| dc.description.abstract | There is nothing particularly novel or earthshaking about the above four quotesthe
first three ‘borrowed’ from a 1992 study2. What is significant about them is
that despite more than three decades that separate the first three quotes from
the last one, they are describing a reality on the status and challenges of women
participation and representation in politics that has not fundamentally altered in
the intervening period between 1977 and 2012. This then speaks to the
gendered and patriarchal nature of power relations between men and women3,
best manifested in the persisting marginality of women in formal politics and key
power centers in many countries around the world, including Kenya, and the
continuing and fierce political resistance to democratizing political rules of
engagement to facilitate the equitable and fair participation and representation of
both genders and special interest groups. Under such circumstances, it is hardly
surprising, that no government has ever fallen because of it policies towards
women; but Kenya could become the first, unless the gender rule is complied
with before the next elections. In the meantime, as the Women Shadow
Parliament WSP(K) 2008 Rapid Assessment and Gender Audit report has noted,
the gendered nature of power relations has for decades ensured that women’s
numerical strength do not translate into political capital and influence, and hence
most women remain largely as voting tools for men, to whom political parties turn
to as an electoral force and are enthusiastic for their participation only for the
purpose of mustering votes for the party’s presidential, parliamentary and local
government candidates. Most women thus continue occupying limited roles at
the lower and intermediate levels of the organization, where they serve as organs for mobilizing women for elective purposes.4 The 2010 Kenya Constitution
(hereby ‘the Constitution’), was in part responding to this gendered power
relations, by providing for Affirmative Action5 (hereby,’ AA’), through measures
that would ensure greater participation, representation and influence of women
in all governance institutions, including political parties.
In this latter connection, it is the contention of this paper that the current fierce
contestations in respect to the implementation of the “no more than two thirds”
gender rule as contained at article 27(8) and 81(b) of the Constitution, are
politically inspired and mirror the wider political representational power struggles,
whose gender dimension has always taken the form of consolidation and
institutionalization of patriarchal norms and preserving legal frameworks and
policies that constrain and/ or exclude women from political governance. The
representational provisions as provided in various parts of the Constitution and
especially Articles 27(6 & 8), 81(b) and 100, have fundamentally altered the
existing political rules of engagement and threaten to disrupt the gendered power
distribution in a manner that may negatively impact on the vested political
interests of some of the current male power holders. Indeed, the final phase of
the constitutional making process that led to the omission of a constitutional
mechanism to give effect to the ‘two thirds gender principle in respect to
representation in Parliament, was not, in my view, an accident but a result of the
compromises that had to be made to retain Articles 27(6 & 8), and 81(b). Those
legislators currently opposed to this Gender rule and calling for its repeal instead
of developing a mechanism for its implementation, had at the time, wrongly
assumed that the application of these provisions would be progressive rather
than immediate and mandatory. The current resistance by some male legislators to the passing of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment Bill (that provides a
mechanism for implementing this Gender rule, is a logical next step, in the
struggle by the dissenting patriarchs, to retain the political status quo and to
undermine the creation, through AA, of a level political playing field for all
Kenyans, ahead of the 2013 general elections. Despite the obvious legal and
political reality that failure to implement the gender rule is not an option (as it
would nullify in totality the outcome of the impending 2013 elections), the
gatekeepers against gender equity and equality in political representation, have
shifted their struggle towards proposing untenable formulae as alternatives to the
passing of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment bill. The introduction of new
formulae and alternatives appears to me, to be a delaying tactic to prolong the
legislators’ stay in power, as they wait for the inevitable to happen- namely, the
creation of a mechanism to give effect to the two thirds gender rule. When the
inevitable does happen, it would hopefully ensure that the post 2013 election
Parliament and all other elective and appointive public governance institutions
would have no less than one third women representation. On this, Kenya would
merely be following a trail already beaten by over 26 countries around the world,
including most of its Eastern African neighbors led by Rwanda-that also leads in
the world with 56.3 %. parliamentary representation of women; South Africa with
42.3% standing at position 8 globally; Tanzania at position 18 with 36.0 %;
Uganda in position 19 with 35.0 %, and Burundi at position 29 with 30.5 %, while
Kenya trails at position 113, with 9.8%6. In my view, the key issue is no longer
whether legislators will eventually comply with this constitutional requirement, but
rather when and how. This is the point of departure for this paper.
I therefore argue that whereas Kenya is lagging way behind regional and global
averages in respect to women’s political representation, which currently stand at
20.3% and 20.2% women respectively7, it has now an opportunity to seize this political moment ahead of the 2013 elections, to redeem itself, by legislating the
implementation mechanism for the two thirds gender rule; and in so doing, learn
from and adopt the best practices from the African countries that have already
attained the minimum female gender representation threshold. This would ensure
that gender equitable representation goes beyond formal / descriptive to
substantive representation. Thus, rather than expending time debating the
inevitable, this transitional period prior to the 2013 Elections is an important
opportunity for working out strategies and setting out rules and standards on how
to hold accountable all future political representatives (both elected and
nominated), to all Kenyan citizens. In this connection, part of this paper examines
whether, beyond the current preoccupation with attaining the requisite numbers
of women in the post 2012 governing institutions, the attainment of gender
equitable representation could galvanize the process of engendering and
democratizing governance, in a manner that results in making representation
meaningful in the lived realities of the represented groups and individuals. The
next part of this paper examines the conceptual issues around women’s
participation and political representation in general and its gender dimension in
particular. This is followed by an examination of global and regional experiences
with AA quotas and some of the implications of these for the Kenyan case.
Thereafter, this paper examines Kenya’s women’s past experiences and
challenges with political representation and what signals these provide, as we
look ahead beyond the adoption of the two third gender rule and the outcome of
the 2013 elections. The final part of the paper seeks to provide some policy and
action oriented recommendations. | en |
