Synopsis
There
is a looming constitutional crisis regarding the fulfillment of gender equality
rule as espoused in the new constitution. However, gender equality cannot be
attained at the expense of democracy and justice.
The ongoing debate whether amendments
should or should not be made to the law that requires any public institution to
have a third of either gender has continued to illicit mixed reactions from
various quarters. The assemblies created under the new constitution (parliament,
senate, & county assembly) are as such required to comply with this rule.
However, if this law is not met and it turns out (as likely to be the case)
that the gender rule is not met then, the assemblies will be unconstitutional.
This will plunge the country to constitutional crisis of its kind. The
Attorney-General has since sought the intervention of the Supreme court in a
bid to find a solution to the stalement.
Unsustainable
In order to solve the crisis, the
respective assemblies would be required to nominate the difference to meet the
constitutional requirement. This rule is a brainchild of affirmative action for
women who have not been participating in politics. Nominating the shortfall
will be unsustainable for the economy due to the bloated members of the
assembly. For instance, if Kenyans decide to elect 290 men in the national
assembly, the law requires that 60 women be nominated to meet constitutional
gender threshold bringing the total number of M.P’s 350, all of them to be paid
approximately Ksh.1M.
Gender
Equality Vis a Vis Democracy & Justice
From
the foregoing, some have argued that the cost of attaining gender equality in
the assemblies will be quite enormous. That aside, I want us to focus on gender
equality particularly on elective posts: Does the gender rule promote Democracy
and Justice? Can we achieve gender equality at the expense of Democracy and
Justice? The gender rule on elective posts negates the principle of Democracy
and Justice. You cannot force people to elect a woman or a man. It’s like
imposing a leader unto the people and that should not be the case at this
juncture given the achievement we have gained in the fight for democracy. Error
is to human and that clause ought to have been amended during the making of the
constitution. Nobody really pondered on the ramifications of the rule and asked
whether it is actually feasible. Changing the constitution now will require a
referendum which is not possible. The gender rule ought to be applied on
positions of appointment but not elective posts/positions. It perfectly makes
sense when a commission of eight members has four men and four women appointed
by the president. On the other hand, you can’t force a constituency to elect a
woman or a man. As a matter of fact, affirmative
action in regards to decision making has been addressed through the creation of
women representatives’ position.
Lack
of Interest
The gender rule is
not the solution for lack of participation of women in politics. The problem is
not male dominance in the political world but rather women are not interested
in politics so they have been left out. To truly meet the underpinnings of
Gender Equality, Democracy and Justice, men and women should compete on equal
footing.
