debate has crossed the Channel and is now rattling the rafters of Westminster. A high-profile case in South Africa, where a politician's multiple marriages have ignited a global row, has forced British MPs to confront an uncomfortable question: are our cherished values of equality and individual liberty as universal as we claim?
Sources inside the Foreign Office tell me this is a 'live grenade' for the government. The optics are terrible. Here we have a senior South African figure, a man who preaches traditional values, openly practicing polygamy. The British response has been measured, but privately, ministers are seething. They see it as a direct challenge to the liberal consensus that Britain has championed for decades.
The real action, however, is on the backbenches. A group of Conservative MPs, led by a well-known traditionalist, is planning to table an early day motion. Their argument is simple: if we champion equality for all, we must respect cultural practices, even those that make us uncomfortable. They are testing the waters, seeing if there is appetite for a broader debate on family structures.
Labour, meanwhile, is divided. The progressive wing wants a strong statement condemning polygamy as inherently patriarchal. The more cautious voices, including a shadow cabinet minister I spoke to last night, are wary of being seen as 'imperialist'. They remember the backlash over colonial-era moralising.
The polling data is telling. Focus groups show the public is deeply conflicted. Younger voters, especially in urban areas, are more tolerant. Older voters, particularly in the shires, see it as an affront to British values. This is a wedge issue that could split the coalition of voters the Tories have painstakingly built.
What happens next? The prime minister's team is in a bind. They want to avoid a full-blown culture war. But with a crucial by-election looming, they cannot afford to alienate the socially conservative base. Expect a carefully worded statement reaffirming 'British values' without explicitly condemning the South African practice. That is the game: say something that sounds firm but commits to nothing.
Meanwhile, the South African drama rumbles on. The politician in question is using the global attention to bolster his domestic standing. He is painting Britain as hypocritical, pointing to our own recent history of changing definitions of marriage. He has a point, and that is what makes this so dangerous for the government.
The key players to watch: the home secretary, who has been notably silent; the equalities minister, who is under pressure to comment; and the chief whip, who is counting the number of potential rebels. This story has legs. It is not going away.
In the corridors of power, the whispers are getting louder. Some are calling for a Commons debate. Others want a private meeting of the 1922 Committee. The fear is that this could spiral into a full-blown crisis over the very definition of British identity. And in an election year, no one wants that.
For now, the official line is: 'We respect cultural differences but uphold British values.' But ask any seasoned lobby hack, and they will tell you that is a fudge. The real battle is just beginning. And it will be fought not in South Africa, but in the committee rooms and dining clubs of Westminster.
