news analysis advocacy
tips on searching

Search AfricaFocus and 9 Partner Sites

 

 

Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!

Print this page

Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived document may not work.


Africa: Gender and NEPAD, 2 Africa: Gender and NEPAD, 2
Date distributed (ymd): 021104
Document reposted by Africa Action

Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List: an information service provided by AFRICA ACTION (incorporating the Africa Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa). Find more information for action for Africa at http://www.africaaction.org

+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++

Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +gender/women+ +political/rights+
+economy/development+

SUMMARY CONTENTS:

"NEPAD is better understood as being in the category of empty lip-service to principles of gender equality. In principle NEPAD is much in favour of equal rights for women, but in practice it proposes almost nothing in the form of action to realise these principles."

This is the bottom-line conclusion from this paper by Sara Hlupekile Longwe (sararoy@zamnet.zm) on how women's gender issues (i.e. women's human rights) have been ignored in the framework for African development adopted by African countries under the acronym NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development). The author is a feminist consultant and chairperson of the African Women's Development and Communications Network (FEMNET). Web: http://www.africaonline.co.ke/femnet

The paper was presented at an NGO-Forum, 14-16 October 2002, organised by the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS), Banjul, The Gambia, in preparation for the 32nd Session of the African Commission on African Human and Peoples' Rights (ACAHPR), Banjul, 17-23 October 2002. The text was distributed by the author on the NEPAD-Forum discussion organized by FEMNET ( http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/nepad-forum).

Because of the importance of this document, and the strong and clear critique it presents, we are reposting the full text, in two postings. The full text as a Word attachment is also available in the archive of the nepad-forum mailing list at the URL above.

+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NEPAD Reluctance to Address Gender Issues

Sara Hlupekile Longwe, Feminist Consultant

11 October 2002

[continued from part 1]

Goals (under the NEPAD heading of Sustainable Development in the 21st Century).

Despite the fine expression of gender principles, NEPAD's expression of gender goals is very vague and lacking. There is an overall 'long term objective' to 'promote the role of women in all activities' , which is vague to the point of meaninglessness. There is a 'goal' to 'make progress towards gender equality and empowering women by eliminating gender disparities in the enrolment in primary and secondary education by 2005'.

This latter goal of 'gender equality and empowering women' is not merely a goal, but also includes the intervention strategy of more schooling for women. There is no explanation of how the intervention relates to the goal, let alone the relevance of this strategy in societies where women are up against barriers of legalized discrimination.

From the earlier expression of fine principles, the goals have faded away to almost nothing, with no observable logical connection. Completely missing from the goals is any intention to increase women's representation in parliament, government and top decision making positions. This is despite clear commitments both in the African Platform (para. 105f) and in the Beijing Platform (para.182) which endorses the UN Economic and Social Council guideline of 30% women in top decision making positions

Intervention Strategies (to be found in the NEPAD sections on Conditions for Sustainable Development and Sectoral Priorities).

Here there is absolutely no gender element suggested in any of the three 'initiatives' on Peace and Security, Democracy and Political Governance or Economic and Corporate Governance. But since NEPAD identified no gender issues or goals in these areas, perhaps it is not surprising that NEPAD can now find no strategies since there are no issues to address, and no goals to pursue!

Obviously the authors of NEPAD have not referred to the Beijing Platform for Action, which at para 190 and 191 lists no less than nineteen alternative strategies that can be used to increase the proportion of women in decision making positions in politics and economic governance. One of these suggested strategies asks governments to 'Take positive action to build a critical mass of women leaders, executives and managers in strategic decision making positions.' Another strategy is concerned with 'Taking measures, including in electoral systems, that encourage political parties to integrate women in elective and non-elective positions in the same proportion and at the same levels as men'.

The only NEPAD Goal which is gender oriented (para 68) provided an intervention strategy for closing gender gaps in school enrolment. But when we look under the Education strategies (para 120-125) we find that this intervention strategy has gone missing there are no objectives nor activities with which to implement the strategy.

Without going further with this analysis, it is clear that the NEPAD interest in gender issues has now entirely evaporated. What started out with fine statements of principles of gender equality has now faded away to nothing.

NEPAD is better understood as being in the category of empty lip-service to principles of gender equality. In principle NEPAD is much in favour of equal rights for women, but in practice it proposes almost nothing in the form of action to realise these principles. Absolutely nothing is proposed in the areas of democracy, good governance and human rights, which are not only crucial for women's advancement, but which are supposed to be NEPAD's priority area of interest! NEPAD's introductory statements on gender equality therefore prove to be nothing more than window dressing, lip service and hot air. They are not followed by any identification of the gender issues in these areas, let alone the formulation of goals and objectives to address gender issues in these areas.

5 Male Dominated Management of NEPAD and the African Union

Since NEPAD is lacking in gender oriented objectives, there is obviously very limited relevance in any discussion on whether the management system has the necessary skills or organisation to pursue gender oriented objectives (see also the discussion of Management System in Section 4, above).

The discussion of gender oriented management would become relevant only if NEPAD could be radically revised to include gender oriented objectives related to the main goals focused on democracy and human rights. In this case, appropriate gender oriented management would become relevant.

Probably because NEPAD was formulated before the agreement on the Constitutive Act of the African Union, NEPAD says nothing definite about the management system for its implementation, and no management system or institutional structure is proposed. It is merely stated that 'the heads of state promoting NEPAD will advise the AU on an appropriate mechanism for its implementation' (para. 198). In the meantime, there is to be a 'Heads of State Implementation Committee' to identify strategic issues and review progress (para. 200-201). Obviously this Implementation Committee, of five heads of state, would be a formula for male domination of management.

However, now that the African Union has been formed, we may presume that NEPAD would be managed by some distribution of responsibilities, as yet to be set out, within the organs of the Union. Therefore we now look at the main organs of the Union, which are as follows:

1 The Assembly, composed of Heads of States and Governments

2 The Executive Council, composed of Ministers of Foreign Affairs or other ministers or officials designated by their governments

3 Seven Specialised Technical Committees, reporting to the Executive Council, and composed of government ministers or senior officials

4 The Pan-African Parliament, whose functions and membership are as yet undetermined

5 The Commission, acting as the Secretariat of the Union

Obviously, by present definition of its membership, the Assembly, Executive Council and Specialised Technical Committees, will all will be extremely male dominated, reflecting the male domination of the national institutions from which these organs draw their membership.

Despite this structural male domination of the Union management, there has been a strange claim that there was agreement on 50% female participation at the AU Heads of State meeting in Durban in July 2002. A newsletter of the Femmes Africa Solidarite claims that: "It is thanks to the Senegalese delegation to the AU, headed by President Abdulaye, that upon his intervention advocating for the African Women, the President did not face any opposition from his peers on the gender parity proposal recommending 50% participation of women in all AU organs."

If this 'lack of opposition' is to be interpreted as consent (which would seem to be a big IF), then perhaps the agreement was for membership of the Commission and other purely adminstrative organs whose functions are yet to be determined, and whose members are yet to be appointed. If so, the usefulness of such gender parity in membership faces two obstacles. Firstly, gender parity does not in itself necessarily bring an understanding of feminist principles and policies. Secondly, an administrative body by definition - does not make policy, but merely implements policy determined at the political level, which in this case seems well set to remain patriarchal and male dominated for the foreseeable future.

The areas of policy for the Executive Council and its Technical Committees are divided along purely along traditional sectoral lines:

Rural economy and agriculture; Monetary and financial affairs; Trade, customs and immigration; Industry, science, technology, energy, natural resources and environment; Transport, communication and tourism; Health, labour and social affairs; Education, culture and human resources;

In other words, there is no designation for the policy area of democracy, human rights and good governance, which is supposed to be a main area of interest of NEPAD. By the same token there is no place to put the management of implementation of policy on women's rights.

As with NEPAD itself, the Constitutive Act of the Union shows ambivalence and contradiction on the subject of gender equality. Whereas one of its 'principles' (in Article 4) is 'the promotion of gender equality', another principle is 'non-interference by any member state in the internal affairs of another'. And for patriarchal men, the question of 'how we treat our women' is definitely an internal matter, even at the domestic level, never mind the national level!

Given this principle of non-interference in internal affairs, it is difficult to see how the representative of any one state could bring up the question of discrimination against women in another state, or indeed bring up any human rights issue obtaining in another state. And perhaps we may presume that a state representative is not likely to raise an issue of a transgression against human rights in their own state!

Given the above considerations, we may conclude that if NEPAD were to include objectives to address gender issues, then the African Union would not be the right organisation to implement it. However, since NEPAD does not include any significant gender oriented objectives, and none in the area of democracy and human rights, it would seem that both NEPAD and the African Union are well matched patriarchal bedfellows.

6 Governmental Reluctance to Address Gender Issues

The pattern of gender fade-away exhibited by NEPAD is nothing new. In fact it is very typical and representative of what may commonly be found in development plans in Africa, of both governments and development agencies. There is a pervasive problem that development agencies and national governments exhibit a lack of political will in addressing gender policies. Instead there tends to be much vague lip-service, involving ill-defined phrases such as 'gender-sensitive' and 'gender-aware implementation' of development programmes, when in practice these programmes neither identify nor intend to address the important gender issues which affect all women in Africa. Instead their programmes employ 'watering down' strategies that serve to overlook, sideline or compartmentalize gender policy imperatives.

Underlying this failure to properly implement gender policies is a quiet but determined patriarchal opposition to policies of gender equality that is pervasive within development agencies, and amongst the government bureaucracies of 'developing' countries. Only when we are able to recognize and analyse the obstructive strategies of patriarchal opposition, shall we be able to devise the alternative and counter strategie1s to deal with this sort of opposition.

7 The Patriarchal Paradigm

All of the countries of the African Union, to varying degrees, are patriarchal societies, with male dominated governments that adhere faithfully to patriarchal values of male supremacy.

Clearly the authors of NEPAD are severely gender blind. We may explain this blindness as being of a particular and well defined form, which we may term as paradigmic patriarchal blindness. It is evident that the authors do not see, and do not want to see, any form of gender discrimination. Their whole interpretation of gender issues, such as it is, seems to have no societal or structural dimension. They do not seem to live in the same world of legalized, traditional and institutionalised gender discrimination that is actually the world inhabited by women in Africa. In all of NEPAD's preliminary description of the problem situations to be addressed by NEPAD, there is no mention of any gender issue. Even where the document presents a weakly gender oriented goal, we find that this objective is directed at a problem which has not been previously mentioned.

It is this patriarchal paradigm which can nicely explain the absence of any mention of gender issues in the discussion of democracy and human rights. Of course it could be that the authors deliberately removed the connection between gender and democracy, or deliberately avoided it. But more likely they simply could not see the connection. The clue to this interpretation may be found in the phrase 'promoting the role of women by reinforcing their capacity ' (NEPAD para 49, emphasis added). The vocabulary is very revealing of the mind set of the authors. 'Promoting the role of women' is a well worn phrase which insultingly suggests that women are not sufficiently 'playing their part' in the development process! Women need to be 'integrated in development'!

More revealing, however, is the phrase 'reinforcing their capacity'. Here is the main clue to the patriarchal paradigmic mind-set. Women's lesser role and subordinate position arise from their lesser capacity! Therefore they need more education and training! It is no accident that the only significant gender oriented objective in all of NEPAD is concerned with gender equality in access to schooling. Not a word about the unequal gender division of labour, or that women are already doing most of the developmental work, or that women come up against barriers of gender discrimination which give the lion's share of the rewards to men, and the lion's share of unpaid work to women! How is more schooling going to alter that? Where schools teach female submission, it will make things worse!

NEPAD is a statement written by male heads of governments who are, in varying degrees, staunchly patriarchal. In their home countries these governments tend to represent male interests, and defend the patriarchal status quo. Should we then be surprised if NEPAD has little recognition of gender issues, and even smaller intention to address them? More important, what are the strategies if indeed they can be found - by which these representatives of patriarchy may be persuaded to adopt feminist policies?

This present assessment serves to draw attention to the large gap between the situation of institutionalised gender injustice in Africa, and governments' intention to do anything much about it. This lack of intention stands in stark contradiction to their own declared interest in democracy and human rights.

8 Conclusion: Towards Strategies of Action

The commitment to 'ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women' (African Charter, Article 18.3) has been with us since it was adopted by OAU member states in 1981 twenty-one years ago. This commitment has awesome implications, and implies a massive reform of statutory law, customary law and administrative practice in every African country. It also implies the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation, to outlaw all practices that discriminate against women. What has been our progress since then? What have African governments done to end the discriminatory laws enacted and administered by themselves?

And does the formation of the African Union indicate a sudden seriousness to implement this principle of gender equality? Unfortunately, the analysis of this paper indicates that NEPAD and the African Union both clearly exhibit a continuation of exactly the same pattern, of expressing fine sounding principles which do not lead to any subsequent action. Nor do they lead to proposals for action, or the prospect of action, or even an administrative framework which might enable action.

It is hoped that the analysis of this paper will serve to dispel any foolish illusion that African governments, as presently constituted, are likely to pursue policies concerned with equal rights for women irrespective of how much they claim to commit themselves to the principles of democracy, good governance and human rights, especially for the purpose of collecting donor funding.

If strategies of action for women's rights are based on the benevolence and generosity of males, to voluntarily give away their present domination and privilege, then it is based on complete folly. Equal rights of oppressed peoples are never given; they always have to be taken.

Strategies of action have to be based on a proper and realistic assessment of the present situation, and the obstacles. It also has to be based on an assessment of the weakness in the position of those who hold power. This paper itself exposes one such weakness, in the ideological contradiction and hypocrisy of governments which claim to adhere to a particular set of democratic principles applicable to all, but actually do the opposite when their sectional interests are threatened.

Such understanding is the beginning of strategising. How does the women's movement get together and challenge patriarchal government on particular issues? How can patriarchal government be pushed to international embarrassment by exposure of ideological contradiction between word and deed on women's rights. Where are the more general issues, which lend themselves to a general African women's coalition for action? Which are the issues where women, despite their socialisation into patriarchal belief, can nonetheless readily see that they are being discriminated against and oppressed? Where are the possibilities of North-South alliances within the sisterhood, for support from others who have already won some of these battles? Which are the development agencies, whether bilateral or NGO, which can be conscripted to the side of the battle for women's rights? Can progress on women's advancement be made a conditionality in granting development aid to patriarchal governments?

We need to discuss these strategic issues of patriarchal opposition, instead of basing our discussion on some starry eyed belief that men will voluntarily relinquish their privileges.


This material is being reposted for wider distribution by Africa Action (incorporating the Africa Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa). Africa Action's information services provide accessible information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and international policies toward Africa that advance economic, political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.

URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs02/gen0211b.php