Defending the two-thirds gender principle still an urgent priority

Attorney-General Githu Muigai and Cabinet Secretary for Public Service, Youth and Gender Affairs Sicily Kariuki converse during media breakfast on implementation of the two-thirds gender rule, at Sarova Stanley hotel on August 17, 2016. The two-thirds gender principle has been singled out and attacked repeatedly, including by Prof Muigai's office. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • This cost factor has been articulated by sexist men and given weight by a fake Wage Bill Dialogue that the President and his Deputy inaugurated in 2014.
  • In other words, the reason for the attack on the gender principle does not rest in cost. It rests in sexist attitudes that are safeguarded by a predatory patriarchal political system.

We have recently been engaging a select number of Kenyans to discuss opportunities and gaps as we head to the 2017 elections.

We are curious to find outstanding issues that need urgent intervention as we go into the next General Election and to learn how to structure the interventions to deal with existing gaps.

The two-thirds gender principle jumped out as one such outstanding issue.

This principle is entrenched in the Constitution in Article 27 (8), which requires that “Not more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies shall be of the same gender”.

However, since the promulgation of the Constitution, this provision has been under immense attack.

President Mwai Kibaki fired the first salvo when he unilaterally and against the provisions of the Constitution attempted to appoint the Chief Justice, Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecution.

The appointees were all men. In this action, Mr Kibaki demonstrated not just a disregard for the entire Constitution, but more specifically a desire not to implement the principle of inclusivity that sits at its heart.

Since then, various excuses have been thrown into the mix to justify not implementing the gender principle.

We have been told that the principle is expensive to implement.

This cost factor has been articulated by sexist men and given weight by a fake Wage Bill Dialogue that the President and his Deputy inaugurated in 2014.

The dialogue was fake because, as economist David Ndii showed in this paper, Kenya did not really have a wage bill problem.

It is sad that former Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru tried to defend it.

But the discussion soon started blaming over-representation, affirmative action and too many units of devolved representation.

MISDIRECTED ATTACK

It did not matter that the Jubilee government retained the old provincial administration alongside the devolved units, thus increasing costs.

These three were identified as key to dealing with a non-existent wage bill problem.

Subsequently, the two-thirds gender principle has been singled out and attacked repeatedly, including by the Attorney-General’s office, where they claim the President is not obliged to ensure this principle is implemented.

Last year, the National Women’s Steering Committee led by Ms Daisy Amdany’s CRAWN Trust partnered with the Institute of Economic Affairs to assess the cost of representation if the two-thirds gender principle is implemented.

It found the share of the entire national budget to be consumed by Parliament to be only 1.5 per cent of the national budget.

The report concluded that despite claims by many public figures, “the expansion of houses of Parliament to ensure the inclusion of women is not prohibitively expensive to the Kenyan taxpayer”.

The attack on the gender principle is, therefore, misdirected.

In other words, the reason for the attack on the gender principle does not rest in cost. It rests in sexist attitudes that are safeguarded by a predatory patriarchal political system.

It is no wonder that when political parties decide to mobilise on issues they consider important, they do so with a visible show of might.

CAUSE FAILED

But no such mobilisation has happened on the gender principle.

Indeed, the principle has been ignored with impunity as if it is not a critical part of the law we promulgated.

Lost to all of us is that after the August 27, 2015 deadline to implement the principle, we have opened space for the government to ignore the Constitution with impunity.

The women who assumed the affirmative action seats in Parliament have not helped matters.

They have failed to distinguish themselves by their roles once elected. Most abandoned their gendered platforms and joined the male-dominated party platforms.

They have, therefore, not been indistinguishable in their work. They seek to play in the big boys’ club; a club where they are peripheral actors.

The disappointment is palpable and remedial action is needed now more than ever before.

Godwin R. Murunga is a senior research fellow in the Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi