Post by Onyango Oloo on Oct 12, 2005 0:19:05 GMT 3
Women Have Gone Quiet in Debate on the Constitution
By Betty Murungi, Director, Urgent Action Fund - Africa and a Fellow at the Harvard Law Schoo- Op-ed taken from the East African Standard, Wednesday, October 12
The ongoing Banana/Orange campaigns have surfaced the secondary spaces that women in this country occupy in public discourses. The rallies themselves and the attendant shouting matches (surely they are not debates) nurture a culture of misogyny and disdain for women.
The Banana campaign has not been able to elucidate clearly why the proposed new constitution has aspects in it that support the enjoyment of women’s rights lest it works against them in the vote. I refer here to the provisions relating to women’s property and inheritance rights. The Orange campaign on the other hand, while pointing out that religious courts will militate against women, has gone all out and in very misogynistic language to attack the inheritance rights provisions. This anti-women campaign has potential for a very real backlash on women’s rights, women’s freedoms, women’s choices, and women’s lives.
Locate this referendum debate within the global context of rising fundamentalisms and cultural extremisms; it becomes clear that Kenyan women have everything to lose and nothing to gain no matter who wins on November 21, 2005. My problem however is not with the politicians, theirs is a political contest, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a pumbavu. It is to those of us who claim membership of the Kenya Women’s movement that I address myself.
Women, and here I do not include the politicians; have been largely silent as a block on the issues of the Proposed New Constitution. Because of the failures of the CKRC to provide civic education in time or at all, a knowledge gap exists for those wanting to know what the proposed constitution provides for women. Those that would have been expected to provide leadership have either abdicated that responsibility or taken sides and have not even had the honesty to declare what side that is. For example, are we to assume that because the chairperson of Maendeleo Ya Wanawake at the launch of the Orange Secretariat that Maendeleo, a huge membership organisation with over 3 million members is on the ‘No’ side of the debate?
Immediately the proposed constitution was published, the Women’s civil society initiated discussions on the content. The women’s political alliance came out in support of the proposed law, citing the progressive bill of rights provisions. Separately, a coalition of women’s human rights and advocacy organisations declared their opposition to the draft and expressed alarm inter-alia at the proposal to create Christian and cultural courts. Thereafter, a series of activities geared toward ‘civic education’ begun in earnest with most groups choosing to pretend at being non-partisan largely because the donors funding any constitution related activity demands this requirement be fulfilled including signing agreements to this effect before disbursement of funds.
This pretence has non-partisanship has placed women’s organisations in an awkward position in regard to the current debate. With the sad demise a few years ago of a broad based women’s political caucus, a critical space for women’s political organising was lost. Women’s views are now incorporated either in ethnicised political parties or campaigns and there is no independent ‘women’s voice’ to speak of any more.
Even so, what stops the building of women’s solidarity in the face of this emerging backlash? Scattered and splintered as the movement is — and we have been there before with the shenanigans of Maendeleo in the 80’s and 90’s — women have always rallied at critical times in our history. Indeed, the Kenya women’s political caucus was born in 1997 to engage independently in the political process of the constitutional debate and lobby for women’s inclusion in the Constitution Review Commission and their participation in the general elections of that year.
This silence or absence of solidarity among women has intervened to support the patriarchal leadership project as our women leaders are subjected to the most vociferous criticism and innuendo. They have been maligned, defamed, and abused in the media and in public.
Lack of solidarity has supported the ‘imaging’ and ‘othering’ of strong women leaders, effectively writing out women’s opinions from important political and social debates. This baiting is used effectively as a tool to discredit not only individual women leaders but groups of women, their visions and goals.
Women’s organisations, even professional ones, have been effectively silenced by this baiting and, so as not to conform to the image of ‘failed mothers and wives’ or worse, ‘home wreckers’, these groups have abdicated responsibility of coming to the defense and open support of women leaders who fall prey to the imaging in the media and in other political and right wing male-dominated spaces.
Conversely, male solidarity has kicked in. Former sworn enemies are now bosom buddies. Consider the line up of the Orange Campaign luminaries and judge for yourselves. Scan the crowds at the public rallies of both camps and the make up of the attendees. Even assuming that this referendum debate was not a political contest, to who are the messages targeted?
An argument that has currency is that women’s organisations and movements have been taken over or subsumed by political and ethnic interests. The Kenya women’s movement of the 80’s and 90’s with the exception of sections of Maendeleo as noted above was vibrant and bold. In the 90’s the movement was re-energized by a bold new feminist flank that was imminently more demanding and threatening to the established order. Women’s political organising ascended to new heights.
Women’s solidarity was present and expected. Organisations, styling themselves as rights advocate came to the defence of women everywhere under attack regardless of their political persuasion, ethnicity or station in life. We could consciously up the level of the debate from it’s current level of exchanging expletives and personal attacks.
Take my case; I like the bill of rights provisions in the proposed law but live in fear of being hauled before a Njuri Ncheke tribunal by my five brothers over inheritance of my father’s land which he has promised to dish out to all in equal measures. This does not mean that I do not want a new constitution in November — it just means I want to write out the possibility of ever having a Njuri Ncheke court (not sure infact whether women have audience at all in these outfits). Implicit in my argument against the embedding of such cultural institutions in the constitution, is the politics and ideology behind the inclusion of such a clause within a wider political framework. How does such a provision sit with the progressive bill of rights? Why are we not having this discussion? The women’s movement needs to urgently get off that feeder road we’ve been on lately and get onto the traffic.
Let us acknowledge that women’s organising has always been political. It is threatening to the state, to patriarchy ideology and to tradition. In the end, it is these forces that have forced us into battle as women. It matters not whether one is a minister, hawker, or sex worker. The deal is that we are women and our oppressions are what bind us together more than ethnicity, rank or other status.
By Betty Murungi, Director, Urgent Action Fund - Africa and a Fellow at the Harvard Law Schoo- Op-ed taken from the East African Standard, Wednesday, October 12
The ongoing Banana/Orange campaigns have surfaced the secondary spaces that women in this country occupy in public discourses. The rallies themselves and the attendant shouting matches (surely they are not debates) nurture a culture of misogyny and disdain for women.
The Banana campaign has not been able to elucidate clearly why the proposed new constitution has aspects in it that support the enjoyment of women’s rights lest it works against them in the vote. I refer here to the provisions relating to women’s property and inheritance rights. The Orange campaign on the other hand, while pointing out that religious courts will militate against women, has gone all out and in very misogynistic language to attack the inheritance rights provisions. This anti-women campaign has potential for a very real backlash on women’s rights, women’s freedoms, women’s choices, and women’s lives.
Locate this referendum debate within the global context of rising fundamentalisms and cultural extremisms; it becomes clear that Kenyan women have everything to lose and nothing to gain no matter who wins on November 21, 2005. My problem however is not with the politicians, theirs is a political contest, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a pumbavu. It is to those of us who claim membership of the Kenya Women’s movement that I address myself.
Women, and here I do not include the politicians; have been largely silent as a block on the issues of the Proposed New Constitution. Because of the failures of the CKRC to provide civic education in time or at all, a knowledge gap exists for those wanting to know what the proposed constitution provides for women. Those that would have been expected to provide leadership have either abdicated that responsibility or taken sides and have not even had the honesty to declare what side that is. For example, are we to assume that because the chairperson of Maendeleo Ya Wanawake at the launch of the Orange Secretariat that Maendeleo, a huge membership organisation with over 3 million members is on the ‘No’ side of the debate?
Immediately the proposed constitution was published, the Women’s civil society initiated discussions on the content. The women’s political alliance came out in support of the proposed law, citing the progressive bill of rights provisions. Separately, a coalition of women’s human rights and advocacy organisations declared their opposition to the draft and expressed alarm inter-alia at the proposal to create Christian and cultural courts. Thereafter, a series of activities geared toward ‘civic education’ begun in earnest with most groups choosing to pretend at being non-partisan largely because the donors funding any constitution related activity demands this requirement be fulfilled including signing agreements to this effect before disbursement of funds.
This pretence has non-partisanship has placed women’s organisations in an awkward position in regard to the current debate. With the sad demise a few years ago of a broad based women’s political caucus, a critical space for women’s political organising was lost. Women’s views are now incorporated either in ethnicised political parties or campaigns and there is no independent ‘women’s voice’ to speak of any more.
Even so, what stops the building of women’s solidarity in the face of this emerging backlash? Scattered and splintered as the movement is — and we have been there before with the shenanigans of Maendeleo in the 80’s and 90’s — women have always rallied at critical times in our history. Indeed, the Kenya women’s political caucus was born in 1997 to engage independently in the political process of the constitutional debate and lobby for women’s inclusion in the Constitution Review Commission and their participation in the general elections of that year.
This silence or absence of solidarity among women has intervened to support the patriarchal leadership project as our women leaders are subjected to the most vociferous criticism and innuendo. They have been maligned, defamed, and abused in the media and in public.
Lack of solidarity has supported the ‘imaging’ and ‘othering’ of strong women leaders, effectively writing out women’s opinions from important political and social debates. This baiting is used effectively as a tool to discredit not only individual women leaders but groups of women, their visions and goals.
Women’s organisations, even professional ones, have been effectively silenced by this baiting and, so as not to conform to the image of ‘failed mothers and wives’ or worse, ‘home wreckers’, these groups have abdicated responsibility of coming to the defense and open support of women leaders who fall prey to the imaging in the media and in other political and right wing male-dominated spaces.
Conversely, male solidarity has kicked in. Former sworn enemies are now bosom buddies. Consider the line up of the Orange Campaign luminaries and judge for yourselves. Scan the crowds at the public rallies of both camps and the make up of the attendees. Even assuming that this referendum debate was not a political contest, to who are the messages targeted?
An argument that has currency is that women’s organisations and movements have been taken over or subsumed by political and ethnic interests. The Kenya women’s movement of the 80’s and 90’s with the exception of sections of Maendeleo as noted above was vibrant and bold. In the 90’s the movement was re-energized by a bold new feminist flank that was imminently more demanding and threatening to the established order. Women’s political organising ascended to new heights.
Women’s solidarity was present and expected. Organisations, styling themselves as rights advocate came to the defence of women everywhere under attack regardless of their political persuasion, ethnicity or station in life. We could consciously up the level of the debate from it’s current level of exchanging expletives and personal attacks.
Take my case; I like the bill of rights provisions in the proposed law but live in fear of being hauled before a Njuri Ncheke tribunal by my five brothers over inheritance of my father’s land which he has promised to dish out to all in equal measures. This does not mean that I do not want a new constitution in November — it just means I want to write out the possibility of ever having a Njuri Ncheke court (not sure infact whether women have audience at all in these outfits). Implicit in my argument against the embedding of such cultural institutions in the constitution, is the politics and ideology behind the inclusion of such a clause within a wider political framework. How does such a provision sit with the progressive bill of rights? Why are we not having this discussion? The women’s movement needs to urgently get off that feeder road we’ve been on lately and get onto the traffic.
Let us acknowledge that women’s organising has always been political. It is threatening to the state, to patriarchy ideology and to tradition. In the end, it is these forces that have forced us into battle as women. It matters not whether one is a minister, hawker, or sex worker. The deal is that we are women and our oppressions are what bind us together more than ethnicity, rank or other status.
| Biographical Note: Ms Murungi was born on 25th December 1960 in Meru South District. She is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and currently serves as director, Urgent Action Fund – Africa. Prior to this appointment, Ms. Murungi served as legal advisor to the Women’s rights Program at Rights & Democracy, Montreal Canada. She was a member of the International Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC). Ms Murungi sits on the board of the East African Center for Constitutional Development, Kampala Uganda. She is actively involved in matters of Human Rights of Women, gender, governance, and rule of law, democracy, constitutional development and the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, Sierra Leone. Ms Murungi has authored several articles and book chapters in international law. She was awarded the Moran of the Burning Spear (M.B.S.) for her excellent achievements in matters of law. |
