Doing the ?gender work?

Established in 1996 under Chapter Nine of the Constitution, the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) aims to protect, promote and monitor the progress of gender equality in South Africa, in the state, private sector and civil society.

 

The organisation’s focus and litmus test of “progress” in promoting gender equality was to be from the standpoint of the most vulnerable social category in society – poor, rural women. If the status and subordination of poor rural women changed, then society could be said to be moving towards greater equality.

 

Through its public education and information dissemination programmes the CGE should theoretically have been able to mobilise communities around specific gender issues that limited their access and thus their enjoyment of full human rights.

 

As a concept, the CGE is unique. Unlike most other national machineries for advancing gender equality, it is not a government structure and does not reside within the bureaucracy. One of five structures created to buttress democracy (the others include the Human Rights Commission, Public Protector, Auditor General and Independent Electoral Commission) the CGE derives its mandate from the Constitution and has an eye over the whole society, private sector, public sector and civil society.

 

The CGE comprises 7-11 Commissioners appointed on a full time and part time basis to guide the work of the Commission, as well as a professional staff headed by a Chief Executive Officer.  It is mandated to take up test cases; monitor and evaluate efforts at gender mainstreaming driven by the Office on the Status of Women (OSW) in government as well as conduct public education campaigns. 

 

In reality the CGE has faced many internal contradictions that have marred its effectiveness.

 

Role clarification dogged the Commission’s internal relationships from the start. Part of the difficulties lay in the lack of definition about exactly what Commissioners should do and what skills, experience and “qualifications” they should have.

 

There was an unfortunate tension embedded in the distribution of power between the Chairperson, the Commissioners, the CEO, the managers and the staff at different levels. Many commissioners were appointed for political reasons rather than because of their expertise. Commissioners and staff had a very uneven set of bureaucratic skills and many of them defined and understood gender as ‘women-related’ issues. 

 

Educational and racial differences also played a role in creating fault lines. To hold these differences together required insight, legitimacy and leadership skill – and the capacity to rise above the differences to keep the wider objectives of the mandate in sight.

 

 

With regard to its work, the Commission has such a broad mandate that unless a focused approach could be forged the organisation faced the danger of dissipation and lack of impact.

 

The alternative was to adopt a more focused and strategic approach that saw a national collective and coordinated effort of the CGE, the gender machinery and civil society to adopt a transformative agenda over an extended period of time. This would allow for in-depth investigation, research and policy development. The CGE could become highly focused and priority driven, with very specific objectives. But this did not happen. Instead energy and resources became dissipated within and without; the focus of work was too disparate.

 

At the Gender Summit organised by the CGE in 2001 a fourth leg of the gender machinery was identified – civil society. At last there was recognition of the importance of building the women’s movement and mobilising around significant transformatory issues. The summit criticised the gender machinery for its lack of accountability to civil society and proposed a specific focus on issues that held back the progress of gender equality e.g gender violence, poverty and HIV/AIDS.

 

The challenge was for the CGE to translate the Constitutional mandate into a practical plan of action, with achievable objectives remains. Perhaps the most significant issue for me was the approach adopted by the CGE – one that in a sense determined the direction of the organisation’s work.

 

The approach focused on women’s rights and entitlements rather than on structures of gender power relations might in fact reinforce the formal structure of the sexual division of labour and gender power relations in society. This could simply perpetuate women’s secondary status and subordination within traditional social relationships. It would also completely ignore the challenges faced by gay and lesbian people in a homophobic society.

 

By focusing on women and men as distinct categories and not interrogating the way in which the constitution of gender power relations determines the status and position of women and men in society, gender strategies will not necessarily lead to significant change in society that will rid us of gender inequalities.

 

The CGE has in the last few years held hearings on gender violence and sexuality – and it has forged significant partnership with men’s organisations. One hopes that this will inch it towards a more sustained focus on how to change gender relations in ways that will lead to gender justice and genuine gender equality. A women’s rights approach will not suffice. Rather, what is required is an understanding of women’s subordinate status within social structures and social relations.

 

As a model for the SADC region, the CGE has both strengths and weaknesses. First, its independence is critical. Although in South Africa its status as a constitutional body is significant, it sometimes acts no differently to other civil society bodies. The reason for this is that its members are nominees from civil society chosen and appointed by Parliament. The procedure should rather be one where appointments are made by an independent judicial commission.

 

Also, the idea that Commissioners should reflect the demographics of society smacks of political correctness that should rather give way to expertise in gender and commitment to gender equality.

 

Second, the number of commissioners deserves scrutiny. Seven to 11 commissioners plus a chairperson is too many. Agreement is difficult to reach and different agendas, particularly links to other constituencies, causes friction. The work could equally be done by a single full-time commissioner, with highly qualified professional gender specialists to assist. This would both cut the costs and streamline the fulfilment of the Commission’s mandate.