Atieno Ndomo
This week, House Speaker Kenneth Marende perfected the nation’s art of denial and escapism, and applied a band-aid solution to the stalemate on the appointment of the Leader of the House Business Committee and Leader of Government Business in Parliament. As optimists heaved a sigh of relief and celebrated ‘Solomonic’ wisdom in the Speaker’s ruling –– which saw him anoint himself to the chairmanship of the HBC on an interim basis ––, the more discerning warned a lasting resolution was nowhere in the horizon and predicted a sharpening of hardline positions on this issue from the main parties to the National Accord.
Profound call
This was the backdrop against which a crucial segment of the women’s movement declared what by all Kenyan standards is a very radical stance — that the country observes week long celibacy to denounce the prevailing state of governance. For a country that is fairly two faced on matters of sex and sexuality, perhaps these women are seeking to spearhead and marshal a turnaround.
The import of this protest does not lie in whether it succeeds or not. It lies on the symbolism. It is time for germane and extraordinary measures. After all, we persistently endure far too many unimaginative intrigues in our political arena.
Seemingly, the profundity of this call by women leaders for a sex boycott has not registered especially with the political leadership echelons at which this very powerful, nay, ultimate act of protest was directed. In patriarchal societies such as ours, women are subjugated through a warped system of power relations which assign assumed superiority to the male gender solely on the basis of their morphology as men. Thus it is understood, and moreover the order of things in our society reflects and perpetuates this idea of male dominance, superiority and power. Unsurprisingly, in endless ways, we are much worse off for it.
Most gravely, the public sphere in Kenya is an exclusively male dominated space. As an apt example, the gender composition of the Grand Coalition Government and Parliament portrays this phenomenon quite graphically.
Only the other day with the recent stand off over the constitution of the House Business Committee, we heard the passionate pleas by women MPs for a modest regard to women’s representation—benchmarked at the vastly inadequate one third of total available slots on the committee.
This low level ambition was assented to but the outcomes were more revealing for the inherent ethnic and power balancing games and deals hammered, than for a genuine sense of living up to accepted and fair standards of gender parity. It is also noteworthy that this push was only spearheaded by women Members of Parliament.
In fact, we are yet to identify a single male MP who champions gender parity and justice out of a genuine conviction and not conveniently in pursuit of political mileage and to score opportunistic points from time to time.
This is why this sex boycott action in my view is very significant. The unambiguous message the G10 is sending through this protest is to give voice to women’s deepest concerns for the nation; and assert the significance of their reproductive roles in sustaining the society — roles typically taken for granted as men presumably pursue so defined ‘productive’ roles- but without which things would literally grind to a halt.
During this present era of failed leadership in our country, more than anything else, our society is kept going courtesy of women’s reproductive activities. The very sustenance of households in the context of grinding poverty and diminishing family incomes owes a great deal to the resilience and soft power of women. Yet, women bear the greatest brunt of hardships as the statistics on gender based violence and violence against women attest.
Other indicators are: the rates and incidence of HIV infection amongst women; girls’ school enrolment and retention figures and the levels of unemployment, underemployment and paid income of women in comparison to men.
The point that needs to filter through is that if women were to halt their reproductive contributions, the results would undoubtedly be disastrous. The fact that this contribution is typically taken for granted does not diminish its value whatsoever.
Therefore, the sex boycott action should be understood as an indictment of the country’s leadership by the women folk. Women are expressing disgust and are no longer willing to stay in the background quietly acquiescing to the country’s consistent degeneration.
This action by women should represent a monumental hour of reckoning for the country.
The writer is a social and economic policy analyst
Email: bndomo@hotmail.com
