Aspiration into action: Ratify the protocol now!

In Uganda in 1967 there were no women members of parliament and in 1980 only one out of the 143 members of Parliament was a woman. In the 1989 National Resistance Council elections, the NRM Government brought significant improvement to women’s political participation and reserved thirty-four seats for women. Uganda, writes Jacqueline Asiimwe, is often given as an example of effective women’s political participation, but there is a long way to go before the playing fields are truly level. Part of the solution is to turn the aspirations of the Millennium Development Goals into action by ratifying the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa.

Introduction:

One of the millennium development goals is the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women. While limited in nature, the goal addresses gender disparity in education, the share of women in wage employment and the proportion of seats held by women in national parliament. The importance of this goal to human development cannot be over emphasized.

This article explores just one of the aspects of the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women by sharing Uganda’s experience in the area of women’s political leadership.

The Uganda Experience:

Uganda is oft cited as a success story with regard to the issue of women in leadership – specifically political leadership. Indeed the 1995 Constitution has various articles that address women’s [political] leadership. The National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution stipulates that the State shall ensure gender balance and fair representation of marginalized groups on all constitutional and other bodies. Article 32 addresses the need for affirmative action; Article 33 spells out rights specific to women. Article 78 states that every district shall have one woman representative to parliament and article 180(b) ensures that one third of members of each local council shall be women.

One of the first demands that the women’s movement made of the new NRM regime (The NRM came to power in 1986 and has ruled Uganda since then. It is also known as the Movement Govenrment.) was in the area of women’s political rights. At independence in 1962 there was a 2:88 female to male ratio in parliament. But in 1967 no women served in Parliament; in 1980 only one out of the 143 members of Parliament was a woman. In the 1989 National Resistance Council elections, the NRM Government brought significant improvement to women’s political participation. Thirty-four seats were reserved for women; two women won their seats in open contests against male candidates, three women were nominated by the president and two were historical members, appointed because of their participation in the guerrilla war led by the National Resistance Army. By 1996, 52 women held parliamentary seats, 39 of them reserved and constituting 19 percent of the members of Parliament. By 1995 also, women constituted 17 percent of all ministers, 21 percent of all permanent secretaries, 35 percent of all under secretaries, and 16 percent of all district administrators. Women were also represented on National Commissions such as the Constitutional Commission, the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission as well as on parastatal boards.

Through affirmative action, women made considerable headway in Parliament. Women now make up 24 percent of the parliamentarians in Uganda and despite the ongoing discussion of the merits or demerits of such a policy one of the positive results is that women have been given exposure, political experience and increased confidence. When asked about the changes to women’s status after the 1986 NRM takeover, women overwhelmingly responded that the biggest changes related to women’s participation in politics, standing for office, becoming public and government leaders, and being able to express themselves publicly to a greater degree than in the past.

Despite these gains though, it is still not very easy for women to make it into political offices and prestigious leadership. The major players in politics and decision-making continue to be men despite women’s presence and the issues on women’s political agenda do not feature nor are they deemed a priority. The fact that men predominate in the public/political sphere in Uganda means that its organization and structures are heavily influenced by male values, attitudes and priorities. Very often women are expected to conform to and not transform the structures and norms of the public sphere. Whether the culture and atmosphere of politics is actively antagonistic to women, or simply organized in a way that doesn’t suit them, it can be difficult for women as relative newcomers to challenge. Those who attempt to transform the structures and norms face a quick and brutal backlash.

Further, despite the high numbers of women in politics and in the public space, women are still regarded as intruders in this [male] space and are largely unwelcome in the political domain and for the most part they are endured as a necessary evil rather than an equal partner on the pathway to development. As one person put it:

‘The biggest threat facing the stability of families today is the desire for women to join high-level politics. There are shortcomings to this, most important being the lack of “quality time” and parental love to children…Women should be limited to 10% political representation and should be stopped from voting for presidents and MPs at least for some 200 years. [See Dr. Joy C Kwesiga, Leaders Within Limits: Gender Ideologies and Identities in Uganda Today (research paper under a research program titled “ Consolidating Peace and Development in the Lake Victoria Region and its Environs: The National and Local Responses to Transformation from Turmoil to a More Sustainable Development Process”]

Another person put it this way: “Sometimes when you give financial, economic and social power to women, in most cases it brings problems. Check which type of woman is given power.” (Muhairwe, Ekimeza 23/02/02)

The major scenario with regard to women and leadership has been bureaucratically putting women in places of leadership and authority without any attempts at simultaneously removing the practical and structural obstacles that stand in their way to effective involvement in this arena. In short it is not enough to increase women’s participation in politics/leadership without democratizing the public space where such politics are done. [Sylvia Tamale, Gender and Affirmative Action in Post-195 Uganda: A New Dispensation, or Business as Usual? IN CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFRICA: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES, FACING CHALLENGES, J.OLOKA OYANGO (Ed) 2001 at221. ] This issue is closely related to tokenism, which is the practice of appointing a few women to positions of power and responsibility, without giving them the requisite support, or eliminating the impediments they face. The following quote illustrates this point:

‘Women are not brought in as an equal partner but as a means of balancing the composition. This is reflected during parliamentary debates where in most circumstances the Speaker or the chairperson is giving women a chance to speak. He will often say ‘let me first gender balance’. When looked at analytically it seems like the speaker has been giving an opportunity to substantive speakers, and then giving women a chance for the sake of balance. [SUPRA Note 7.]

Bringing women into the policy and decision making space does not necessarily mean or lead to power sharing or redress in imbalances at that level. Many women have in fact shared of the struggles in that space, struggles to assert the worth of a woman, struggles to be respected as competent legislators or decision-makers, etc. Take for example Maria Mutagamba’s experience, who in 1996 was a member of the Democratic Party (DP). When she was still with the DP she was chairperson of the presidential elections campaign in 1996 and when she asked Dr. Kawanga Ssemwogerere what he expected of her he said “All you have to do is present yourself at the conference center, welcome me when I come in and introduce me to the gathering.” [WINNIE BYANYIMA AND RICHARD MUGISHA (Eds), THE RISING TIDE: UGANDAN WOMEN’S STRUGGLE FOR A PUBLIC VOICE 1940 – 2002 (2003) at 186] She also recounts the following about her high post in the DP

‘Slowly I was coming face to face with the realities of politics. I had to get my campaign team to accept me first. They had not agreed on me becoming their chairperson. I think that Dr. Ssemwogerere had sat somewhere and thought of a woman for several reasons. One he thought I had money, which would help his campaign. Secondly I think he wanted to appear gender sensitive and appointing a woman head of his team would portray a gender-balanced campaign and thirdly, as I came to realize later, he thought I was a quiet innocent person who could be pushed around easily…At first men close to him did not accept me easily because they had lined up some other people to head the campaign and they did not want a woman to head…’

While the public sphere is opening up to women the private sphere remains intact. By private sphere we mean the family. Difficulties arise because the entry of women into leadership positions is discussed in isolation of these structures. Consequently, while the power centers are shifting, the other institutions in society are not changing. This is particularly so in the case of family structures and household dynamics. People are often quick to remind women where they belong as the following quotation illustrates:

‘However high you have gone politically, socially or economically, your husband is your husband. Even if you become the President of Uganda and your husband is a primary school teacher, he is still entitled to his respect in that capacity. Drop the pride! It smacks of arrogance, conceit and egoism. Its capacity to destroy marriages is unquestionable. [SUPRA Note 18.]

Despite the challenges that women in politics face, it goes without saying that their presence has gone a long way in improving the lives of ordinary Ugandans. Their contribution is summed up as follows:

‘The presence of such an unprecedented number of females in an institution that was traditionally dominated by men has… introduced a gendered perspective to the law-making process…Moreover, the increased visibility of women in positions of leadership is slowly changing the attitudes of Ugandans (both men and women) towards women’s presence in the political arena. This new consciousness forms the crucial basis for a new kind of political self-organisation for women and for a more radical transformation of gender relations in Ugandan society (Tamale: 2001: 220).

Affirmative Action in politics in Uganda has delivered numbers. Presence and action of women has expanded and relatively deepened public concerns. Both at the national and local levels, the relative presence of women has brought new questions on the political agenda. The experience of the constitution making process in 1994 and the resultant 1995 constitution indicate that numerical presence of women in the Constituent Assembly had a lot to contribute to the gendered contestations and outcomes. The outlook of decision-making bodies has changed, ideologically accommodating the construction of a leader as male and female.

Enter the Protocol on Women’s Rights:

With regard to the issue of women’s rights to participate in politics and decision making the Protocol provides that:

1. States Parties shall take specific positive action to promote participative governance and the equal participation of women in the political life of their countries through affirmative action, enabling national legislation and other measures to ensure that:
a. women participate without any discrimination in all elections;
b. women are represented equally at all levels with men in all electoral processes;
c. women are equal partners with men at all levels of development and implementation of State policies and development programs.

2. States Parties shall ensure increased and effective representation and participation of women at all levels of decision-making.

The Millennium Development Goals and the Protocol tie in beautifully because both demand for the equal participation of women in the political life of their countries, part of which includes levels and numbers of representation. No one country can stand tall and proud or even seek to make headway in politics if it continues to exclude or marginalize women. If women are the backbone of our economies, if they are the central to agriculture and food security in our countries, if they are the pivot around which our populations grow and expand, then they must be included in the same measure in politics and decision making.

The Millennium Development Goals and the Protocol on Women’s Rights must not be seen as separate instruments, with governments being able to pick and choose which they will deliver on. They are two sides of the same coin. One cannot be properly implemented without the other and that’s why the clarion call goes out to all African Leaders – we need to ratify the Protocol NOW! Turn the aspirations of the Millennium Development Goals into action by ratifying the Protocol on the Rights of Women.

* Please send comments to [email protected]