Gender law with big burden on taxpayer

On Wednesday, the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill was tabled in the House following a ruling by National Assembly Speaker Kenneth Marende.

The Bill has mainly been known for its intention to move the next election date from the second Tuesday in August to the third Monday in December 2012. Yet it targets a critical issue of representation that is now taking root in the country — the gender rule.

For Article 81(b) of the Constitution states that not more than two-thirds of the members of elective public bodies will be of the same gender.

That is why the proposed law states in its objectives: “The Bill aims at giving full effect to Articles 27(8) and 81(b) which provides that not more than two-thirds of the members of elective public bodies shall be of the same gender.”

The Bill was an outcome of a Cabinet stalemate over the manner in which the drafters of the Elections Act had wanted to ensure that the National Assembly and the Senate have at least one-third representation of women.

In the Bill, which will take not less than 90 days since Wednesday to be debated in the House, proposes a formula of meeting gender rule which the public is going to discuss then give their suggestions.

There are fears that should the proposed formula be adopted, it would not be possible to have a fixed membership of the National Assembly and the Senate every fears years.

The Bill seeks to alter the membership of the National Assembly — 349 — as set under Article 97 by increasing the number of nominated MPs.

“Article 97 of the Constitution is amended: (a) in clause (1), by inserting the following new paragraph immediately after paragraph (b)-(ba) the number of special seat members necessary to ensure that no more than two-thirds of the membership of the National Assembly are of the same gender,” the Bill states.

This means that should the next election yield only 15 women MPs, the number of nominations required to fulfil the gender rule will be 100, increasing the membership of the National Assembly to 449.

The additional MPs will be nominated by political parties according to their strength in the House.

The same applies to the Senate where Article 98(d) is to be amended to increase the number of special seats to meet the requirements of the gender-rule. This will significantly raise the membership of the Senate by the stipulated 63 members.

The Bill states: “Article 98 of the Constitution is amended: in clause (1), by inserting the following new paragraph immediately after paragraph (d)- (da): the number of special seat members necessary to ensure that no more than two-thirds of the membership of the Senate are of the same gender.”

This means that in its bid to satisfy the demands of the gender rule, the amendment comes along with cost implications to the tax payer by increasing the number of MPs.

It is understandable that the Bill is going to be subjected to public debate with the government lining up a series of meetings to ensure that it receives the adequate input before MPs debate on it.

And as the public gears to debate it, there are key questions that they need to ponder over. Can the gender rule be met without altering the membership of the National Assembly and the Senate? Must the amendment come with costs to the tax payer? If it must come with a cost component, what value will it add to the tax payer?

Kenya is not the only country that has faced the challenges on increasing the number of women in leadership positions. In doing so, they have adopted different ways, most of which do not end up in increasing the membership of parliaments.

One of the approaches was contained in the Elections Bill but which could not receive the endorsement of MPs — designating certain seats for women.

In the Bill, it had been proposed that after elections are announced, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission will randomly designate certain constituencies for women. A mini- election will then be held to fill those seats to ensure that at least the Kenya Parliament has 115 women MPs.

This formula, however, raised two fundamental questions: First, what will happen to the politicians who would have emerged victors in that election? Two, will it not be an infringement on the rights of voters to elect a leader they want?

The second approach is to make law that political parties, in nominating candidates, ensure that a certain percentage is held by women. This will make it possible for women to contest the seats and fill the quota of seats for women as required under the Constitution.

Thirdly, the gender rule can be achieved through reserving certain seats — electoral or special — for women to increase their representation. In the Constitution, Article 97(1)(b) reserves 47 seats for women with each county electing one representative.

This, however, does not result in a number that meets the gender rule. In Rwanda, 30 per cent of elected seats in Parliament are reserved for women while in Uganda 56 seats are set aside.

Whichever way the public would prefer, the end result will be to increase the number of women MPs in the National Assembly and the Senate. But there are issues which if so addressed could spare the tax payer extra costs in the name of achieving gender balance.

These issues include lack of political support in their parties, male dominance, training and education of women and electoral systems that frown upon women participation in leadership.