Once 15 African countries have ratified The Protocol To The African Charter On Human and Peoples' Rights On The Rights of Women in Africa, its provisions will have to be included in country-level legislation. This is the next challenge facing the Solidarity for African Women’s Rights Campaign, says Sarah Mukasa, who assesses some of the potential stumbling blocks inherent in the domestication process. “It is imperative that strategies adopted for this campaign take into account these factors and prepare for the resistances that will surely come,” she warns.

To date, 13 member states of the African Union have ratified The Protocol To The African Charter On Human and Peoples' Rights On The Rights of Women in Africa. This is in spite of the undertaking made by the Heads of State in the African Union Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa, July 2004. Commitment was made to sign and ratify the protocol by the end of 2004. This is indicative of the measure of political will there is to address substantively the rights of women on the continent. The disconnect between pronouncements made at regional level, and the action taken at national and local levels, demonstrates that the road to domestication and implementation is riddled with challenges that will have to be overcome if the protocol is to be of benefit to the women it seeks to protect. Activists must be at the forefront of the efforts to domesticate this protocol. This brief article will attempt to contribute to this process by assessing a number of possible challenges that will come with the campaign for domestication. It will do this by presenting a synoptic view of the response to women’s empowerment initiatives in the past, at government and community levels.

The main challenge is at the level of the patriarchal state. Engaging the state on women’s rights has been an extremely difficult struggle with varying degrees of success. Historically, the state has been at worst hostile and at best extremely slow to respond to advancing the rights of women. It has entrenched this practice with a regime of discriminatory laws and policies. Even in those countries that have managed to enshrine the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the supreme law, the Constitution, the process of domestication, that is of aligning and framing national laws to reflect these principles, has been wanting. For example, in Uganda, in spite of an extremely progressive constitution, efforts to effect a law that protects the rights of women in marriage, separation and divorce, has for over 40 years yielded no results. Similarly, given our governments’ past record for on the whole failing to honour internationally agreed standards, there is little reason to believe that the protocol will be regarded any differently.

The protocol, which seeks to commit states to protect the rights of women in Africa on the political, social, cultural and economic fronts, is the only regionally generated standard to address the specificity of women’s oppression. It is thus critical that African governments apply this standard at national and local levels. In addition, given that it addresses many of the context specific violations, its application throughout the continent would go a long way to ensure that women are able to exercise their rights. However, it is because the protocol seeks to redress the power equation in gender relations, and to significantly alter the status quo that resistance to it on all levels is to be expected.

There is no doubt that advancements have been made on the continent for African women, the most significant of which has been increasing access for women and girls into the public space, especially local and national politics, education, the business sector and so on. Similarly there has been much initiative at policy level to take into account the interests of women and other marginalised groups. However, this investment has not translated into a fundamental change for the better for the vast majority of African women. Moreover, these gains come against a backdrop of other developments that stand to put these gains and all future work to domesticate the protocol in jeopardy. These include:

a) Weak institutional mechanisms for implementation. This in particular refers to government gender machinery. Most governments have established machinery, either in the form of ministries or departments, to oversee government initiatives for the empowerment of women. However, at the recent review in Addis Ababa in October 2004 of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, 10 years after it was agreed, there was considerable concern raised about these machineries’ performance. In particular, it was noted that their capacities to spearhead the women’s rights agenda are extremely limited due to severe (and in many cases disproportionate) cuts in budget allocation and human resources. Given that it is this machinery that will be largely responsible for monitoring the process of domestication and also implementation of the protocol, it is of major concern that it will not be in a position to do so effectively.

b) The slow process of change. This is particularly at legislative and policy levels. Different countries have different legal regimes. As a general rule, those countries that have inherited the French legal system have some advantage. For under these systems, ratification of the protocol automatically qualifies it as national law. However those of the British system have to undergo a process in which national parliaments effect a law that meets the agreed standard. If the past example of CEDAW is anything to go by, many of the countries that have ratified CEDAW have so far failed to incorporate these standards in national law. This is further complicated by the existence of dual legal systems in much of Africa. In most African countries, the existence of customary and religious law on the one hand and statutory law on the other often means that women’s rights are compromised. When drawing up laws on matters relating to women’s rights, often customary and religious law is given precedence. The protocol which seeks to challenge discriminatory cultural practice is likely to meet with highly organised resistance therefore, and actually be undermined as a result of this duality of legal systems.

c) The failure to promote the culture of Constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law has serious implications for the domestication of the protocol. Recent developments in a number of countries such as Uganda, Ethiopia, Togo, Zimbabwe and Chad indicate a direct correlation between the failure of governments to respect the rule of law and to protect the human rights of citizens. As governments subvert Constitutions and compromise the rule of law in order to entrench their power bases, so too do cases of increased arbitrary detentions, curtailing media freedoms, harassment of political opponents and so on. The state apparatus is used to clamp down on rights and also to silence the voices of dissent. In these instances, the priority will not be to implement laws and regulations that promote rights, particularly those of women.

d) As with CEDAW, the political agency of the protocol is likely to be undermined through the practice of ratifying it with reservations. Where a government enters reservations on a particular provision, it is in effect absolving itself of the responsibility to implement the provision. A number of the countries that have hitherto ratified the protocol have done so with reservations. It is feared that in particular those articles dealing with reproductive and sexual rights, will be compromised in this way.

Other environmental factors that will have an impact on this campaign include:

e) The increase in insecurity and conflict in much of Africa and its effect on women and girls. Whilst the protocol seeks to protect women in conflict, the citizenry’s ability to effect change of this kind is severely weakened in the context of conflict and insecurity. The collapse of law and order systems, the break down and dispersal of communities and support networks, and the struggle just to survive makes it virtually impossible to implement these or any other kinds of measures.

f) The growing marginalisation of Africa as a result of globalisation fuelled by market led growth strategies. Africa’s size in global market share is shrinking. The inequitable competition for market share (since government subsidies in northern economies are still firmly intact), means that Africa will continue its downward slide in gaining access to western markets. Together with the reduction of the role of the state in welfare provision, the plight of poor women in particular will continue to be a major challenge. With regards to the protocol, weak state structures, with reduced revenues, especially in the law and order sector (police and other law enforcement agencies), are less able to address these needs. Given that considerable investments in terms of finance are required for the effective application of the protocol, this development should be a cause for major concern.

g) Current global policy. The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in New York marked a period of drastic change in global policy. This incident marked a paradigmatic shift from safeguarding and promoting human rights to fighting terrorism. Global politics has become highly militarised, and the subtext to this shift is that respect for basic human rights principles can and will be compromised in the interest of fighting terrorism. This has had a knock on effect, with the growing intolerance for progressive thinking, ideas and development programmes. Women’s empowerment initiatives, particularly those aimed at strategic levels, such as the campaign for the domestication of the protocol, are especially endangered. Resources and support allocated to these kinds of programmes has been on the decline.

At the level of the community, there are number of challenges that are to be expected. These include:

h) A lack of awareness, especially at local levels, of the protocol and what it seeks to address. This suggests a general apathy and ambivalence by much of society for initiatives of this kind. Since one of the most effective ways to effect change is to have a critical mass of public support, this aspect of the campaign for the domestication of the protocol cannot be ignored. Since the protocol seeks to protect in particular those women especially vulnerable to violations, it is imperative that efforts to engage them in the process are strengthened.

i) The significant increase in religious fundamentalism and conservatism will seriously threaten the campaign for the domestication of the protocol. There is an increasing resistance to progressive measures to protect the rights of women. The protocol aims to promote a number of measures which for some time have been resisted in a number of national and local contexts. In particular those aspects prohibiting harmful traditional and cultural practices, that seek to promote sexual and reproductive rights and property ownership rights, are likely to be contentious. As part of the campaigning process, our nets should be cast wider to make strategic alliances with some of the more progressive but influential cultural and religious authorities, in order to circumnavigate this resistance.

Discussed above has been the challenges that are likely to impact on the campaign for the domestication of the protocol. It is imperative that strategies adopted for this campaign take into account these factors and prepare for the resistances that will surely come. It is critical that our networking, support and information sharing capacities are enhanced in order that collectively we can address the resistance. A multi pronged approach is required in which community mobilisation strategies are strengthened with, for example the use of non-traditional methods such as the arts and popular culture. In addition, we must strategically incorporate documentation and research initiatives which highlight the economic and social dividends accrued from the domestication of the protocol. The significant advantage that the protocol has is that is an instrument that was generated in Africa by Africans. It came out of the lived experiences of women in Africa. It should be highlighted that our governments actually formulated this instrument, working hand in hand with civil society in order to improve the quality of life of half of the continent’s population.

* Sarah Mukasa is Programmes Manager for the East and Horn of Africa at Akina Mama wa Afrika

* Please send comments to [email protected]

'I am glad they have banned it.' So said a colleague who walked into my office the day after the news of the play’s banning by the Media Council.

‘Why?’ I asked her very quietly.

‘Because now we can clearly see what we are up against. How dare you women celebrate your womanhood, condemn sexual oppression, and the abuse of women’s bodies. And you not only dare to do this, but in public also? What? You look at it from their point of view. Don’t you know that your vaginas are dirty, obscene, distasteful, vulgar and evil? Don’t you know that these ‘things’ no matter how much they suffer should be kept private? Haven’t you yet understood that the only ones who can talk with authority on these matters are men who think that way about you and women who think that way about themselves? Really you women, where do you get the nerve to talk about vaginas in public? Don’t you know this is not how ‘respectable’ women behave? You have embarrassed good women everywhere. Our cultures are sacrosanct. They should never be questioned or challenged. You who have done so are morally corrupted’

We laugh.

So is it our cultures or our religions we are worried about?

Well both. We should safeguard our African Christian, cultural values against the surge of western immorality!

So when for example, the Christian religion says we are all made in the image of God (every single part of our bodies that is), it means that it is wrong for us to refer to the vagina as vulgar, dirty and distasteful, because we are denigrating the image of God?

Well no, because culturally this is how we refer to these parts of the body.

Oh, so it is wrong for us to challenge these socially constructed practices, even though we may be dishonouring God in adhering to them?

Well, yes. In this case yes. We think.

Which case is that? The case in which the issue touches on the rights of women of course. In those cases, we always refer to that which sits comfortably with patriarchal notions of what a woman’s place should be. Women are used to this (even those who were opposed to this play). They have steadfastly challenged patriarchal cultural practices and norms. They have gone to school, own property, left abusive marriages; some have even chosen not to marry. But now many of them turn and point the finger on those who dare to challenge the last and most insidious bastion of patriarchal oppression. The notion of women’s bodily integrity and autonomy; the idea that a woman’s body is hers and hers alone to do with as she chooses is so scary to so many of us, that we quickly hide behind some of the very defence mechanisms we have so long challenged. Culture. African cultural values.

I think that we should be very careful how we fashion our arguments. For hiding behind cultural relativism has been the very tool used to stamp our oppression in the past. We pander to racist and sexist stereotypes about what African culture is when we do this. We paint a picture of this fossilised, immovable, intolerant, reactionary, monolithic culture. Let us also not forget that in the past these arguments have been used to safeguard dictatorial regimes. Concepts such as human rights, democracy, and gender equality were all once referred to as ‘western and alien concepts’. So whilst we Africans were stuck in oppressive, repressed, dictatorial, cultural systems, the west was showing us the way forward? What absolute garbage. The fact of the matter is that the oppression and exclusion of peoples, on the basis of race, gender, and ethnicity and so on is a universal practice, which each society justifies with slick explanations of culture, religion and what have you. And just as it has been practiced in every society, so has it been resisted.

‘Corruption of our values by western immorality is one of the biggest challenges of our time’ So said the good Minister of State for Information Dr Nsaba Buturo in his press briefing statement. I am sure he believes it. But really some of us think that compared to the subjugation of our economies to the west, this is a stroll in the park. But there you have it. This is where the Minister concentrates his energies. And not very well one might add. Well let’s look at subscription TV and what it frequently beams into our homes. No bans there. Let’s look at all the salacious print media that is around for everyone to see? No ban there. What about all those watering holes dotted around the city, which feature goodness knows what. No, no ban there. What about the corruption that is endemic in our society and which denies so many their right to basic social welfare? Nope. No moves there either. Has he managed to get all those government officials and employees who have abandoned their children to at least pay child support? Last I heard, that was not on his radar. In fact no action anywhere except for where some women want to stage a play called The Vagina Monologues. Ahh.

Of course we have heard from a number of those who have seen the play and condemn it as pornography from the west. I cannot argue with their experiences, it is pointless to do that. Because in doing so, I silence them; relegate them to the back of beyond; as somehow completely unimportant. Their view is important, and they can exercise their right to stay away. I hasten to add, that several others have seen the play, myself included and have been liberated by it. Our views and experiences have simply been ignored and silenced by the bully boy tactics of some of our ministers (whose backgrounds we are all really keen to know) and their cronies.
The play has a different effect on different people. It is as simple as that. And in that sense this play is no different from any other.

‘The message is good but you should have packaged it differently’ some now say. Hello? Have you been on the moon? What have women’s organisations been doing all these years? 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. Seminar after seminar. Tree after tree chopped down, to produce report after report which presents these issues to fit comfortably with people’s sensibilities. And where are we? As I write this, these reports sit, gathering layers of dust in a number of people’s offices. In the meantime, the crisis escalates (this is by the government’s own reckoning).

‘Say it in vernacular!’ Others scream. They throw this as the biggest defence against staging the play. Well, as I recall, a number of this same group argued for ‘gender sensitive language’ in the drawing up of the 1995 Constitution. This principle document now uses ‘he’ and ‘she’, ‘woman ‘and ‘man’ as the case warrants. Why did they do this? Language they argued, is patriarchal in nature. It is socially constructed and it reflects societal, cultural norms. Quite right too. And by the same token I say that any language that refers to the essence of womanhood, the vagina (by that I mean, that which distinguishes a woman from a man) in ways that are derogatory should be questioned and challenged. Not protected and defended.

And then there are the ‘Pastor’ Sempas of this world. With them, one should waste as little energy as possible. So I will not bother much, except to say, that someone from police please enforce the ban and throw this man in jail. He has been reading at will, the very excerpts from the play that were banned by the Media Council for all and sundry to hear. And boy does this man shout! ‘The bandit is enjoying this!’ laughed members of the cast as we listened to him read the script on the radio a few days after the play had been banned (He actually reads quite well). But here’s the thing. This man has had the opportunity to read the book from cover to cover. And having done so, he has arrived at his own conclusions about the play. Fair enough. But what he then seeks to do is to deny others the same opportunity to make up their own minds, by calling for the play’s ban.

Well this is after all in keeping with the tradition in the wave of charismatic churches that is sweeping this nation. Any man (for they are usually men) who can shout beyond a certain decibel, can set up a ‘church’. And in this so called church he is free to preach what he chooses in the name of God. Many a wealthy lifestyle by our ‘Pastors’ has been funded from the proceeds of the congregation’s sweat. ‘Bring no coins here!’ they shout. ‘God only wants notes!’ They expect absolute obedience from their followers. They tell the congregation what to think, do and say – some even whom to marry. They have killed their congregations in Kanungu, and have hoodwinked women into believing they are carrying miracle babies in Kenya. They hold night vigils for ‘healing’ and ‘curing’ the sick of HIV/AIDS to exorcisms. The term ‘Born Again’ becomes the new mantra and license to engage in some of the most iniquitous and scandalous behaviour imaginable. But no matter. If people choose to go to these churches, I do not have the right to stop them. I recognise, and respect their right to do it. That they do not extend me the same right to watch the Vagina Monologues is neither here nor there. One of us has to be principled.

Incidentally someone called up on one of the TV stations to ask the ‘good Pastor’ Sempa, why his church is littered with used condoms every time he has night prayers. I have never seen anyone look as pitiful as did this man. Actually for a moment he looked like a frightened mouse. But only for a moment. For this man is nothing but a slick performer if you like that sort of thing. Quickly he regrouped and hid behind a barrage of slanderous attacks on Isis-Women’s International Cross Cultural Exchange (a co host of the VDay Campaign in Uganda). This is a very morally upright man of God after all.

I regret very much the government’s handling of this play. But I also know that you cannot keep a social movement down, certainly not through actions such as these. Those in power forget very quickly that the generation of ideas, their examination, debate and dialogue are the hallmarks of a democratic society. Drunk with power, they use the long arm of the state to silence people in ways that are so transparently unfair and unjust (and incidentally very highly immoral). And they plant a seed that germinates quietly underground. You cannot suppress ideas, just because they upset your sense of propriety. And then to lean on the apparatus of the state to do this is so outrageous and in the long term highly damaging. Leaders who pander for cheap popularity at the expense of principled governance, lose very quickly, the respect even of their most ardent supporters. For intrinsically, deep in the recess of their sub consciousness echoes that tiny but persistent voice: Today, it has been the turn of so and so. Tomorrow, might it be me? Don’t take my word for it. Let us examine our histories very carefully.

The positive side to all this, is that this play and the issues it is trying to raise has reached a wider audience than would ever have been possible had the state not interfered in the way it did. ‘You mean these ministers and all have banned the play? Ahh then there must be something good in it for women!’ Radio stations, email list serves, arguments, counter arguments, discussions in living rooms, on matatus, in the market place, with parents, children, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, it is everywhere. Young people have been exposed (as it were) to the hypocrisy of the older generation. They have watched as scoundrels, wastrels, wife batterers, runaway dads, swindlers, idlers, extortionists and playboys have formed a most unholy alliance with men of the cloth to see this play banned. And they have watched in utter disbelief, those in the women’s movement, who have joined this band of merry men. It is the pedagogy of the oppressed, we try to explain. Oh no it is not, say they. It is downright dishonesty, opportunism and immorality.

But all that is by the by. The play is banned and that is all that matters now. Or is it?

* Sarah Mukasa is Programmes Manager for the East and Horn of Africa at Akina Mama wa Afrika

* Please send comments to