FWdeKlerkFoundation.png

 

 

The Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill

 

 

Dave Steward, Executive Director of the FW de Klerk Foundation

 

There is something quite touching in the ANC's belief that it can solve
complex economic and social problems simply by promulgating new laws. What
is not so endearing is the underlying notion that the state has a right to
intrude into the legitimate affairs of private businesses, civil society
organisations and political parties in its efforts to impose its ideological
precepts throughout society. That has the whiff of totalitarianism - however
benign the intentions may ostensibly be.   

 

Few would argue with the intentions of the Women Empowerment and Gender
Equality Bill to empower women and to promote gender equality. As the Bill
points out, these goals are inherent in the foundational values of our
Constitution.

 

What gives rise to concern is, however, the manner in which the state seeks
to promote these goals; the scope given to the Minister for Women, Children
and People with Disabilities in pursuing them; and the absence of any
attempt to address the problems that actually underlie gender inequality and
the disempowerment of women.  

 

To start with, the Bill will affect only the fortunate 4.2 million women who
already have formal sector jobs. It will do little or nothing to empower and
address the inequality of the remaining 85% of our women and female
children.

 

In terms of the Bill the Minister may apply comprehensive requirements for
gender equality to any public or private bodies that she or he chooses to
designate. Private bodies include "any juristic person" - which means that
virtually any company, non-governmental organisation, religious denomination
or club could fall within the ambit of the Bill.  

 

Designated bodies could be asked to submit annual compliance plans on gender
education; women's health care and reproductive health; public education on
prohibited practices, including gender violence; equal representation and
participation in decision-making, including boards of directors; gender
mainstreaming; the elimination of discrimination; and  economic empowerment,
including the socio-economic empowerment of rural women and women with
disabilities.

 

The Bill's goal is "substantive gender equality" - that is, the very elusive
prospect of trying to achieve equality in fact and not only in law. The goal
would be to secure "at least 50 percent" female participation in boards,
outcomes and empowerment policies. (This, of course, would by definition
necessitate male participation of 50% or less - and thus undermine the goal
of gender equality!)

 

If the Minister is dissatisfied with gender empowerment plans, he or she
will be able to issue guidelines that designated bodies will be required to
implement. Fortunately, the Bill is not coercive and would attempt to
address non-compliance through the use of "dispute resolution mechanisms".

 

It is probably not the Bill's intention to include rugby clubs, gold mines
and religious denominations as designated organisations. However, the
Minister could theoretically require the Catholic Church to implement gender
equality at all levels of its hierarchy - and would also be empowered to
prescribe to independent civil society organisations on how they should
manage their personnel practices.  

 

The Bill specifically includes political parties within its ambit and
requires them "to develop and implement measures for the progressive
realisation of a minimum of 50 per cent representation and meaningful
participation of women in decision-making positions and structures".
However, this would seriously interfere with the right of South African
citizens to choose whomever they like to represent them - regardless of
gender or sexual orientation.

 

The Bill would place further administrative burdens on companies already
straining under the weight of BEE, Employment Equity and numerous other
regulations. The government does not seem to understand that the principal
function of businesses is to generate greater value than they consume by
providing products and services. In so-doing businesses serve the public,
create jobs, contribute to economic growth and pay taxes. Their ability to
play this role will be diminished if there are forced to implement state
ideology by appointing key staff on any basis other than merit.  

 

Perhaps the greatest problem with the Bill is that it draws attention away
from the real issues that perpetuate gender inequality and the abuse of
women.

 

If the state really wants to promote gender equality it should start by
fixing our badly broken education system. It is unacceptable that only 12%
of our girl-children emerge from school with a university entrance matric.
If the government wants to empower women it should do everything it can to
create jobs - by facing down the unions and by adopting more flexible labour
policies. It should promote economic growth by attracting foreign and local
investment - rather than chasing investors away by diluting or threatening
their property rights. It should break the cycle of disadvantage by taking
effective action to combat the increasing number of schoolgirl pregnancies.
It should combat shameful levels of gender violence and rape by building up
an effective police force, led by professionals appointed on the basis of
merit and experience - and not on the basis of race and political cronyism.


 

The government should address the unacceptable fact that 70% of South
African mothers must raise their children without the support of the men who
fathered them. Where are the voices of the ANC - and the EFF - calling on
men to accept their responsibility as fathers? How can we hope to promote
gender equality when the expense and responsibility of bringing up children
falls so unfairly on the shoulders of single mothers?

 

The problem, of course, is that all of these remedies fall within the sphere
of a government that has become increasingly dysfunctional - to a large
extent because it has consistently appointed and promoted people on the
basis of ideology and political affiliation rather than merit. So it is much
easier to shuck problems off to the private sector - and to adopt
high-sounding laws. Government can best promote gender equality and empower
women by working much more effectively at the rock-face of our economic and
social problems - rather than by promulgating ideological and intrusive
legislative of this kind.

 

 

 

 

 

-- 
-- 
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this 
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at 
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, 
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You 
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put 
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this 
address (repeat): [email protected] .

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"YCLSA Discussion Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

<<image001.jpg>>

Reply via email to