The Horizon

kayode.komolafe@thisdaylive.com

0805 500 1974

By Kayode Komolafe

Mary Ikoku, a gender advocate, offered a brilliant defence of the cause of the Nigerian women on Arise News  three days ago.

The lady’s  sharp criticisms on television  of the National Assembly’s  rejection of  the bills proposed for some affirmation action in favour of the female gender  were made   in the context of the International Women’s Day  (March 8) observed  yesterday  in many countries of the world. According to her, in Nigeria the national parliament elected to foul the March 8  mood  of the Nigerian women on March 1, a day the female gender will remember as the day the National Assembly (NASS) took a decision to undermine the struggle for gender inclusion. Ikoku actually accused some elements in the NASS of misogyny. It would be very difficult to fault the lady.

It was as if the House of Representatives listened to Ikoku and legions of gender advocates (male and female) and many organisations girding their loins to resist the bias against the female gender. The Speaker of the House, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, honourably announced yesterday that there would be a reconsideration of three of the four bills rejected on March 1 by the lawmakers.

The three bills which all lovers of gender equity want passed into laws are those of  the 35% Affirmative Action for Women in Political Party Administration; Expansion of the Scope of Citizenship by Registration and  the Qualification to become an Indigene of a State in Nigeria.

The fourth bill on which Gbajabiamila was silent is the  Bill to “give women a quota in the federal and state executive councils or ministerial and commissionership seats.”

The contradictions involved in the attitude of the male-dominated NASS to the bills which seek to promote gender inclusion are indeed in concentric circles. In the first place, the point has been made that the bills were treated so dismissively because there are only few women in the NASS and, perhaps, fewer men who are committed to gender equality.

As the Abuja lawmakers take another look at all the bills, they should bear in mind that already Nigeria trails other African countries  in terms of representation in national parliaments. As at last year, the following were the percentages of women in the national parliaments of the following African countries: Rwanda (61), South Africa  (46), Namibia (44), Senegal (43) and Mozambique (42). In Nigeria, the figure  is embarrassingly 3.6%!

The responsive step taken yesterday  by the House is in the true spirit of popular democracy: those in government should listen to the people’s voices.

However, it is important that individual women, men and organisations who are committed to gender inclusion should intensify the struggle to turn the bills into laws.  Yes, the struggle should be that of men and women committed to human progress because as it is rightly said, women’s rights are indeed human rights.  The  failure to protect the rights of the female gender will cause a huge deficit in the human rights barometer of Nigeria.

To be sure, the laws will not mean an end to  the systemic discrimination against women; but it would  at least ensure some progress in the movement towards  gender equity. With the hashtag #BreakTheBias, the observance  of this year’s International Women’s Day is reminiscent of the fighting spirit that defined the origins of the yearly March 8 celebration.

By the way, the idea of the day has a leftist provenance. Initially, about 15,000 American female workers  staged a march through New York in 1908 to demand short working hours. In 1909, the Socialist Party of America proclaimed a National Woman’s Day. The radical origins of March 8 became global in 1910 when  a German communist, Clara Zetkin, proposed  the idea of a day set aside to reflect on the oppression and exploitation based on gender to an  International  Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Comrade Zetkin, a gender advocate, was a contemporary of Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Her efforts and those of her comrades culminated in the first observance of March 8 in 1911 in Austria,  Switzerland, Denmark and Germany.  Indeed, March 8 became the date because it was the date that Russian women began a strike in 1917 to demand  “bread and peace.”  And that was just few months to the Great October Revolution.

The United Nations adopted March 8   as the International Women’s Day in 1975.

The protests and outrage that defined this year’ s March 8 in Nigeria constitute a proof  that the contradictions in the Nigerian society are not only of  ethnic and regional dimensions. 

Politicians and ethnic champions often put on the agenda the vertical identities  of ethnicity, region and religion as if that is all there is to the Nigerian reality. 

However, the March 8 marches of Nigerian women were a demonstration of one of the horizontal identities of Nigerians. This is the gender identity. Other  identities are those  of class, generation, professions, trades etc. that cut across all ethnicities , regions and religions.

For instance, if the rejected bills were meant for ethnic or regional inclusion, the male chauvinists at the NASS  who opposed the proposed pieces of legislation would rather   invoke “true federalism”  and geo-political equity to support the proposals. So, it has been proved again that the social and political interests  of the people are not only in ethnic and regional terms. Perhaps , more fundamentally, the people also have deep  class, gender,  generational and other  interests. In other words, Nigerians are not only northerners and southerners; they are also men and women. They are not only Fulani and Ijaw; they are also rich and poor. They are not only Muslims and Christians;  they are also the exploiters and  the exploited.  They are not only from southeast and  northwest, they are also old and young.

The Quest for Social Justice

Ultimately, the legitimate agitation  for inclusion of the female gender in the political arena is only an aspect of the broad struggle for social justice and all-round development in the society.

This struggle is central to our collective humanity. Wole Soyinka summed it up when he said: “For me, justice is the first condition of humanity.”

Beyond inclusion in the political arena, other theatres of  the struggle for gender  inclusion include the bias against the female gender in the exercise of socio-economic rights; the oppression  often legitimised by cultural, religious and social practices and the endemic discrimination at work. These manifestations of social injustice against the female gender will definitely impair genuine development of any society. 

Doubtless, the  opposition to gender  inclusion and equity is a pernicious form of social injustice. In any case, an unjust  system that is biased against more than half of the population cannot achieve  sustainable development.

That is  why gender inclusion should be  put squarely on the development agenda.

The Horizon

kayode.komolafe@thisdaylive.com

0805 500 1974

By Kayode Komolafe

Mary Ikoku, a gender advocate, offered a brilliant defence of the cause of the Nigerian women on Arise News  three days ago.

The lady’s  sharp criticisms on television  of the National Assembly’s  rejection of  the bills proposed for some affirmation action in favour of the female gender  were made   in the context of the International Women’s Day  (March 8) observed  yesterday  in many countries of the world. According to her, in Nigeria the national parliament elected to foul the March 8  mood  of the Nigerian women on March 1, a day the female gender will remember as the day the National Assembly (NASS) took a decision to undermine the struggle for gender inclusion. Ikoku actually accused some elements in the NASS of misogyny. It would be very difficult to fault the lady.

It was as if the House of Representatives listened to Ikoku and legions of gender advocates (male and female) and many organisations girding their loins to resist the bias against the female gender. The Speaker of the House, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, honourably announced yesterday that there would be a reconsideration of three of the four bills rejected on March 1 by the lawmakers.

The three bills which all lovers of gender equity want passed into laws are those of  the 35% Affirmative Action for Women in Political Party Administration; Expansion of the Scope of Citizenship by Registration and  the Qualification to become an Indigene of a State in Nigeria.

The fourth bill on which Gbajabiamila was silent is the  Bill to “give women a quota in the federal and state executive councils or ministerial and commissionership seats.”

The contradictions involved in the attitude of the male-dominated NASS to the bills which seek to promote gender inclusion are indeed in concentric circles. In the first place, the point has been made that the bills were treated so dismissively because there are only few women in the NASS and, perhaps, fewer men who are committed to gender equality.

As the Abuja lawmakers take another look at all the bills, they should bear in mind that already Nigeria trails other African countries  in terms of representation in national parliaments. As at last year, the following were the percentages of women in the national parliaments of the following African countries: Rwanda (61), South Africa  (46), Namibia (44), Senegal (43) and Mozambique (42). In Nigeria, the figure  is embarrassingly 3.6%!

The responsive step taken yesterday  by the House is in the true spirit of popular democracy: those in government should listen to the people’s voices.

However, it is important that individual women, men and organisations who are committed to gender inclusion should intensify the struggle to turn the bills into laws.  Yes, the struggle should be that of men and women committed to human progress because as it is rightly said, women’s rights are indeed human rights.  The  failure to protect the rights of the female gender will cause a huge deficit in the human rights barometer of Nigeria.

To be sure, the laws will not mean an end to  the systemic discrimination against women; but it would  at least ensure some progress in the movement towards  gender equity. With the hashtag #BreakTheBias, the observance  of this year’s International Women’s Day is reminiscent of the fighting spirit that defined the origins of the yearly March 8 celebration.

By the way, the idea of the day has a leftist provenance. Initially, about 15,000 American female workers  staged a march through New York in 1908 to demand short working hours. In 1909, the Socialist Party of America proclaimed a National Woman’s Day. The radical origins of March 8 became global in 1910 when  a German communist, Clara Zetkin, proposed  the idea of a day set aside to reflect on the oppression and exploitation based on gender to an  International  Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Comrade Zetkin, a gender advocate, was a contemporary of Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Her efforts and those of her comrades culminated in the first observance of March 8 in 1911 in Austria,  Switzerland, Denmark and Germany.  Indeed, March 8 became the date because it was the date that Russian women began a strike in 1917 to demand  “bread and peace.”  And that was just few months to the Great October Revolution.

The United Nations adopted March 8   as the International Women’s Day in 1975.

The protests and outrage that defined this year’ s March 8 in Nigeria constitute a proof  that the contradictions in the Nigerian society are not only of  ethnic and regional dimensions. 

Politicians and ethnic champions often put on the agenda the vertical identities  of ethnicity, region and religion as if that is all there is to the Nigerian reality. 

However, the March 8 marches of Nigerian women were a demonstration of one of the horizontal identities of Nigerians. This is the gender identity. Other  identities are those  of class, generation, professions, trades etc. that cut across all ethnicities , regions and religions.

For instance, if the rejected bills were meant for ethnic or regional inclusion, the male chauvinists at the NASS  who opposed the proposed pieces of legislation would rather   invoke “true federalism”  and geo-political equity to support the proposals. So, it has been proved again that the social and political interests  of the people are not only in ethnic and regional terms. Perhaps , more fundamentally, the people also have deep  class, gender,  generational and other  interests. In other words, Nigerians are not only northerners and southerners; they are also men and women. They are not only Fulani and Ijaw; they are also rich and poor. They are not only Muslims and Christians;  they are also the exploiters and  the exploited.  They are not only from southeast and  northwest, they are also old and young.

The Quest for Social Justice

Ultimately, the legitimate agitation  for inclusion of the female gender in the political arena is only an aspect of the broad struggle for social justice and all-round development in the society.

This struggle is central to our collective humanity. Wole Soyinka summed it up when he said: “For me, justice is the first condition of humanity.”

Beyond inclusion in the political arena, other theatres of  the struggle for gender  inclusion include the bias against the female gender in the exercise of socio-economic rights; the oppression  often legitimised by cultural, religious and social practices and the endemic discrimination at work. These manifestations of social injustice against the female gender will definitely impair genuine development of any society. 

Doubtless, the  opposition to gender  inclusion and equity is a pernicious form of social injustice. In any case, an unjust  system that is biased against more than half of the population cannot achieve  sustainable development.

That is  why gender inclusion should be  put squarely on the development agenda.