|
COPYRIGHT 2001 African Women's Development and Communication Network (FEMNET)
With the ending of racial apartheid, the continent of Africa finally rid itself of the last remnant of legalised and institutionalised racism, which was pervasive across Africa in the colonial era. But we remain with another form of apartheid, ever present and pervasive and more seriously embedded-gender apartheid. These two forms of apartheid are strikingly similar and each is equally an offence against human rights. Each elevates one category of humans as superior to another, leaving believe the subordinated category, which is denied a broad range of fundamental rights. Whereas racial supremacy gives privilege and power to white over blacks, the parallel system of male supremacy gives privilege and power to men over women.
Racial apartheid was a system of legalised and institutionalised discrimination. It was a system of 'democracy for whites'. Blacks were officially regarded as sub human, therefore the question of human rights did not arise. And yet in the face of all this discriminatory legislation, whites could claim that there was no discrimination. There were merely separate development and blacks were held back by their own inadequacies. It is this essential aspect of racial apartheid, which is perfectly replicated in gender apartheid, where although there may be a high degree of adherence to the rule of law women are not equal in law. Many governments deny the existence of legalised discrimination against women, claiming that women are equal in law and under the law, and that gender equality is enshrined in the constitution. Throughout Africa, such claims are bogus. Taking Zambia as an example, such claims are based on partial and disingenuous reading of article 23 of the 1991 constitution, which ostensibly protects wome n against gender discrimination in all law and provision of public services. However, a subsequent qualifying clause in the same article removes such protection in the area of personal law, marriage law, custom and tradition. This leaves the way open for the continuation of a system of customary law (under local courts) which is extremely discriminatory. It also leaves the way open for much legislation and administrative practice guided by the same discriminatory custom and tradition. In practice, much public provision for women requires their husbands' permission. This is the pervasive pattern in most of Southern, Central and Eastern Africa.
Looking at whites' defence of apartheid, one finds startling similarity as to male defence of male supremacy. This defence may be surmised in the single phrase 'Separate Development', Racial apartheid, we were told is not about inequality or supremacy, it is merely about different cultures and different ways of life. Above all it is about the division of labour, where whites with their 'naturally superior' culture and skills naturally occupy the positions of power, whereas the blacks 'naturally' occupy more menial jobs.
Another starling similarity between gender and racial apartheid is the arrogance of the minority in power claiming to be paternal and 'benevolent' custodians of the welfare of the subordinate groups. Whites claimed to be acting in the interest of all racial groups, although all statistics showed that they were using their monopoly of power to maintain their privileges and to disburse state benefits and services primarily to other whites. Similarly, male supremacisies at both the family and state level, has the cheek to claim that men take decisions for the equal benefit of women and men. As with racial apartheid, male decision making serves to give most of the rewards to men and most of the work to women.
This is just as true with the government of the state as it is within the government of the household. Such paternalistic and patriarchal claims are an offence against the most basic democratic principle of representative democracy, which is that all interest groups must be proportionally represented in the decision making process, in the making of laws and the allocation of public resources. The mere existence of male domination in parliament should be enough to alert all women that their interests are not being properly represented. As with the fight against racial apartheid, the struggle against inequality must begin with the clear recognition of the issues of discrimination and injustice, as the basis for political campaigns to gain the necessary power to enforce equality of treatment.
Male Supremacy as a Denial of Human Rights
Human rights principles are directed at ensuring that no one group in society dominates another, turning another group into oppressed servants and slaves. Therefore the male domination of government, automatically presents a prima facie fundamental human rights issue.
Any statement of human rights is largely concerned with ensuring that there is no discrimination against any individual of group or citizens. Such discrimination is outlawed by following basic principles.
But women in Africa are pervasively and routinely denied many basic human rights. For example, the following practices are not only pervasive, but actually 'legal' in many countries.
* Female...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
