For almost two decades now, Uganda has operated under a political structure known as the movement system; a system that is supposed to accommodate all citizens regardless of political inclination, tribe/ethnicity, religion, sex, social class, etc. Under such system, the principle of individual merit is preferred to party affiliation when one runs for any elective political office.
But pluralism is not completely new to the Ugandan political scene. Prior to the experiment with the movement system, Uganda had enjoyed some taste of pluralism within and between colonial, military and civilian dictatorships. Therefore, my brief analysis of the impending pluralistic politics will be approached through a historical lens. In addition, I take a glimpse at other politically pluralistic African countries in assessing the gender implications of the looming opening up of party politics in this country.
True, the status of women in this country has made some leaps in certain spheres of society in the last twenty years. For instance, women are more visible in formal decision-making institutions both at the national and local government levels, thanks to the affirmative action policy introduced by the National Resistance Movement (NRM) administration. Many will be quick to point out that women's improved status happened under the movement systems as opposed to the multiparty era that prevailed prior to 1986.
But does that mean that the movement system offers better opportunities for gender equality than does the multiparty system? I don't think so! Although the policies of the NRM leadership take some credit in creating an; enabling environment; for accelerating women's progress towards their emancipation goal, several other forces were at play (e.g., globalisation, pressure from the women's movement, political expedience, opportunism, etc.). The vulnerability of such gender policies that are not backed by strong political will is evident to most Ugandan women today. The fact is that the Ugandan state (whether under Museveni's movement system or Obote's pluralist system) has primarily acted in the interests of self-preservation as a patriarchal institution with men firmly holding the substantive reigns of power and authority.
Moreover, the new political spaces created by the top-down affirmative action policy introduced by the NRM have, in a way, proved to be nothing more than sites of accommodation and control by the state. Without advancing women's strategic interests at all, the NRM administration gained the support of women legislators and councillors by offering them access to the political world of male power. The patriarchal structures and institutions within which politicians operate have themselves not altered one bit. So, basically what we have are women in power without power!
We often hear people (men and women) argue that the movement has done so much for women. What more do you want? they inquire irritably. But women are not fooled by the high-sounding rhetoric of the movement government. Nor are we beholden to the movement because of the affirmative action policies that they have introduced. Those that expect women to be eternally grateful to the state for doing, in a half-hearted fashion, what it is obliged to do should think again. The majority of Ugandan women have learnt that the nominal support offered by the state rings very hollow to the reality of their suffering and oppression.
Thus, it is not the institutional arrangements of movement vs. pluralism, but the patriarchal character of the state; to which Ugandan women focus their energies and attention. Interests of the women's movement in this country do not narrowly lie in what political system prevails and we completely reject notions of democracy that limit its operation to mere institutional arrangements.
Yes, it is true that one state machinery may offer a better opportunity for marginalized groups like women to advance their cause than the next. But women understand that at the end of the day, under conditions of patriarchy, they have to fend for themselves. The state, by its patriarchal nature, is neither a promising nor consistent ally of women. Today in Uganda, we are witnessing clear attempts by the government, led by President Museveni, to roll back the clock on women's human rights. The stiff resistance to women's family land rights is one case in point. Married women's legitimate demands for joint ownership of the matrimonial home are deliberately distorted to appear like; the commercialisation of marriages.; President Museveni has gone as far as arguing that granting women a share of the land where they reside with their husbands and from which they derive sustenance would paralyse; property expansion in Uganda!
When the old political parties like the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) or the Democratic Party (DP) were active in the 1960s and 1980s, there was no indication whatsoever that they took Ugandan women or even gender issues seriously. In fact, strong patriarchal institutions backed all mainstream parties; UPC by the Protestant Church and DP by the Roman Catholic Church. Even today, none of these parties (not even the emergent Uganda Young Democrats; UYD) have thus far signalled any alteration in their deeply entrenched patriarchal character or practices.
When we look elsewhere in Africa, the experience shows that, even in pluralist countries where strong women's movements exist, there is no guarantee that parties will institutionalise women's political participation (e.g., Nigeria, Botswana, Kenya, Zambia & Tanzania). Moreover, even in a country like South Africa where the African National Congress (ANC) women have an institutionalised presence in politics (through a quota system), there is not much evidence to show a marked improvement in the general status of women. In fact many female legislators in pluralist countries have a sense of frustration and burnout because of the dilemma that they constantly face in trying to pursue feminist goals while toeing the patriarchal party line.
So, regardless of what political system is in control of the state, and regardless of the lofty rhetoric, when Ugandan women lift the veil off the face of the state, they see nothing but deeply entrenched norms of male privilege and power embedded therein. We see a patriarchal state whose number one agenda is to sustain and defend such power; an institution by men and for men.
Ugandan women are more interested in taking the state to task to account for its soft-peddling on actualising women's democratic rights as enshrined in the constitution. We are more interested, for example, in quick explanations from the state as to why it is meddling with the land co-ownership clause; why it is sitting on the domestic relations bill; why it is deferring the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Ugandan women are acutely aware that the majority of men agitating for political power, whether clothed in movement or party colours, have traditional patriarchal mind-sets that readily justify womens subordination and exploitation. In rhetoric, they include issues of democracy and even gender equality in their political manifestos, but in practice they have come up with contradictory practices. Indeed, most do not practice democracy in their own homes and families. They are not willing to address issues of sex discrimination, domestic violence, sexual violence, gender equity and often dismiss out of hand all that women say.
In conclusion, we must note that the political space being opened up by the NRM administration is deeply masculinist, anti-women and militaristic. Whether the bolt on political parties is unscrewed tomorrow or whether the movement system consolidates its stranglehold, Ugandan women should keep a critical distance from the state, increase its autonomy and focus on the real issues that keep them in a subordinate position. Without a radical transformation in political- social structures and institutions in this country, women will always have a raw deal in the public sphere. As things stand now, when the contests for political power are over, it will be; business as usual; for the male leaders that win the day. For women, therefore, movement or multiparty, the struggle continues!
Eluta Continua!
Last update: May-23, 2003
