The skeletons in our cupboards, and the women’s quota system in Sudan
We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help to free the other half.
Emmeline Pankhurst, one of the founders of the British suffragette movement.
By Ahmed Elzobier
March 7, 2008 — Of the total Sudanese population of 37 million citizens, women, of course, account for half. Notwithstanding their active role in the society, their socio-economic situation is still precarious. For decades they have remained marginalized both economically and socially, and sidelined in the political sphere. Legislative councils at all levels and traditional authority and customary law mechanisms are generally dominated by men.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the Interim National Constitution both stipulate 25% representation by women at all levels. This has provided women with the opportunity to assume leadership and decision making roles in the Government of Southern Sudan.
Indeed, the history of women’s participation (mostly northern) in the public life of modern Sudan dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. According to Niemat Kuku’s paper entitled “Women’s Political Participation: Legislated Quotas and Special Measures in Sudan”, Sudanese women’s participation in public life dates back to the period before the First World War, when a notable number were engaged in religious, education and cultural events. The first expert for women’s education was appointed in 1920, and by then the issue of education for girls had been raised publicly and a dialogue had been initiated between supporters and opponents of such education, all of whom were male.
The history of an organized women’s movement in Sudan could be traced back to the early 1950s and the year 1952 is considered very significant, when a group of educated women founded the Sudanese Women’s Union (SWU). They were mainly teachers, government officials, students, nurses and so on. The SWU, in collaboration with the progressive political parties and trade unions, campaigned effectively for equal pay for equal work, longer paid maternity leave and equal opportunities in employment. More significantly, the SWU campaign for women’s political rights was very successful and in 1955 women were granted the right to vote. Within one decade Sudanese women made a quantum leap. In 1965 they gained the constitutional right to representation in all public institutions and the right to stand for election. In that year one of the founders of the Sudan Women’s Union, Ms Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim, was elected to parliament.
By the 1960s Sudanese women constituted seven per cent of the official modern workforce. While most were nurses, secretaries and teachers, others gained posts as physicians, engineers, judges, lawyers, diplomats, journalists and university professors. The 1969 military government of Ja’afar Nimeiri agreed to put into practice the demands for equal pay and eight weeks’ maternity leave, pensions. (Sudan Update)
According to research by a Sudanese NGO, the Gender Centre, women’s participation in politics increased from a single member in 1965 to 60 members appointed in 2005, a representation of 13%. They also observed that during military regimes the number increased. During Numire’s regime in 1983, for example, the percentage reached 9%, and in 2004 under the Congress party regime it increased slightly to 10%.
Among major Sudanese political parties the highest number of women in top positions is in the Sudanese National Party (Nuba Mountains) with 25 members, and the lowest is in the National Democratic Union Party with only 6. Other political parties range from 10 to 18 members.
The recent debates which have erupted between political parties in Sudan about how to represent women in parliament according to the proposed election law, is quite extraordinary. However, despite the rhetoric and pretense of supporting women’s participation in politics that the Sudanese male political elites wants us to believe, underneath there is a much darker story of oppression and unchecked brutality that has never been properly addressed. Some of the male elite even try to tile over their anti-women sentiments with gestures of blatant tokenism.
The Sudanese women’s movement’s achievements of the 1950s, 60s and 70s suffered a considerable setback after the introduction of “sharia” law in September 1983. Then, after 1989, women’s rights entered its bleakest phase in the modern history of Sudan. The new regime banned political parties, trade unions and associations, as well as women’s organizations. According to Sudan Update over 100 women’s voluntary groups and philanthropic societies registered with the Ministry of Social Welfare were closed down. The “highlight” of this new phase was President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s speech at a conference in January 1990 about “the ideal Sudanese woman” – in his view this ideal woman “takes care of herself, her children, her home, her reputation and her husband”. In November 1991 the government ordered all women in Sudan to wear the “hijab”. The 1991 Public Order Act, part of the regime’s new penal code, is framed so widely as to constitute harassment and public humiliation for women and enables their virtual exclusion from the male-dominated public sphere.
In fact all of the new legislation introduced by the regime invariable discriminates against women in Sudan. The family law introduced in 1991 reinforced male dominance over women. The right of women to travel freely has been greatly reduced and the right of a single woman to stay in a hotel is also prohibited. More disturbing is the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Nuba Mountains and Southern Sudan, and currently in Dafur.
Sudan Update1 observed that the 1990s witnessed alarming developments in the treatment of women, including imprisonment, torture, intimidation and harassment, and interference with the rights of movement, association, employment and dress. In the name of protecting morality, the energies of law enforcement bodies have been directed towards the persecution of women in public. Young women in particular are primary targets for quasi-religious propaganda in the name of chastity, obedience and domesticity, voiced repeatedly through government-controlled media. Persistently made to feel ashamed of their bodies, they may be stopped on the street at the whim of any member of the police and security organizations. Reasons given for this can include being inadequately covered, not having an escort, being seen with a man not properly accredited as an escort, or simply walking in a “provocative” manner. What has taken place in the last 18 year in relation to the women of this country is unfathomable in its depravity. Unfortunately, most of these discriminatory laws and the law enforcement practices remain intact and are still occurring on a daily basis, in violation of the Interim Constitution.
The institutionalized discrimination described above is also coupled with the fact that historically in northern Sudan the extended family has provided social services as a safety net. The family is responsible for the old, the sick, and the mentally ill. Whether in rural or urban society, however, the burden of these social services has always fallen upon the women. In addition, female circumcision is widely practiced, especially among Sudan’s northern population.
In southern Sudan, the role of women has differed dramatically from that in the north. Although women were subordinate to men and subjected to different forms of discrimination. However, they have enjoyed much greater freedom within southern Sudanese societies. Female circumcision was not practiced and women have had greater freedom of movement, and have indeed participated to a limited degree in public life.
Nevertheless, the late SPLM leader John Garang was quite right when he observed that, “Women are the biggest marginalized group in our society”. That being the case we have a moral duty to open our eyes and understand women’s issues and ask why our political system always seems capable of generating a deplorable level of brutality and humiliation towards half of its population.
Given the background mentioned above, the current debate concentrating on the quota system for women has been universally accepted. However, political parties (mostly dominated by men) are divided on how to elect women. More than thirteen Sudanese political parties (including SPLM) have different positions from the National Congress Party (NCP) and are stalled on the issue of how to elect women to parliament. The NCP position is in favor of a separate women’s list to be elected by a simple majority (“first past the post” system). Most other political parties are in favor of women being nominated within all party lists (men and women) and to be elected through proportional representation at the state level. The Women in Major Political Parties Forum (supported by UNDP) has been the catalyst behind the position of the major political parties on the quota system. The forum members, representing more or less 19 political parties, have come together in the last four years and addressed a range of women-related issues. They are particularly successful in articulating a clear position on women’s representation according to the CPA. They have exposed the reality of the NCP’s proposed electoral quota system as structurally flawed, a pastiche of democracy, and one that guarantees that tokenism would take primacy over real equality. It would be a system in which the political elite (99% men) would write the narrative as much as those actually contesting the election.
In Sweden, one of the pioneer countries in promoting a women’s quota within a democratic system, they have bottom-up approach. According to Birgitta Dahl, Sweden’s Speaker of Parliament, “One cannot deal with the problem of female representation by a quota system alone. In political parties, the education system, NGOs, trade unions, churches – in all areas”. In Sweden they first laid the groundwork to facilitate women’s entry into politics through ensuring certain levels of competency, then employing quotas in sectors and institutions where breakthroughs were needed.
So what is a women’s quota, anyway? According to IDEA the core idea behind quota systems is to recruit women into political positions and to ensure that women are not merely a few token figures in political life. Globally, however, women’s quotas are a controversial measure. Various arguments have been made for and against the introduction of quotas as a means to increase the political presence of women. The Spanish MP Anna Balletbo has said, “Quotas are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they oblige men to think about including women in decision-making, since men must create spaces for women. On the other hand, since it is men who are opening up these spaces, they will seek out women who they will be able to manage”. IDEA also noted that governments in some Arab countries use the quota system for their own purposes. By getting more of their specially chosen women on board, governments can achieve two objectives: getting the token “controllable” women, while claiming they are in favor of promoting women’s political participation.
It’s well and good that the quota system for women was stated in 2005 constitution and most political parties have welcomed that. But what is seriously lacking is a constructive long term plan and bottom-up approach from our political parties, civil societies, work places, and education system, to address a much more deeply imbedded injustice that Sudanese women have endured for a long time. In short, we need to ask ourselves much harder questions centered on the very essence of real equality. Morally speaking, there is something gravely hypocritical in our society when it openly imposes a set of criteria on women that men, by definition, do not require of themselves.
The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]