IMMUNITY OR IMPUNITY: IMPLICATIONS OF THE ZIMBABWEAN PRIVILEGES,
IMMUNITIES AND POWERS OF PARLIAMENT ACT (CHAPTER 2:08) (‘PIPPA’)
FOR WOMEN’S EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN PARLIAMENT
BY
Portia MABASA
Supervisor: Ms Rosalie Katsande
A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Masters Degree in
Women’s Law, Southern and Eastern African Regional Centre for Women’s Law,
University of Zimbabwe
2012
i
Abstract
“It is better to keep quiet than to be dehumanised.” (A female Member of Zimbabwe’s
Parliament)
This dissertation exposes how male Members of Parliament (MPs) deliberately defeat one of the
major objectives of Zimbabwe’s Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (Chapter
2:08) (‘PIPPA’) which is to protect the mutual respect of Parliamentarians toward one another,
male and female, during their participation in Parliamentary debates. In the absence of any
prohibition in the Act against gender discrimination, certain vulgar, sexist male MPs apparently
rely on the Act’s immunity from prosecution (for breaching their right to freedom of expression in
the course of discharging their Parliamentary duties) to justify their blatantly unlawful and
sometimes criminal sexist and derogatory abuse (both verbal and by their conduct) of their female
counterparts whom they are obliged to treat as their equals. As a consequence, female MPs, who
represent only 18% of MPs, are cruelly bullied into silence and fail to represent effectively not only
their own constituents but the opinion of the women of Zimbabwe, the majority of the general
population. One aspect of the great value of the study is that it enriches the on-going crucial work
which the writer and others are conducting with female MPs which is aimed at promoting the
knowledge, confidence and self-esteem they require in order to represent effectively their
constituents in Parliament, an intimidating ‘old boys’ club’ which clearly feels threatened by
women and makes no attempt either in the form of its rules of conduct or procedure or disciplinary
proceedings to accommodate or protect them from the sexist conduct of its male Members. In
order to prove the clear, objective link between the failure of women MPs to discharge effectively
their Parliamentary duties and their being heckled and bullied by their male counterparts
(powerfully understood in terms of the theoretical framework of the Dominance Theory), the writer
conducts her research using several related approaches (including the Grounded Theory and
Human Rights Approaches) which are crucially brought together within the all-embracing and
guiding ambit of the Women’s Law Approach. The uniqueness of this approach is that it takes
women as the starting point and focuses on their lived realities in relation to the law, its institutions
and society at large. The writer’s evidence consisted of law and literature research as well as indepth interviews with current and former female MPs, Parliamentary staff and some lawyers. She
discovered that it is not the written law of PIPPA that discriminates against women MPs, but the
way in which it is abused by male MPs in practice, i.e., in its application, and how that abuse (i.e.,
the impunity male MPs give themselves for viciously gender-heckling their female MPs) that
exacerbates other factors in their lives (e.g., their age, level of formal education, length of service in
Parliament, membership of rival parties, insensitive treatment by the press) that hinder women’s
effective performance in Parliament. In order to promote the equality of women in Parliament in
accordance with Zimbabwe’s local, regional and international HR commitments, the WLA also
directs the researcher toward valuable recommendations which she finally puts forward in the
form of action plans which include law reform (including gender-sensitive amendments to PIPPA)
and implementing gender-sensitive policies, training and programmes in order to foster a positive
climate within Parliament for both female and male members alike.
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ iii
Declaration .............................................................................................................................................. vi
Dedication............................................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Statutes cited ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of International Instruments cited .................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. x
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Justification of the Study ............................................................................................................. 3
1.4
Objectives of the Research .......................................................................................................... 5
1.5
Research Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 5
1.6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.7
Definition of Key Concepts and Definitions................................................................................. 7
1.8
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.0
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................................... 11
2.1
Historical Background of Parliamentary Privilege and Immunity ............................................. 11
2.2
The Dominance Approach ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3
The Liberal Feminist Approach .................................................................................................. 15
2.4
The Radical Feminist Approach ................................................................................................. 17
2.5
The Human Rights Framework .................................................................................................. 18
2.6
Domestic Legal Framework ....................................................................................................... 20
2.6.1
The Constitution .................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.2
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA) ....................................... 21
2.6.3
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
iii
3.0
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES AND METHODS USED IN DATA COLLECTION ............................. 22
3.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.2
METHODOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.1
Women’s Law Approach........................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2
Grounded Theory Approach .................................................................................................. 28
3.2.3
Human Rights Approach........................................................................................................ 30
3.2.4
Radical Feminist Approach .................................................................................................... 31
3.3
DATA COLLECTION METHODS ................................................................................................... 32
3.3.1
Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 32
3.3.2
In‐depth Interviews................................................................................................................ 33
3.3.3
Hansard Analysis ................................................................................................................... 33
3.4
Limitations of Methods used ..................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.0
IMMUNITY OR IMPUNITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN ........................................................ 35
4.1
Impunity in Parliament .............................................................................................................. 35
4.2
How honourable are the Honourable Members of Parliament? The abuse of privilege by men
in Parliament ............................................................................................................................. 43
4.3
The Induction of MPs is not gender sensitive ........................................................................... 47
4.4
Some Women Parliamentarians do not know about PIPPA but just know that they have
Parliamentary Privilege ............................................................................................................. 48
4.5
Parliamentary Protection is only available after the damage has already been done ............. 49
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 54
5.0
WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT: ‘MATTER OUT OF PLACE’ .............................................................. 54
5.1
PIPPA is backward and colonial ................................................................................................. 54
5.2
PIPPA is gendered in its application .......................................................................................... 57
5.3
Parliament is intimidating for Women (‘Matter out of place’) ................................................. 59
5.4
Coping mechanisms of Women in Parliament .......................................................................... 61
5.5
The Media makes matters worse for Women........................................................................... 64
5.6
Inter‐Party Rivalry...................................................................................................................... 66
5.7
Some Women lack Confidence .................................................................................................. 67
CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 70
6.0
A CALL TO ACTION AND SETTING TARGETS ............................................................................ 70
iv
6.1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 70
6.2
Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 72
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 75
v
Declaration
I, Portia Mabasa do hereby declare that this is an original work presented towards the award of
the Masters in Women’s Law Degree at the Southern and Eastern African Regional Centre for
Women’s Law, University of Zimbabwe. It was not previously presented for any degree or other
award in any academic institution.
Signed......................................Date...........................................................................
Signed......................................Date...............................................................................
Supervisor: Rosalie Katsande
vi
Dedication
To all the courageous female Parliamentarians.
My mother, Evas Mabasa, I wish you were still alive to witness the manifestation of God’s blessings upon
my life.
vii
Acknowledgements
I thank God for His grace and favour upon my life.
Thank you so much to my husband Max for your support, encouragement and understanding.
Thank you to my supervisor Rosalie Katsande; I learnt a lot from you throughout the research
process.
I want to thank all the current and former female Parliamentarians for your support and cooperation throughout the research, you opened up to me. Without you, there would have been no
research at all.
To all my classmates, it was great learning with you.
I am grateful to NORAD for funding this programme.
viii
List of Statutes cited
The Constitution of Zimbabwe
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA)
The Labour Act (Chapter 28:02)
The Criminal Law Code (Chapter 9:23)
List of International Instruments cited
The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
1979
The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women,
2003
The Global Platform for Action and the Beijing Platform for Action, 1995
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), 1948
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966
SADC Declaration on Gender and Development, 1997
SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, 2008
The 1985 Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies
The Universal Declaration on Democracy (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1997)
ix
List of Tables
Table 1:
Showing the Respondents involved in the Research ........................................................ 33
x
Executive Summary
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA) provides for the privileges,
immunities and powers of Parliament. The Act speaks to the rights of Parliamentarians to
protection from impeachment for what they say in Parliament. Parliament performs important
functions as a democratic institution and the main functions being legislation, representation and
oversight of the executive. To be able to carry out its functions, Parliament possesses certain
privileges, powers and immunities. For this reason, it is important to examine the privileges and
immunities of the Zimbabwean Parliament as provided for in PIPPA in the light of women’s
participation in Parliament. The argument is that for women to be able to carry out their duties as
Parliamentarians they need to be endowed with certain rights in Parliament and such rights must
be protected. Parliament must be able to ensure an environment that encourages women’s
effective participation.
According to the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU),
“Parliament is the institution that embodies society in the diversity of its composition and
its opinions and which relays and channels this diversity in the political process. Its
vocation is to regulate tensions and maintain equilibrium between the competing claims
of diversity and uniformity, individuality and collectivity, in order to enhance social
cohesion and solidarity. Its role is to legislate, inter alia by allocating financial
resources, and oversee the action of the Executive.”1
The objectives of the research are as follows; to examine the provisions of the Privileges,
Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act particularly the provision that Members of Parliament
cannot be held liable or be impeached for whatever they say before or during Parliament; to
investigate the gendered application of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act;
to investigate the effects of heckling by male Members of Parliament on female Members of
Parliament and their effective participation in Parliament; to investigate whether the Privileges,
Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act exacerbates other factors that hinder women’s
effective participation in Parliament and to come up with recommendations on law reform so that
there is an exception of punishing words and conduct that amount to sexual, emotional and
psychological abuse to women before and during Parliament.
The research was carried out with several assumptions including the assumption that female
Members of Parliament do not effectively participate in Parliament because of the abusive words
or actions aimed at them by male Members of Parliament under the wrongful guise of the
immunities and privileges of Parliament. It was also assumed that the Privileges, Immunities and
Powers of Parliament Act is gender neutral but is gendered in its application thereby
disadvantaging women.
My own understanding of the dominance approach revealed to me that when women get into
Parliament, known as the ‘boys’ club’, they enter a male territory with male rules meaning that
there is no space for them. Women’s entry into Parliament is thus a challenge or rather a threat to
1
Inter‐Parliamentary Union: Guidelines on the Rights and Duties of the Opposition in Parliament, Libreville
(Gabon), 17‐19 May 1999.
xi
the power hierarchy and power base of men. As such, men tend to, whether knowingly or
unknowingly, become defensive as they try to protect their territory from ‘foreign invasion’.
The history of Parliamentary privilege and immunity shows that privileges and immunities are
necessary to allow Parliamentarians to discharge their duties without fear of victimisation.
However, while privileges and immunities are necessary, there is a need for Parliaments to strike
a balance between the privileges and immunities on one hand and rights of individual
Parliamentarians on the other. There is a delicate balance that must be reached and maintained
between freedom of speech of Parliamentarians under Parliamentary privilege and abuse of that
privilege. Failure to create and protect that balance would result in the impunity of
Parliamentarians resulting in their saying words and committing acts that would be punishable
under the law if they were committed by any other person anywhere else.
The Zimbabwean Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act results in impunity in
Parliament. While it is not the intention of the Act nor of the legislators, the application of the
Act by different Members of Parliament results in impunity and there is nothing in the Act to
provide recourse for those who feel that their rights have been violated. Members of Parliament
cannot be impeached or held liable for what they say in or before Parliament.
Responses to heckling in Parliament by women differ across the board. How one will respond or
cope with the heckling is dependent on a number of factors such as one’s level of formal
education, age and the number of years one has been a Member of Parliament. The general
response of the women interviewed was that the majority of them just keep quiet and not say
anything in Parliament. They prefer not to contribute in Parliament rather than contributing and
finding themselves being insulted and embarrassed. From the research, it is clear that PIPPA
perpetuates the power imbalances between women and men.
There is a need for Parliamentarians to change the rhetoric of women’s rights theory into
practical realities that benefit women in Parliament and women of Zimbabwe as a whole. They
should see themselves as promoters and protectors of human rights rather than their perpetrators.
Parliamentary privilege and immunity is too wide and unlimited resulting in abuse. There has to
be exceptions to include abusing words as part of contempt. Conduct that amounts to sexual,
emotional and psychological abuse of women should be punishable.
Parliament has a duty to exercise great care before making any law, so that it does not harm the
rights of others. It is also a duty of the Members to properly use these privileges and not misuse
them for ulterior purposes that are not in the general interest of the nation or public at large.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, the public and all Members
of Parliament should be constantly on the look out for and vigilantly guard against the corrosive
effects of corruption which creep into Parliament under the cloak (i.e., abuse) of privileges.
Privileges and immunities and the power of contempt are powerful tools that need to be
interpreted and exercised with extreme caution. At present, there is an unjustified or mala fide
exercise of these powers resulting in discrimination and prejudice against women. There is a
need for the law on privileges and immunities of Parliament to have a real connexion to the lives
of women and their experiences in Parliament. In other words, PIPPA should be amended to
xii
protect female Parliamentarians from abuses committed against them by their fellow male
counterparts under the cloak of that very same Act. As MacKinnon puts it, “Once women are
empowered to expose its harms in their everyday lives, there is no place left to hide its abuses.”2
2
MacKinnon, (2005), p41.
xiii
CHAPTER 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Zimbabwe has achieved a lot in terms of promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.
The Zimbabwean government is a signatory to various regional and international conventions,
treaties, declarations and protocols that seek to promote and create an enabling environment for
the attainment of gender equality and women’s empowerment. These include, the Convention
on the Elimination of All forms of Violence Against Women (CEDAW) (1991), the Convention
on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR); the Global Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration
(1995). In 1997 Zimbabwe signed the SADC Declaration on Gender and Development as well as
its addendum on the Prevention and Eradication of Violence Against Women and Children
although Zimbabwe failed to meet the 30% target by 2005. In 2008 Zimbabwe went on to sign
the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development which was then ratified in October of 2009.
The Matrimonial Causes Act, the Sexual Offences Act and the Domestic Violence Act are some
of the legislation put in place to promote gender equality and protect women's rights. The
National Gender Policy (2002) provides guidelines and the institutional framework to engender
all sectoral policies, programmes, projects and activities at all levels of the society and economy.
In 1995 the government created the Ministry of Women Affairs, Gender and Community
Development (MWAGCD) to oversee coordination of all gender programmes and to facilitate
gender mainstreaming in all sector ministries.
With such a track record, it is interesting to note that women in Parliament still face problems
with laws that discriminate against them by way of their application. The Privileges, Immunities
and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA) provides for the privileges, immunities and powers of
Parliament. The Act speaks to the rights of Parliamentarians to protection from impeachment for
what they say in Parliament. Parliament performs important functions as a democratic institution
and the main functions being legislation, representation and oversight of the executive. To be
able to carry out its functions, Parliament possesses certain privileges, powers and immunities.
1
For this reason, it is important to examine the privileges and immunities of the Zimbabwean
Parliament as provided for in PIPPA in light of women’s participation in Parliament.
1.2
Statement of the Problem
The mandate of Parliament is provided for in Section 50 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which
states,
“Parliament shall make laws for the peace, order and good government of Zimbabwe”.
In my humble view the peace, order and good governance should thus start within Parliament as
the institution passes laws that govern it and as Parliament conducts its business. It is my view
that it entails Parliament passing laws that protect all the Members of Parliament whether female
or male. In my experience working with women Parliamentarians while working for Women in
Politics Support Unit (WiPSU), an analysis of Hansard (the publication of Parliamentary
debates) showed that women were not speaking in Parliament. There were a few women who
would make contributions in Parliament while the majority would not say anything. What was
amazing was that the same women who were not contributing in Parliament were quite effective
in their constituencies and had the support of their constituency Members. One woman Member
of Parliament (MP) had problems with her political party that threatened to expel her but her
constituency Members said they would vote for her as an independent candidate because she had
brought development to their area.
While interacting with women Parliamentarians, I was informed by some Parliamentarians that it
was difficult to speak in Parliament because of all the heckling that goes on. I became interested
in finding out why there was so much heckling in the august house. Parliament was supposed to
be a professional and dignified place where all the honourable Members conduct themselves
professionally at least as far as I was concerned. As it turned out, I was wrong and it emerged
that one of the excuses given for the heckling in Parliament was, of all things, the Privileges,
Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA) which gives Members freedom of speech
without fear of being prosecuted in court (civilly or criminally). Members of Parliament have
2
freedom of speech as one of the privileges and it is apparently in the name of exercising that
privilege that heckling is justified. It became imperative for me to investigate the issue of
privileges in Parliament from women’s perspective.
1.3
Justification of the Study
In 1980 Zimbabwe gained Independence from its British colonial masters. Since then Zimbabwe
has signed and become party to many human rights instruments and many women’s conventions
including the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development which the Parliament of Zimbabwe
ratified in 2009. It was based on this knowledge that I genuinely and legitimately expected that
the conduct of the honourable Members of Zimbabwe’s Parliament would emulate the principles
of etiquette, professionalism and mutual respect toward one another in the exercise of their
sacred duty of making the nation’s laws based on the moral principles embodied in these
regional and international human rights instruments.
According to the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU),
“Parliament is the institution that embodies society in the diversity of its composition and
its opinions and which relays and channels this diversity in the political process. Its
vocation is to regulate tensions and maintain equilibrium between the competing claims
of diversity and uniformity, individuality and collectivity, in order to enhance social
cohesion and solidarity. Its role is to legislate, inter alia, by allocating financial
resources, and oversee the action of the Executive.”3
(IPU Guidelines1, Number II4)
As a result of the above assertion, it is my view that Parliament must accommodate the
participation of all people in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous societies, female or male.
This will require recognition of and respect for human rights in general as well as for their
specific rights and duties. For Parliamentarians to be able to safeguard and protect the rights of
its citizens, the rights of Parliamentarians themselves must be protected:
3
Inter‐Parliamentary Union: Guidelines on the Rights and Duties of the Opposition in Parliament, Libreville
(Gabon), 17‐19 May 1999.
3
“The protection of the rights of Parliamentarians is the necessary prerequisite to enable
them to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in their respective
countries; in addition, the representative nature of a Parliament closely depends on the
respect of the rights of the Members of that Parliament.”4
The law is important in society in general and especially in Parliament, an institution which is
the particular focus of this study. The liberal feminists advocate for law reform to attain equality
for women. While some critiques argue, and I agree, that law reform is not enough to bring
equality for women, it is also my view that it cannot be dismissed. Dahl T.S (1987:14) contends
that,
“… Law is an arena where change is often slow in coming. Law as an institution to a
large degree contributes to the maintenance of the traditional male hegemony in society.
At the same time law is fertile soil for the cultivation of rules which can provide a
foundation for vast changes, including the relationship between the two sexes. If the
position of women is to be improved, this must also be done through the law…”
It is my view therefore that it is necessary to look at the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of
Parliament Act as a law that regulates freedom of speech in Parliament. As someone who is
interested in the fight for women’s rights, particularly women’s participation in Parliament, it is
vital to study and analyze PIPPA, its application and whether or not it in any way contributes to
the maintenance of the traditional male hegemony in Parliament. It would also be erroneous to
assume that once women enter the Parliamentary sphere they may freely participate without any
constraints; hence, there is a need to analyze the laws that affect women’s participation in
Parliament and reform them if need be.
Parliament should be at the forefront of creating a climate of intolerance of prejudices and of
customary and other practices that perpetrate the belief in male superiority and female inferiority.
Parliament needs to send a clear message to the nation that values that carry prejudices against
women need to be assessed and changed (Redefining Politics 1999: 24).
Inter‐Parliamentary Council, Resolution establishing the procedure for the examination and treatment of
communications concerning violations of the human rights of Parliamentarians, Mexico City, April 1976.
4
4
1.4
Objectives of the Research
The objectives of the research are as follows;
1.4.1
To examine the provisions of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act
particularly the provision that Members of Parliament cannot be held liable or be
impeached for whatever they say before or during Parliament.
1.4.2
To investigate the gendered application of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of
Parliament Act.
1.4.3 To investigate the effects of heckling by male Members of Parliament on the effective
participation of female Members of Parliament in Parliament.
1.4.4
To investigate whether the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act
exacerbates other factors that hinder women’s effective participation in Parliament.
1.4.5
To come up with recommendations on law reform so that there is an exception of
punishing words and conduct that amount to sexual, emotional and psychological abuse
of women before and during Parliament.
1.5
Research Assumptions
1.5.1
The Zimbabwean Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act provides that
Members of Parliament cannot be held liable or be impeached for whatever they say
before or during Parliament which negatively impacts on women’s participation.
1.5.2
Female Members of Parliament do not effectively participate in Parliament because of
words or actions by male Members of Parliament who take advantage of the immunities
and privileges of Parliament to verbally abuse women.
5
1.5.3
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act is gender neutral but is
gendered in its application thereby disadvantaging women.
1.5.4
Privileges and immunities in Parliament exacerbate other factors that prevent women
from effectively participating in Parliament, such as, levels of education and complicated
Parliamentary procedures.
1.5.5
Parliamentary privilege and immunity needs to include an exception of punishing words
and conduct that amount to sexual, emotional and psychological abuse to women before
and during Parliament.
1.6
Research Questions
1.6.1
Do female Members of Parliament fail to effectively participate in Parliament because of
words or actions by male Members of Parliament who take advantage of the immunities
and privileges of Parliament to verbally abuse women?
1.6.2
Does the Zimbabwean Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act provide that
Members of Parliament cannot be held liable or be impeached for whatever they say
before or during Parliament and does that negatively impact on women’s participation?
1.6.3 Is the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act gender neutral but gendered
in its application thereby disadvantaging women?
1.6.4
Do privileges and immunities in Parliament exacerbate other factors that prevent women
from effectively participating in Parliament, such as, levels of education and complicated
Parliamentary procedures?
6
1.6.5
Does Parliamentary privilege and immunity need to include an exception of punishing
words and conduct that amount to sexual, emotional and psychological abuse to women
before and during Parliament?
1.7
Definition of Key Concepts and Definitions
‘Parliamentary Privilege’
The classic definition of ‘Parliamentary privilege’ is found in Erskine May’s Treatise on the
Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament:
“Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively… and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not
discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or
individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an
exemption from the general law.”5
‘Heckling’
‘Heckling’ is to interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.
‘Impunity’
Exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action;
When people are able to commit crimes without facing consequences or punishment;
Impunity is a violation of human rights as well as a direct threat to the rule of law which is the
necessary basis of a democratic society.
5
May 22nd ed., p65
7
‘Effective participation’
In discussing women’s participation in politics, Bauer G. and Britton H.E ed. (2006: 173) had
this to say,
“The thinnest definition…is that the mere presence of women in Parliaments shifts ‘the
patriarchal demeanour of political institutions’ and forces institutions to recognize
women…. To make the ‘voice’ of particular constituencies louder in processes of policy
making….we should be careful not to assume that the amplified voice ‘will automatically
strengthen the moral and social claims of the powerless on the powerful and produce
better accountability to that group.’ Institutional norms and procedures and the nature of
processes of deliberation can undermine the extent and impact of women’s voice in the
public sphere.’
For this research, I took the narrow definition of participation to mean when women speak in
Parliament without my necessarily considering the impact or content of what they say. It is my
view that before one can start to measure women’s participation based on what they actually say,
it is best to first establish whether they speak at all and, if not, to ask the question, why not?
1.8
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited mainly by the fact that no interviews were done with male Members of
Parliament. This is because the research deliberately focussed on women and I only realised late
into the research process that I should have talked to some men to bring some balance into the
research. It would have been interesting to hear what the men had to say and would probably
have made the analysis more interesting.
However, having had a previous working relationship with the women provided a limitation also.
There were times during the interviews that I felt that some of the respondents were telling me
what I wanted to hear because they knew I was an activist for women’s rights. One of the ways I
dealt with that was to continue probing. I would also ask about a referred scenario from other
respondents to verify if it actually happened or if the respondent was just pretending that she had
been a victim. That helped because at the end of the day I was able to gather that not all women,
8
although very few, were victims; some would retaliate, or as one MP put it, “women also benefit
from PIPPA”.
Observing some Parliamentary sessions in the gallery would have been a plus for this type of
research. It would have served as a way of corroboration or triangulation of the data received
from the women to actually observe what happens in Parliament during a session. That was not
done and is the other limitation of the study. Most of the time during the data collection stage of
this research Parliament was not sitting which was a disadvantage for the research.
The other limitation of the research was time. What happens in Parliament is rather complex and
the research demanded more time than available to collect data from Members of Parliament,
especially considering that they are busy people with busy schedules. Unfortunately I would
have interviewed more women Parliamentarians during the research period had it not been for
the fact that most of the women were involved in the Zimbabwe’s new Constitution making
process.
The focus of this research is mainly the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act
(PIPPA) and does not touch in any great detail on other important aspects of Parliamentary life.
For example, closely linked to the application of PIPPA are the Parliamentary procedures as
provided for in the Standing Orders. To get an understanding of the rather technical procedure of
Parliament, special focus would have to be given to it. As such, this research does not represent
the best picture of Parliamentary procedure except where it was relevant for the research.
The Parliament of Zimbabwe is made up of the Senate and the House of Assembly. For the
purposes of this study, no differentiation was made between the two Houses as the intention was
not to compare the two. As a result, a female Parliamentarian refers to a Member of either house.
However, it is believed that looking at the implications of PIPPA in the two Houses separately
might have brought to light other power dynamics at play in Parliament.
9
The general limitation for any qualitative research is the lack of “scientific measurement”.
However, I totally agree with Morna C.L. (2004: 10) when she commented as follows about the
limitations of work she edited,
“By their very nature, attitudes and relationships do not lend themselves easily to
quantifiable measures. They occur within dynamic and complex environments and are
impacted upon by factors that cannot be controlled or held constant while other
measurement occurs. However, the strength of this research is that the experiences of
those being ‘researched’ are vividly brought to life…Their voices are alive, reliable and
valid.”
It is my submission that despite the limitations discussed, the research still shows much that is
revealing about the experiences of women in Parliament. If the research is to be taken seriously
and the recommendations implemented, it is my view that women’s experiences in Parliament
would be greatly improved. There is still room for more research on the subject of privileges and
immunities in Parliament in relation to its gender dimensions.
10
CHAPTER 2
2.0
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
Historical Background of Parliamentary Privilege and Immunity
Zimbabwe was once a British colony and PIPPA still refers to the application of privileges as
those that applied to the House of Commons in April 1980. It is of importance therefore to
investigate the history of Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons in the United
Kingdom (UK). As Erskine May notes, ‘the importance of privilege today cannot be entirely
divorced from its past’6. The powers, privileges and immunities of the UK Parliament developed
in the context of the Parliament’s need to assert its integrity, independence and authority against
outside influence (Macreadie and Gardiner 2010: 12).
It is reported by Erskine May that in the latter part of the fifteenth century the House of
Commons enjoyed an ‘undefined right to freedom of speech, as a matter of tradition rather than
by virtue of a privilege sought and obtained’7. Macreadie and Gardiner (2010: 13) also note that
there was perception of Parliament being of ‘such dignity’ that its privileges in the early times
were not questioned. They also add that the struggle for freedom of speech reached a climax in
1629 when Charles I, attended by an armed escort, entered the Commons and arrested several
Members ‘found guilty in King’s Bench of seditious words spoken in debate’. Privileges were
thus found to be necessary to protect the House and its Members, not from the people, but from
the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords.
Marleau and Montpetit (2000: 3) highlight that over time, as the House of Commons gained
stature and power as a deliberative assembly; these privileges were established as part of the
statute and common law of the land. Privilege came to be recognized as only that which was
absolutely necessary for the House to function effectively and for the Members to carry out their
responsibilities as Members. Research has revealed that the British House of Commons now
6
7
Erskine May (2004).
Erskine May p79.
11
takes a more narrowly defined view of privilege than was formerly the case. The 1967 Select
Committee on Parliamentary Privilege issued a report on privileges. The report noted that the
law, practice and procedure relating to privilege at Westminster at that time had been the subject
of much criticism8. The Select Committee accepted the need for the radical reform of the law,
practice and procedure relating to privilege and especially contempt, agreeing that they required
to be simplified and clarified and brought into harmony with contemporary thought.9
The history of Parliamentary privileges is long and there have been many changes and reviews to
the privileges to suit the changing times as will be shown later in this research. Privileges were
simply introduced mainly to allow Members of Parliament to carry out their constitutional and
Parliamentary functions without fear or favour.
The history of Parliamentary privileges is important in this case in relation to the different
feminist theories. The history has shown the reason for introduction of privileges and as such, the
theories will be used to interrogate the application of privileges in contemporary Zimbabwe as
provided for in PIPPA. The following feminist theories will be discussed: the dominance
approach, the liberal feminist theory and the radical feminist approach.
2.2
The Dominance Approach
The dominance approach was propounded mainly by Catherine MacKinnon. The test used by the
dominance approach as propounded by MacKinnon is whether laws and practices in question
perpetuate the subordination of women. The approach aims at ‘substantive equality’. The
dominance approach centres on most sex-differential abuses of women, namely violence against
women. MacKinnon (1979) argued that injustices experienced by women flowed not mainly
from gender-based distinctions in the law, but from subordination to men in society and its
parallel legal culture of patriarchy. For example, a man may think his behaviours toward women
at work are affectionate or friendly or fun while his female co-workers experience his conduct as
8
9
Marleau and Montpetit (2000).
Marleau and Montpetit (2000).
12
hateful, dangerous, and damaging. These perceptions by women, MacKinnon maintained, are not
idiosyncratic but widespread, and reflect what the law should recognize as sex discrimination,
requiring punishment and deterrence.
Based on this dominance approach, PIPPA was analyzed to measure whether or not it recognizes
sex discrimination and requiring punishment and deterrence. The question I asked myself was:
“How far, if at all, does PIPPA go in maintaining male dominance over women in Parliament by
the male Parliamentarians”? The dominance of women by men thus became the central issue of
the research, analyzing the power relations in Parliament. The research sought to then investigate
what forms the dominance took and how women respond. The dominance approach centres on
the most sex-differential abuses of women as a gender, abuses that sex equality law in its
difference garb could not confront (MacKinnon 1987). When women are sexually abused it is
just considered a difference. Because this treatment is done almost uniquely to women, it is
implicitly treated as a difference, the sex difference, when in fact it is the socially situated
subjection of women. The whole point of women’s social relegation to inferiority as a gender is
that for the most part these things are not done to men10. The dominance approach sees the
inequalities of the social world from the standpoint of the subordination of women to men.
How women respond to domination is different and some feminist scholars have noted that the
response is an intersectionality of race, class, age and other different aspects in different
women’s lives. Being powerless however often means that one is voiceless as the powerful
continue to use different tools to dominate the powerless. Dominance is about power and
whether or not you have power will determine whether or not you will speak. MacKinnon (1987)
states,
“When you are powerless, you don’t just speak differently. A lot you don’t speak. Your
speech is not just differently articulated, it is silenced.”
In her earlier work MacKinnon also argued that,
“Male dominance is perhaps the most pervasive and tenacious system of power in
history…it is metaphysically nearly perfect. Its point of view is the standard for point-of10
MacKinnon, (1987).
13
viewlessness, its particularity the meaning of universality…. Feminism claims the voice
of women’s silence…the centrality of our marginality and exclusion, the public nature of
privacy, the presence of our absence.”
What the dominance approach meant for my research was to interrogate if PIPPA provided for
Parliamentary privileges and immunities also taking into consideration how they would affect
women. It was to see if women’s voices were coming out or if it has an equality approach that
for there to be equality then there should be no differentiation of the sexes yet still its application
resulting in sex discrimination and male dominance. Some of the questions I then asked myself
were, how does PIPPA allow men to dominate women in Parliament? How is the power
dynamics played out in Parliament? I had to investigate if there were any gendered implications
of application of PIPPA.
Difference is a strand of dominance that is critiqued by MacKinnon. It is argued that recognizing
differences between women and men usually results in women being dominated and
subordinated. Men are used as the standard and as such if women do not fit into that standard
then they are different and considered lesser beings or weaker than men. Dominance is
maintained by adopting the male point of view in law. Difference is the velvet glove on the iron
fist of domination. The problem then is not that differences are not valued; the problem is that
they are defined by power (MacKinnon 1989: 219).
My own understanding of the dominance approach gave me the view point that when women get
into Parliament, known as the ‘boys’ club’, they are entering into a male territory with male rules
meaning that there is no space for them. Women’s entry into Parliament is thus a challenge or
rather a threat to the power hierarchy and power base of men. As such, men tend to, whether
knowingly or unknowingly, get into a defensive mode to protect their territory from ‘invasion’.
They want to maintain dominance and according to Tamale (2005: 196) culture and morality are
useful tools for men to use in dominating women. This shed light on why men resort to sexist
language against women in Parliament and to calling the women prostitutes. It is to render them
powerless so that men remain the dominant factor. Culturally and morally, a prostitute is more
like an outcast of society and calling women as such in Parliament is to say to them there is no
place for women in Parliament.
14
Sexuality is used as tool to dominate women and women’s sexuality issues are thus trivialized.
MacKinnon put it thus,
“Aggression against those with less power is experienced as sexual pleasure, an
entitlement of masculinity. For the female, subordination is sexualized, in the way that
dominance is for the male, as pleasure as well as gender identity, as femininity.
Dominance, principally by men, and submission, principally by women, will be the ruling
code through which sexual pleasure is experienced. Sexism will be a political inequality
that is sexually enjoyed, if unequally so.”
It is my assumption that men in Parliament find it even easier to dominate women in the way
described above because they take advantage of the Parliamentary privileges and immunities. A
discussion of how the dominance theory propounds that subordination of women is also as a
result of gender neutral laws led to interrogation of the liberal approach which emphasizes
equality of the law.
2.3
The Liberal Feminist Approach
Liberal feminist theory also known as ‘the first wave feminism’ establishes that customs and
legal constraints are at the centre of women’s oppression and that equality between men and
women can only be achieved through promulgation of equity laws (Tong R. 1994:2). Liberal
feminism’s main thrust is that female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal
constraints that blocks women’s entrance and/or success in the public world11. This theory was
used to analyze PIPPA as it is gender neutral and does not, on the face of it favour women or
men. The issue was to investigate and see whether the fact that PIPPA appears equal on the face
of it solves women’s problems and puts them on an equal footing with the men in Parliament.
Having realized that PIPPA is gender neutral, having the liberal feminist theory in mind helped
assess the application of the law and also some cultural constraints that might face women in
Parliament and if legislation could deal with the challenges women face.
11
Tong, (1994), p2.
15
Liberal feminism also propagates the fact that all people are born equal but that it is society that
assigns roles to women and men resulting in inequality. It is society that believes that women are
the weaker sex and thus seeks to exclude women from certain spheres especially the public
spheres like politics. As such, liberal feminists insist that the rules of the game must be fair and
that there must be level playing field to achieve gender justice. This, in my opinion, would not
work, at least on its own without the help of other theories and interventions. Already society has
made women and men unequal and so having laws that provide for equality will not be enough.
For example, while using this theory in the research, it became clear that there are certain
behaviours of men against women which will not be changed by the law. Can laws on equality
change the attitude men have towards women, the fact that men view women as sexual objects?
This is the reason why the research showed that men in Parliament will use sexist language
against women in Parliament yet one would think that they are equal honourable Members of
Parliament. The laws governing privileges and immunities in Parliament are on the face of it
gender neutral but their application will show that female and male Members of Parliament are
not equal especially in a plural legal system like that of Zimbabwe. According to Dahl, T.S
(1987), equality under the law does not preclude the practice of discrimination. Rules on equality
treatment do not of themselves materialize into equal or just results –this is a fallacy.
However, law reform is an important aspect that cannot be left out in the fight for equality for
women. There is need to use all the ways that are there to ensure equality for women. Jaggar
(1983) pointed out that,
“The fact that liberal feminists have found it necessary to pursue women’s equality
through such an extensive use of the law is an admission that rational argument is
insufficient, or at least too slow, to eradicate discrimination against women.”12
While culture and the law are the problematic areas for the liberal feminists, the radical feminists
have a different take. Amongst other things, radical feminists are of the view that institutions
themselves are the problem as they are based on male norms. It became imperative for me to use
the radical feminist approach to examine Parliament as an institution governed by PIPPA.
12
Jaggar (1983), p183.
16
2.4
The Radical Feminist Approach
To radical feminists, women’s oppression is the most fundamental form of oppression. Radical
feminist theory provides that patriarchy is at the centre of all women’s oppression (Tong R.
1994:3). According to the radical feminist view, men are socialized to have sexual desires and to
feel entitled to have those desires met (male sexual domination), whereas women are socialized
to meet those desires and to internalize accepted definitions of femininity and sexual
objectification (i.e. female sexual submission). This was the case in cases where some women
were dismissing clear sexual harassment by men in Parliament and taking it as jokes or a normal
part life. One prominent woman MP said during an interview, ‘when men say some things in
Parliament, they are just joking and usually the women will be their friends so it is not a
problem’. The women have internalized the sexual objectification by men so that they see it as
normal.
Radical feminists argue that liberal jurisprudence can make no impact on law’s treatment of
women so long as categories, such as crime, family law and legal concepts such embody male
norms and accordingly fail to address women's experiences. It follows that such legal categories
and concepts must be transformed to address women's social position and experiences. They
attack the liberal principles such as neutrality of law, equality and individual autonomy for their
"patriarchal" roots.
“Radical feminists in particular have been wary of participation in the public politics of
political parties, the state, or other organizations. They have theorized public political
institutions as part of the apparatus of male dominance or patriarchy. Such institutions
are organized on male hierarchical principles and around masculine interests.”13
The theory influenced the need to look at the law governing Parliament as an institution,
especially PIPPA and also its Standing Orders. For me what was of importance with the radical
feminist theory was to investigate if PIPPA would reflect the fact that Parliament was organized
on male hierarchical principles and around masculine interests in its provisions. However, I do
13
Lovenduski and Randall, Oxford University Press, 1993, p6.
17
not agree with radical feminists when they say that women should withdraw from participating in
public politics because it is organised based on male interests. Women are human beings like the
men and as such have the right to participate in public politics. There are many human rights
instruments that speak to the rights of women and such rights accrue to women by virtue of their
being human.
2.5
The Human Rights Framework
Human rights are sometimes regarded merely as a slogan. Yet, the canons of human rights
benefit both nations and their peoples. Everywhere, human rights are both sword and shield14.
Women's activism in the global arena has resulted in various strategic documents and
instruments that ensure and promote women's political participation.
The 1985 Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies and the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action are
strategic instruments that laid down the groundwork for women's political empowerment. The
Nairobi Strategies guided governments in ensuring women's equal participation in all national
and local legislative bodies. It also called for equity in the appointment, election and promotion
to high-level posts in the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
The Beijing Platform for Action calls on governments, national bodies among other sectors to
implement "measures to ensure women's equal access to, and full participation in power
structures and decision-making" and "increase women's capacity to participate in decisionmaking and leadership".
The Convention on the Elimination All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is
an important international treaty that upholds the importance of women's involvement in the
political machinery of State Parties. Articles 2 to 4 of the CEDAW call on State Parties to
actively pursue the elimination of discrimination in women's political participation through legal
and temporary special measures and affirmative action. Article 7 of the CEDAW instructs State
14
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
18
Parties to "take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the
political and public life of the country…”. It ensures women, "on equal terms with men, the
right:
(a)
(b)
...
To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation
thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of
government.”
Article 8 brings women's political rights to the international arena. It instructs State Parties to
"take all appropriate measures to ensure to women, on equal terms with men and without any
discrimination, the opportunity to represent their Governments at the international level and to
participate in the work of international organisations."
The CEDAW Committee's General Recommendation 23 on Women in Political and Public Life
provides overviews on women's political and public lives and needs in various parts of the world.
Importantly, it clarifies how CEDAW provisions on women's political participation and priority
measures can be implemented at the national/local and international levels.
The international bill of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), all work together to provide the foundations
for women's right to political participation.
The Universal Declaration on Democracy (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1997) stipulates among
other things that:
"Democracy aims essentially to preserve and promote the dignity and fundamental rights
of the individual, to achieve social justice, foster economic and social development of the
community, strengthen the cohesion of society and enhance national tranquillity, as well
as create a climate that is favourable for international peace. As a form of government,
democracy is the best way of achieving these objectives; it is also the only political
system that has the capacity for self-correction."
(Article 3)
19
The achievement of democracy presupposes a genuine partnership between men and women in
the conduct of the affairs of society in which they work in equality and complementarity,
drawing mutual enrichment from their differences. (Article 4)
"Democracy is founded on the right of everyone to take part in the management of public
affairs; it therefore requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and,
in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which
has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and
overseeing government action."
(Article 11)
There are many other human rights instruments that speak to women’s political participation and
women’s rights. It is with this background that PIPPA was analysed in a view to see if it
facilitated or not the enjoyment of women’s rights. Zimbabwe has signed most of the human
rights instruments and as such, the research sought to see if PIPPA reflects the human
instruments in its text and application.
2.6
Domestic Legal Framework
2.6.1 The Constitution
Section 49 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the privileges, immunities and powers
of Parliament and enables Parliament to pass laws to that effect. However, the weakness in the
provision is that it does not provide for gender sensitivity or a consideration of the differences
between women and men in providing for the privileges and immunities.
Section 18 of the Constitution also provides for the protection of the law for every citizen; yet a
study of the application of PIPA would seem to suggest that Parliamentarians, particularly
women, have no protection of the law. While the Constitution also provides that no one is above
the law, the privileges and immunities of Parliamentarians have the effect of putting MPs above
the law as will be discussed in this research.
20
2.6.2 The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA)
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA) provides for the privileges,
immunities and powers of Parliament and the people covered by its provisions. The purpose of
the Act is to enable Parliamentarians to carry out their duties without fear or favour. However,
the Act does not provide for the protection of Parliamentarians from speech that is derogatory or
abusive in nature. It fails to protect the human rights of female Parliamentarians. This research
thus sought to investigate the implications of its provisions on women’s participation in
Parliament.
2.6.3 Conclusion
It is with the different theories discussed in mind together with the human rights instruments that
I had to make a decision as to what methodologies I had to use to collect relevant data for my
research. The next chapter discusses the different methodologies used and how data was
collected.
21
CHAPTER 3
3.0
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES AND METHODS USED IN DATA COLLECTION
3.1
Introduction
Chapter 3 highlights the research methodologies and data collection methods that were used
depending on the circumstances. A qualitative approach was adopted in collecting data.
However, the worth of statistical data was not overlooked. I endeavoured to capture female key
informants’ voices as the research sought to look at PIPPA from the point of view of women.
While I was deliberately focusing on women, I interviewed some male lawyers and male
Parliament staff. No male Parliamentarians were interviewed especially because they were not
the focus of the research but it put a major hole in my research because as espoused by Stewart J.
(1997:47-49), their inclusion was necessitated by the essentiality of a balanced view. Pursuant to
the objectives of the research, the following research methodologies were used namely; the
women’s law approach, the grounded theory approach, the human rights approach and the
radical feminist approach.
As I embarked on my research using the methodologies to be discussed below, I had an open
mind. By this I mean that I was prepared to give information where it was needed and to learn
from the women themselves. I did not take the respondents just as sources of information but
was prepared to hear their experiences and listen even to their feelings. While some might argue
and ask how open my mind was when I had assumptions at the beginning of the research, I still
argue that my mind was open because the assumptions were influenced by experiential data.
Besides that, I was prepared to change the assumptions if they were challenged which is
indicative of an open-mind.
I also made use of a field diary as I noted and recorded the interviews that I had conducted. This
became very helpful especially in tracking my progress and preparing of narratives. I was able to
capture important points and to carry out analysis of the data because the information was
organized and readily available.
22
As for most of the respondents I had a previous working relationship with them and so I would
phone them and set up meetings. Some would be busy but were willing to have interviews with
me so much so that we held interviews in car parks or at hotels just before they got into meetings
or workshops. However, that still did not affect the data collected because it was a rather relaxing
environment and I realised the women were talking freely without all the formality of discussing
issues in an office. Where I needed to clarify certain points that I discovered while writing up
their narratives I would simply phone them to clarify the issues. The process was quiet insightful
and informative for me as the researcher; in fact I acquired so much information that I could not
use all of it because of the limitations of space for this research.
3.2
METHODOLOGIES
3.2.1 Women’s Law Approach
My research was informed by the women’s law approach as propounded by Dahl T.S (1987:17)
who noted that women’s law explains and describes the legal position of women in order to
improve their position in society. The women’s law approach shaped the focus of the study and
informed all my assumptions as they were weighed against women’s lived realities. The essence
of the women’s law approach is also to look at the gender neutral legislation and investigate its
gender bias. The data collection and analysis for this research was thus to establish the gendered
aspects in the application of the law and in this case, PIPPA.
The Women’s Law approach seeks to capture the interplay between law and life from a woman’s
perspective. This is because the law codifies the needs, opinions and conflicts of men. Law
becomes important in perpetuating patriarchal hegemony (Dahl, S. 1987). The approach then
helped in the data collection process as I sought to investigate whether or not PIPPA affected
women and men differently. Since the women’s law approach focuses on women’s lived realities
and their interaction with law, it helped in unearthing the findings of this research, such as how
the plural legal system of Zimbabwe affects women’s participation in Parliament in that,
culturally, women are not supposed to speak in public and so, when they stand up to speak in
Parliament, they are heckled. The approach was used to investigate what protections for women
23
are contained in PIPPA and if their needs as women are catered for by PIPPA as they discharge
their duties in Parliament. The law can perceive reality which results in unintended consequences
with regard to the situation of women. As it turned out, PIPPA results in impunity in Parliament
because acts that would ordinarily be punishable under general law are protected under immunity
in Parliament. For example, I was informed that the male MPs say to their female counterparts
words such as “They are lovely breasts” or “I want to sleep with you” when they stand up to
speak in Parliament. Such words amount to sexual harassment but in Parliament they are
protected by immunity.
The test based on the women’s law approach is whether women are participating at the same
level with men as provided in the law and in reality as a fact. Bentzon A.W et al (1998:93) state:
“The strength of this woman centred approach is that it records and analyzes female life
situations and values and reveals issues and dynamics that are seldom evident in the
male dominated legal culture.”
As I collected data and listened to women’s experiences, it became clear that men actually take
advantage of and abuse Parliamentary privileges to harass women with the result that they
choose to remain silent and not participate at all in Parliament. One woman MP said in an
interview, “It is better to keep quiet than to be degraded in Parliament”. A look at the history
of Parliamentary privileges as discussed earlier shows that it was not the intention to have men
insult and abuse women but it is applied in such a way that it actually results in the abuse of
women MPs. It was from the active process of acquiring evidence of the women’s lived realities
that some of the recommendations from this research found their roots; they are designed to find
solutions that are relevant to women and reflect women’s needs.
The law can perceive reality which results in unintended consequences with regard to the
situation of women. For example, basing on the history of privileges and immunity in
Parliament, women were not the target, meaning that when the laws on privilege and immunity
were put in place, the intention was not to deliberately disadvantage women. However, what an
investigation of the interplay between the law and women’s lived realities brings out is the fact
that the law is divorced from women’s lived realities. It shows that the law is masculine in nature
24
and that when the law was put into operation, how it would ultimately affect women was not
considered. For example, one woman said during the research,
“Parliament was never meant for women and as such the laws put in
place did not put women into consideration. In fact, Parliament was
just considered an ‘old boys’ club”.
It was in the process of employing the women’s law approach that I realised the existence of the
huge gap between the law and women’s lived realities. Women’s voices were being captured as
they narrated their experiences with PIPPA in Parliament. As such, there was a ‘rebuilding’ of
women’s lived realities. I was able to question the power dynamics in Parliament as played out
through the application of PIPPA. Male dominance or hegemony was able to be questioned
because of hearing of women’s lived realities vis a vis PIPPA. For example, a woman MP said
that when men heckle a woman it is to disempower and disorganize her. What this showed was
the fact that men still feel that Parliament only belongs to them and so they try and protect their
space which is what is propounded by the Dominance Approach (discussed earlier in para 2.2).
And it seems the men actually succeed because the women then noted that they would just
remain silent for fear of being called a prostitute and further abused.
Zimbabwe is a signatory to many human rights instruments that speak to women’s participation
in politics. In fact, in 2009, Parliament ratified the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development
which, amongst many other provisions, provides for a 50% representation of women in decision
making by 2015. During my research I had to ask myself, in the light of the women’s law
approach, to what extent PIPPA incorporates the principles and provisions the SADC Protocol
on Gender and Development. I also had to ask myself if the provisions of PIPPA allow for
effective participation of women and if as a result of its application many women desired to take
up a Parliamentary career. As such, I had to ask for the experiences of women in Parliament and
how much of PIPPA’s provisions affected their experiences. I was able to investigate the realities
of the interplay between the law (in this case PIPPA) and women’s lived realities in Parliament. I
questioned how far PIPPA allowed for women’s effective participation in Parliament. One of the
results of the investigation was the fact that male Parliamentarians actually abuse their
Parliamentary privileges as provided for in PIPPA in order to use sexist language against
25
women. This results in women withdrawing from debates and not speaking in Parliament in
order to avoid embarrassment. And throughout the research, it emerged that the most common
coping mechanism of women against the abuse of privilege by men was to keep quiet. It is my
view that if any other approach had been used, then some of the dynamics that play themselves
out would not have been unearthed. Capturing women’s voices and experiences assisted in
formulating the action plan for the future and uncovering the wide gap that exists between the
law and women’s lived realities. I had to see if the law catered for women’s needs.
Using the women’s law approach and acquiring evidence of women’s experiences revealed the
power dynamics between the sexes in Parliament. It helped to confirm the dominance theory
which emphasizes that the issue of unequal distribution of power is the root cause of women’s
inequality and subordination. Actually, I realized that the law is being used as a tool to maintain
the power base of men in Parliament. It is being used to keep women down and to disempower
them. Coupled with the law as a tool to maintain the dominance of men over women is the issue
of culture that is worsened by the fact that Zimbabwe has a plural legal system. PIPPA does not
address these dynamics which so seriously affect women’s participation in Parliament. For
example, men use vulgar words in Parliament and yet the women said that they become
powerless to respond because according to their culture women are not permitted to say certain
words in public. It also seriously affects women when they are called prostitutes because
culturally there are no male prostitutes. I was able to understand all this using the women’s law
approach and I found that PIPPA does not address these dynamics in its provisions;
consequently, women’s effective participation in Parliament was seriously thwarted. As a result,
it was concluded that PIPPA is backward and does not incorporate the many commitments to
human rights instruments to which Zimbabwe is a signatory.
The gendered interface of law and practice was able to be investigated using the women’s law
approach. I asked myself the implications for women’s effective participation, with their
different ages, political parties and positions in government, of the operation of PIPPA. I asked if
the problem was the seemingly adequate legal provision becomes discriminatory in application
or lived reality (Hellum et al, 2007). This gave me the view that PIPPA is gendered in its
application and as such there is need for some fundamental, inescapable differences such as sex-
26
based differences, that need to be factored into the laws on privilege and immunity to achieve
equality for women in Parliament. The women’s law approach involved my having to examine
and understand how women are considered in law and how the law responds to women’s reality
and needs.
The other critical reason why the women’s law approach was central to my research is how it
allows for the examination of the law and its application to women’s lives. Dahl T.S (1987: 13)
explained as follows about the law,
“Law is an important part of the cultural hegemony that men have in our type of society,
and a cultural hegemony means that a ruling group’s special way of viewing social
reality is accepted as normal and as a part of the normal order of things, even by those
who are in fact subordinated by it. In this way law contributes to maintaining the ruling
group’s position”.
The social reality that seemed to come out from the research was that women are sex objects and
were not viewed as equal honourable Members of Parliament with the men. It was as if the men
were saying Parliament is not for women but for men only. The men seemed to make comments
about women always with sexual connotations. However, with the use of the grounded theory as
a tool, it led me to realize that as pointed out by Dahl T.S, that some women just thought that it
was normal and natural for men to treat them that way in Parliament and so they just had to live
with it.
Using the women’s law approach implied that I had to look at the law, reality and morality from
women’s point of view. What this meant for my research was to find out from the women their
own definition of heckling in Parliament. I had to ask what sexual harassment and abuse is
according to women and not just according to some laws or decided cases. It involved a
deliberate bias towards women so as to try and come up with recommendations to improve
women’s position in Parliament through the improvement of their position in law. The women’s
law approach led me to ask whether or not the law was silent about women and if it was silent
then demand that women be heard through the law and its application in Parliament.
27
3.2.2 Grounded Theory Approach
This approach starts from interrogating what is taking place on the ground as opposed to desk
research. Simplified, as the ‘dung beetle’ process where data is gathered on the ground to be
sifted and assessed later on. Grounded theory is described as an iterative process which
facilitates continuous dialogue between legal concepts, theoretical generalizations as well as
assumptions and an ever-growing data base of empirical knowledge obtained from men and
women’s lived realities on gender relations, local practices, norms and procedures as explained
by Bentzon et al (1998: 18). This process was used on all of the assumptions.
Grounded theory is an iterative process which facilitates continuous dialogue between legal
concepts, theoretical generalizations as well as assumptions and an ever-growing data base of
empirical knowledge obtained from men and women’s lived realities on gender relations, local
practices, norms and procedures as explained by Bentzon W et al (1998:18). What this meant for
my research was to first check on what was happening to women on the ground vis-a-vis the
Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act (PIPPA). It is in grounded theory approach
that the interaction between developing theories and methodology are constant as preliminary
assumptions direct the data collection process and the collected data when analyzed, indicates
new sources of data. For example, initially I had not intended to or thought of looking into the
induction process of MPs, however, while I was talking to the women, they mentioned that at
induction they are told to enjoy Parliamentary privilege. That really got me curious to find out if
the induction process was gender sensitive, the content of the induction and whether or not the
induction process had anything to do with men’s behaviour in Parliament. The grounded theory
approach enabled the study to be conducted with an open mind in a manner that allowed a
constant engagement with the assumptions and research questions. When using grounded theory,
continuous dialogue and interaction is maintained and the research proceeds between the initial
theory and the empirical data collected, thus enabling adjustments between the initial theoretical
assumptions and the empirical data collected in the parallel process of data collection and
analysis (Bentzon et al: 1998).
28
The theory led me to have interviews with former female Parliamentarians who had been in
Parliament when it was mainly just ZANU-PF as the ruling party. Initially the thought of
interviewing former female MPs had crossed my mind but was not that strong. However, while
talking to the MPs who are in Parliament now who mentioned how matters had worsened for
women in Parliament, it became necessary for me to hear from those women who had been in
Parliament and were now out of it. It became necessary to get their experiences and bring out
their own voices and see if there was any difference to their experiences then and with
experiences of the women in Parliament now. As a result, the grounded approach opened other
avenues for exploration and helped in keeping the research relevant. One former woman MP
explained that when she was in Parliament, it was difficult for women to speak in Parliament
because they were called prostitutes or a man would shout that she had spoiled her dress
with menstrual blood. At that time it was even worse because one had to leave their seat and go
in front of the House to speak.
It is this grounded approach that helped in establishing the finding on how the expansion of
Parliament has worsened matters for women who have become the battlefield for the political
parties. However, this is not to say that it is a bad thing to have a multi-party Parliament, it is
using women as battlefields that is wrong and thus the need for intensive gender training for all
Parliamentarians. Following the dung beetle process, I questioned more about what the women
meant that the fact that Parliament had been enlarged affected them. The point made was that,
the fact that they now had the different formations of the Movement for Democratic Party
(MDC) and ZANU-PF in Parliament meant that women were the objects of the hatred between
the parties. The women informed me that in the political party caucuses, they were encouraged to
heckle people from other political parties when they stood up to speak whether they were male or
female. As a result, the research informed that when a woman from a different party stood up
to speak, men from the other party would start shouting that they had slept with the
woman and so she now belonged to their party. Women’s bodies and women’s sexuality are
used as weapons against the other party. This reminded me of the dominance theory and how
men want to maintain their power base in Parliament where they feel is their space. They use
women’s sexuality to not only show hatred of the other party but also to silence the women and
29
they succeeded in doing this as most women interviewed said they just keep quiet to avoid being
attacked.
3.2.3 Human Rights Approach
The human rights approach focuses mainly on the recognition of the rights of all individuals by
virtue of their being human. It is primarily premised on the universality and fundamentality of
human rights. The human rights approach is based on international human rights standards and
operationally directed towards promoting and protecting human rights. It integrates the norms,
standards and principles of the international human rights system into the plans, policies and
processes of development.
This was of importance for me considering that the research was focusing on Parliament which is
the primary duty bearer of ensuring that its citizens are enjoying all their rights due to them. It
was expected that Parliament would thus be an example in creating a culture of observing human
rights and passing laws that are in line with the different human rights standards. It was this
approach that informed all the assumptions for this research especially the assumption for the
need to have exceptions on the privileges on Parliament especially where it is likely that some
human rights would be infringed by enjoyment of the privileges and immunities by some
Members of Parliament. True to my assumption, the human rights approach revealed that there is
truly a need for exceptions to the privilege of Parliament as many of women’s rights are being
infringed on by the application of PIPPA, for example, the right to participate in decision
making. Women are forced to be quiet because men abuse the privilege of Parliament and hurl
insults at women.
The human rights approach helped in assessing what rights were being infringed if any by the
application of PIPPA. It assisted in assessing whether or not the women themselves were aware
of their rights and to what extent they were aware of their rights. The approach also helped in
analysing the data collected for instance it was clear that women knew what the men were doing
was an infringement of their rights but somehow they were not fighting back. Getting a clear
30
picture of this was made possible by the use of other approaches mentioned like the women’s
law approach to get women’s experiences and the grounded theory which led me to one person
after the other and from one question to the other so at to deal with emerging issues.
Using the human rights approach as a methodological approach helped in critiquing the efficacy
of the language of law and rights as an effective tool for empowerment by highlighting the
dissonance between ‘having’ a right and being able to access it (Nyamu-Musembi and Cornwall,
2004). As it turned out, Zimbabwe has signed many human rights instruments but women are not
accessing such rights, for example, the right to participation in Parliament which is being
infringed by the application of PIPPA in that men are abusing it to silence women in Parliament.
The words by Hellum et al (2007) in the book “Paths are Made by Walking” came to mind and I
quote:
“The first step is to identify where the obstacles are in the ‘delivery chain’ of human
rights to women and their use of these rights... Is it in the translation of human rights
norms into national laws and local practices?...Is it patriarchal hostility, a resistance to
women’s entitlements because they challenge male power and hegemony? Is it in the
language of law? Is it because women lack awareness of their legal rights? Is it because,
even if all other factors are satisfied, women choose not to use the laws? Are the
formulations of the laws insensitive and inappropriate to the actual needs of the women
they are intended to benefit?”
The above questions were then asked in relation to PIPPA and analysed from a human rights
perspective. The women’s law approach came in handy as the main methodological approach
because for me to be able to get answers to the above questions, I had to first get the women’s
experiences and for me to get the women’s experiences I had to use the grounded theory
approach as a tool to collect the necessary data.
3.2.4 Radical Feminist Approach
There are different angles or strands to radical feminism but what struck me and was relevant for
this research is what Lovenduski notes,
31
“Radical feminists in particular have been wary of participation in the public politics of
political parties, the state, or other organizations. They have theorized public political
institutions as part of the apparatus of male dominance or patriarchy. Such institutions
are organized on male hierarchical principles and around masculine interests.”15
The approach influenced the need to look at the law governing Parliament as an institution,
especially PIPPA and also its Standing Orders. For me what was of importance with the radical
feminist approach was to investigate if PIPPA would reflect the fact that Parliament was
organized on male hierarchical principles and around masculine interests in its provisions. This is
also one of the approaches that influenced the assumption that PIPPA is gendered in its
application. And as will be shown in this research, Parliament is truly a man’s house with no
place for women.
3.3
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
3.3.1 Sampling
There was purposive sampling of the women Parliamentarians as I deliberately wanted to get
women’s experiences as per the women’s law approach. The data that needed to be collected was
women’s experiences and as such I could not possibly get women’s experiences from men.
Purposive sampling thus helped in identifying the women who would provide the data to answer
the research questions. The ‘dung beetle method’ of sampling also helped as some women told
me of particular women who had had certain experiences and I then targeted some of such
women for interviewing. I also spoke to the women who were available and also the ones I had
closely worked with before. The same also applied to the male lawyers and Parliament Staff,
most of them were the ones I had worked with before during my days at WiPSU. It was them
who would also link me up with other Parliament staff that I had not interacted with. I was
fortunate enough to also attend a workshop organised by WiPSU where there were some female
Parliamentarians and former female Parliamentarians. The table below shows the number of
respondents for this research.
15
Lovenduski and Randall, Oxford University Press 1993, p6.
32
Table 1:
Showing the Respondents involved in the Research
Respondents
Members
Women
of 20
Men
Total
0
20
0
4
Parliament
Former Members of 4
Parliament
Parliament Staff
1
5
6
Lawyers
5
3
8
GRAND TOTAL
38
3.3.2 In‐depth Interviews
In-depth interviews were held with all the respondents on a one on one basis. This was an
advantage since they were free to give their views without fear of victimisation. Some could give
their own personal experiences and I would realise that it is true when I would then hear the
same story about them from another respondent. It helped in triangulation of my data as I could
also ask for clarification or confirmation of what I would have heard from another MP but
without having to mention their names.
3.3.3 Hansard Analysis
Hansard analysis was done to see if there were any records of some proceedings in Parliament
that prove what the women had said. I mainly looked at the Hansard copies for the year 2011 but
not much was in there in terms of what the women told me. However, the other reason for such
is because of the fact that at times Parliament was not sitting at all and when it would be sitting;
it would be for a short time. However, I managed to get some useful information for the research
for example one Hansard copy where it was not edited where a male MP had addressed a fellow
Parliamentarian as, “imi mbuya imi” (you grandmother). It also helped to show the low
33
participation of women which corroborated what the women were saying that they just keep
quiet in Parliament to avoid embarrassment.
3.4
Limitations of Methods used
The major limitation of the methods used was that there was no opportunity of having focus
group discussions. At the stage of my research design I had intended to do focus group
discussions because of their strength to motivate people to speak and share their experiences.
Where one might have forgotten or twisted the truth, others can remind them or correct them.
Unfortunately, a workshop that had been scheduled for all female Parliamentarians was
cancelled and so it was not within my means to have a number of them together and hold the
focus group discussions.
34
CHAPTER 4
4.0
IMMUNITY OR IMPUNITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN
4.1
Impunity in Parliament
From the history of Parliamentary privilege and immunity it shows that privileges and
immunities are necessary to allow Parliamentarians to discharge their duties without fear of
victimisation. However, while privileges and immunities are necessary, there is need for
Parliaments to balance between the privileges and immunities on one hand and rights of
individual Parliamentarians on the other. There is a delicate balance that should be reached
between freedom of speech of Parliamentarians under Parliamentary privilege and abuse of that
privilege. Failure to have that balance would result in impunity by Parliamentarians resulting
with them getting away with acts that would be punishable under the law if they were to be
committed by any other person anywhere else.
The Zimbabwean Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act results in impunity in
Parliament. While it is not the intention of the Act nor of the legislators, the application of the
Act by different Members of Parliament results in impunity and there is nothing in the Act to
provide recourse for those who feel that their rights have been violated. Members of Parliament
cannot be impeached or held liable for what they say in or before Parliament. Section 5 of the
Act provides that;
“There shall be freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in or before Parliament
and any committee and such freedom shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place outside Parliament”.
The same section in subsection 3(b) provides that for the avoidance of doubt a Member shall not
be liable to any proceedings, arrest, fine, imprisonment or other punishment or damages or other
penalty by reason of any matter or thing which he may have said in or before Parliament or a
committee, whether as a Member or a witness, or otherwise have communicated whilst engaged
in a proceeding in Parliament. It is my view that this spells out impunity and whether or not that
was the intention is neither here nor there, the fact is that PIPA allows for impunity in
35
Parliament. The Act might not be the reason of words spoken against women, but it surely
provides a platform and an excuse for the abuse of Parliamentarians by other Parliamentarians.
This is one of the criticisms against the liberal feminist approach which propounds equality in
the law but which might not result in non-discrimination when the law is applied.
Male Members of Parliaments get away with defamatory and some criminal acts in Parliament
due to such provisions in the Act. For example, one woman MP noted that there is a particular
woman MP who if she stands up to speak, the men then start shouting,
“Shebeen queen, I am going to have sex with you because I spend so
much money on you...”
or:
“Be quick I will have sex with you, I used a lot of my money on
you.”16
There are a lot of degrading words and statements thrown at women in Parliament when they
stand up to discharge of their Parliamentary duties. Other examples of such words are sexist
words that range from describing how the women look or any such sexual comments that men
can think of. Some of the words have been difficult for me to even repeat them in this research. I
was told that a male MP shouted at a woman MP when she stood up to speak,
“Iwe ziva zvekupihwa AIDS (you just know of being infected by
AIDS)”
and to another one:
“You just know of sleeping with Kiyi” 17
16
Note that names of people to whom these statements were directed were given but I am omitting names to
protect the women and the sources.
17
Not real name.
36
The impunity goes even as far as accusing the certain women MPs of committing murder and,
upon further questioning, I was informed that these accusations are false but said as though they
were true and as though the accuser had all the evidence and that the female MPs in question
were convicted murderers (i.e., the false accusations are viciously made against them in order to
undermine their credibility).
Acts that would ordinarily be punishable under the general law if committed by a person who is
not an MP are not treated as such if they are committed by Parliamentarians in Parliament. In this
respect it appears as though they are above the law in as much as they are guided by their own
Standing Rules and Orders. For example, most of the words highlighted above would either
amount to defamation (in terms of section 96 Criminal Code), sexual harassment (in terms of
Labour Act), and criminal insult (in terms of section 95 of Criminal Code). But because they are
done or occur in Parliament, the general law does not apply to individuals who commit them and,
as a result, this situation encourages, unintentionally or otherwise, a culture of impunity in
Parliament where illegal acts against women go unpunished. It was my observation that the
victims of such acts are left exclusively at the mercy of the Standing Rules and Orders of
Parliament which were inherited from the colonial masters and which have not been reviewed to
suit the Independent Zimbabwean Parliament.
According to the Labour Act of Zimbabwe Chapter 28:02, sexual harassment is an unfair labour
practice. However, I am also of the opinion that even if it were a criminal matter, chances are
that Parliamentarians would still be protected by privilege as in the case of criminal defamation
where privilege is a defence. Section 8H of the Labour Act provides that an employer or any
other person commits an unfair labour practice if he,
“Engages in unwelcome sexually-determined behaviour towards any employee, whether
verbal or otherwise, such as making physical contact or advances, sexually coloured
remarks, or displaying pornographic materials in the workplace.”18
As much as the Labour Act provides for the employee-employer relationship, which is not the
same relationship as between male and female Parliamentarians, it sheds light on what sexual
18
Own emphasis added.
37
harassment might be considered to be. Under the Standing Orders, there is nothing on sexual
harassment yet the general law does not protect Parliamentarians when they are in Parliament
due to privilege. According to Mywage.org/Zimbabwe19, “sexual harassment” may take a
variety of forms, ranging from verbal, visual or physical abuse of a sexual nature:
“Verbal or written: These can be comments about clothing, personal behaviour, or a
person’s body, sexual or sex-based jokes, requesting sexual favours or repeatedly asking
a person out, sexual suggestions, telling rumours about a person’s personal or sexual life
and threatening a person.
Non Verbal: derogatory gestures or facial expressions of a sexual nature, following a
person and looking down and up a person’s body…”20
Allowing such acts to occur in Parliament where MPs, both male and female, have crucial
national duties to discharge is a huge mistake and a gross injustice. Having to suffer such
degrading treatment at the hands of one’s colleagues in one’s workplace, a sacred national
institution, is deplorable. While going about their Parliamentary business in Parliament, it is my
submission that they are at their workplace and should be protected by the law so that they are
able to freely discharge of their duties. Mywage.org/Zimbabwe notes that apart from being
unpleasant, distressing or even physically threatening, repeated advances by a perpetrator
without any official protection makes one feel uncomfortable and is likely to prevent one from
performing one’s work effectively and efficiently. This should not continue happening in
Parliament especially for women who are striving to meet the 50% representation of women in
Parliament target as stipulated in the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development21 which has
been ratified by Zimbabwe.
Besides some of the acts being criminal and unlawful in my opinion, it is my view that some
things should not even be said by one human being to another.
And in the case of
Parliamentarians, I would submit that there is need for them to support each other and work
together well for the sake of the nation’s interests and in the spirit of “ubuntu” or good
neighbourliness. It was quite disheartening and painful when in several interviews with the
19
http://www.mywage.org/zimbabwe/main/decent‐work‐check/sexual‐harassment (Accessed on 12 March 2012).
Only relevant parts quoted.
21
Article 12.
20
38
female MPs they mentioned a case of one MP who had been raped by ten men during the 2008
political violence. People knew about it but when she stood up to speak in Parliament someone
shouted at her:
“Sit down, that is why you were raped!”
I found this to be very disturbing and reflective of a high level of concentrated ignorance about
human rights issues among by some male Members of Parliament. Such behaviour is not
expected of Parliamentarians who are supposed to be an example to the nation and a reflection of
the high moral standards of the society they desire to lead. These are the same people that the
citizenry looks up to and expects to emulate the very laws that they pass that promote the
observance of human rights, yet they behave in such a disgraceful manner toward their fellow
female Parliamentarians. Rape is a traumatic experience and I can only imagine the trauma of
being raped by ten men and then have someone say that is why you were raped in a space where
one expects to be afforded the highest respect and protection by both male and female fellow
Parliamentarians. I then wondered to myself why men would do this and again, I remembered
the dominance theory as explained by MacKinnon about how men use women’s sexuality to
dominate them. She also problematizes the fact that it is the standards and values of men that
become the standards and values of society and so, unless something is a problem for men, then,
as far as society is concerned, it cannot be a problem for women. At law they have the
‘reasonable man’ test and that reasonable man is male and it is the standard. If a man cannot be
affected by being told that that is why you were raped in Parliament, then a woman is not
expected to have problems with it. The argument is that women and men are equals in
Parliament and as such the law should be gender neutral. However, MacKinnon argues that
gender neutrality is actually saying to women “Be the same as men!” which is impossible. As
such, women’s issues are trivialized and dominance is maintained by adopting the male point of
view. Customary law is recognized in Zimbabwean law and that also is a problem for women as
it works together with the dominance approach to subordinate women. Using the case under
discussion, being told that “that is why you were raped” still remains a problem for the women
only because culturally men cannot be raped. There is a need to make the law reflect women’s
39
experiences and that is the reason why the women’s law approach was used in this research. It
proves that the law affects women and men differently.
The criminal law code of Zimbabwe22 provides for the crime of criminal insult in section 95(1).
It provides that,
“Any person who, by words or conduct
(a)
(b)
seriously impairs the dignity of another person; or
seriously invades the privacy of another person;
shall be guilty of criminal insult…”
Words that ‘seriously impair the dignity of’ women MPs are used against them in Parliament
under the protection of privilege and immunity. There is an example of one woman MP who was
called a “hure” (“a prostitute” in the local Shona vernacular) in Parliament by some younger
male MPs. In an interview with one female MP, it was reported that that the targeted MP is still
traumatised and pained by having been called a “hure” in Parliament. Being called a prostitute
impairs one’s dignity and is an offence under the criminal law code under the criminal insult
offence, yet for victims of such a crime in Parliament there is no recourse. It is all done in the
name of privilege and immunity which for me adds up to impunity in Parliament. It is as though,
as soon as a woman becomes a MP and enters Parliament, she immediately loses her right to
dignity and respect which completely flies in the face of Section 95(7) of the criminal law code
which provides as follows:
“For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that no person in Zimbabwe is devoid of
dignity, whatever his or her occupation or mode of life and that the dignity of all persons
is entitled to the protection of the law”.
The words uttered against women in Parliament for simply standing up and speaking is sufficient
to risk damage to their reputation beyond Parliament and in the eyes of the general populace.
This occurs when that some of the dreadful insults hurled at them find their way into the media.
22
Chapter 9:23.
40
In an interview with one female MP, she explained how male Parliamentarians take some of the
issues or statements about women MPs said in Parliament to journalists who then publish them
resulting in the reputation of the women involved being damaged. But, even if they do not give
this mischievous information to journalists, it does not change the fact that the words themselves
have already been uttered and have damaged the reputation of the particular woman involved.
Even if the statement is withdrawn in Parliament at the order of the Speaker of Parliament or
Senate President, the damage would have already been done.
If there were clear exceptions to the Parliamentary privilege and immunity then the perpetrators
would be brought to book under the general law. For example, the criminal law code provides for
the crime of criminal defamation in section 96(1) which states that,
“Any person who, intending to harm the reputation of another person, publishes a
statement which:
(a)
(b)
when he or she published it, he or she knew was false in a material particular or
realized that there was a real risk or possibility that it might be false in a
material particular; and
causes serious harm to the reputation of that other person or creates a real risk
or possibility of causing serious harm to that other person’s reputation;
shall be guilty of criminal defamation…”
This outrageous conduct of male Parliamentarians toward their female colleagues actually
constitutes gender-based violence, yet daily it goes unpunished and continues to happen within
the very institution mandated with the task of passing laws to protect all Zimbabweans including
women from any form of abuse. ‘Gender-based violence’ is defined by the UN in the
Convention of Elimination of All Forms Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as “…any
act that is likely to or results in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women…”
The women interviewed in this research registered how they felt hopeless in the face of PIPPA as
it negatively affects their participation in Parliament. Privilege in Parliament, while having its
own advantages, is thus impacting negatively on female Parliamentarians, especially in so far as
they have no recourse to any effective protection, particularly under general law. The primary
effect of privilege is to immunize Members of Parliament and other participants in Parliamentary
41
proceedings against legal liability for words spoken or written by them in the course of
Parliamentary proceedings. So for the purposes of the law of defamation, communications which
form part of proceedings in a Parliament are absolutely privileged. It is as though the women in
Parliament are in prison because of PIPPA, to be regulated by PIPPA is to be imprisoned by the
very law that is supposed to protect you. MacKinnon had this to say about the law,
“To be in prison is what it is for women to live their everyday lives entirely inside the
law.”23
It is my view that PIPPA does not consider how it affects women because the men have not
complained about it. The wording of PIPPA gives rise to the assumption which I strongly believe
to be true that men are the standard that is used to determine contempt of Parliament or what can
be considered a crime in Parliament. In her book, Men’s Law-Women’s Lives MacKinnon notes
that,
“Proceeding by analogy, as the law does, means that new crimes and injuries committed
against women must be like old ones (read: those committed against men) before they
can be recognized as crimes and injuries at all”24.
The impunity that runs in Parliament perpetuates the gender stereotyping of women. Cook and
Cusack (2010) define gender stereotyping as the way we categorize individuals. It is the process
of ascribing to an individual general attributes, characteristics, or roles of members of a
particular group. They go on to note that stereotyping produces generalizations or preconceptions
concerning attributes, characteristics, or roles of members of a particular individual members’
abilities, needs, wishes, and circumstances. Cook and Cusack (2010) go on to argue as follows:
“Stereotypes degrade women when they assign them to subservient roles in society, and
devalue their attributes and characteristics. Prejudices about women’s inferiority and
their stereotyped roles generate disrespect and devaluation of women in all sectors of
society…. When societies fail to recognize and eliminate such prejudices and their
associated stereotypes, that failure exacerbates a climate of impunity with respect to
violations of women’s rights. The climate of impunity enables prejudices and wrongful
gender stereotypes to fester, causing further devaluation of women.”
23
24
MacKinnon, (2005), p33.
MacKinnon, (2005), p34.
42
4.2
How honourable are the Honourable Members of Parliament? The abuse of privilege
by men in Parliament
Members of Parliament are well aware that they have privilege in Parliament and can say what
they want without fear of being prosecuted for it. This was confirmed in most of the interviews
with the female MPs and Parliament staff. The women informed me that when they enter
Parliament, they are told to be free to express themselves because of the privilege they have as
Members of Parliament. Political parties also play a part and during their own party caucuses
encourage their Members to talk freely in Parliament because they are protected by the
Parliamentary privilege. On the face of it there is nothing wrong with that as it is true that
Parliamentarians have Parliamentary privilege and immunity. The real problem arises out of the
application of that privilege by male MPs.
The research brought out the fact that men actually take advantage of the privilege and immunity
to hurl abuses at women. One Parliament staff Member had this to say;
“Male Parliamentarians know about the Act and actually take advantage
of it to abuse women and say all sorts of things to women.”
The female Parliamentarians themselves corroborated this and highlighted the fact that male
Parliamentarians heckle them whenever they get the opportunity to do so because they know that
they are covered by the privilege of Parliament. They misuse this privilege to unsettle, confuse
and undermine women who stand up to make meaningful contributions. One female minister
expressed it in these words:
“Heckling is meant to disorganise you, to destroy you and disturb your
flow of thinking especially if you were hitting hard on a point. Men
heckle you so that you don’t drive your point home and you then stop.”
The dominance theory once again came to mind when I heard this. I found this to be about power
and men wanting to show their power over women or to make sure that even though women
have made it into a Parliament, which is largely a male domain, they should still remain
subservient to men. As a result male MPs continue to exert their power against women through
43
their abuse of Parliamentary privilege which they pervert by using it both as a platform from
which to hurl their reckless abuses and a refuge from which they cowardly avoid being held to
account in terms of the rule of law. As a result, they have the Parliamentary privilege as an
excuse to show that power or rather, abuse that power. Men are still protecting ‘their space’. The
abuse of that power and privilege also involves the sexual objectification of women by men, a
common theme which runs among male MPs. At any given opportunity the male
Parliamentarians will call any female MP who dares stand up to speak a “prostitute” or “hure”.
When it is said in the Shona language it is even more hurtful and unsettling for a Shona woman,
even if and especially if it is untrue. Even if it were the truth, however, Parliament is not the
place to address such issues and it has nothing to do with the Parliamentary duties of MPs. When
men talk, it is to show dominance over women. It is as Tamale (1999: 124) puts it,
“The posturing and pontificating exhibited by male legislators is “doing dominance”. By
the same token, women’s self-doubt and reserved manner is “doing deference” in the
House.”
Instead of looking at women as equals, honourable Members like themselves, men look at
women as sexual objects resulting in their making comments with sexual connotations about
women. They comment about a woman’s breasts, buttocks, make up or call her a prostitute. It is
worse if she is not married then the men will shout, “That is why you are not married”. It is as
one former MP lamented,
“If only people could look at you as a Parliamentarian and not as a
woman”.
In her book, “When Hens Begin to Crow”, Tamale (1999: 121) noted her observations in the
Parliament of Uganda which are not very different from the experiences of women in the
Zimbabwean Parliament. She explained that:
“When a woman is on her feet, she is more likely to be met with noise and inattention in
the House than a man is. Scoffs, jeers, and other boorish behaviour, although directed at
both female and male Members, almost always emanate from the men. I noted that men
tended to interrupt female Members with points of information, order, and clarification
more than they did fellow men....Interrupting is one of the ways people in power maintain
the status quo; it is a gesture of dominance.”
44
The statements by men in this research “illustrate how gender is reproduced in the institutional
setting of Parliament.”25 It is also disappointing because Parliament is a mirror of society and
when male Parliamentarians speak in a disrespectful way to women, and sexually objectify them
they are actually “echoing the sentiments of the chauvinistic society that produced them.”26 In a
chapter in the book edited by Shirley Ardener, Silvia Rodgers commented about the rude jokes
that men make against women. She had this to say about what happened in the House of
Commons in Britain:
“All jokes have a subversive effect on the dominant structure of ideas. Jokes are a
method by which a dominant category defends itself against a disadvantaged but
threatening category. In the House, the dominant category, in an attempt to reinforce its
own boundaries, makes jokes which tease out the sexual features peculiar to women.
Jokes are the symbolic and acceptable way of indicating that one particular woman or a
group of women have no legitimate place in this area of politics and authority.”
Male Parliamentarians are well aware that they are not supposed to use unParliamentary
language in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament but they still do it because
they know they can get away with it. According to Parliament staff interviewed, gender issues
are not really taken seriously in Parliament and, as a result, acts by male Parliamentarians against
female Parliamentarians go unpunished. I was informed:
“Gender is only found in the intensive care unit of Parliament.”
What the statement meant was that gender is only talked about but no action is taken and the
majority of Parliamentarians especially the males either do not know about it or choose to ignore
it. As a result, having privilege and immunity is like a ticket to say whatever comes to mind
about and to female Parliamentarians, whether good or bad. Between them the abuse of
Parliamentary privilege and immunity by male MPs makes Parliament a hostile place for women
MPs; but this does not mean that Parliamentary privilege and immunity should be completely
done away with. There is a need to put in place checks and balances, exceptions and mechanisms
25
26
Tamale S., 1999, p124.
Tamale S., 1999, p125.
45
that will not allow any Member of Parliament to abuse their Parliamentary privilege. In some
Parliamentary sittings, I was informed that some men shout at their older female
Parliamentarians saying:
“Imi mbuya imi taurai nechirungu (old woman speak in English).”
Such statements are purely abuse of privilege in the sense that Parliamentarians know that in
Parliament they can use any of the major local languages and it will be translated. However, men
say such statements to unsettle the woman speaking, especially the older women who, culturally,
are supposed to be respected and do not expect younger people to talk to them in such a way.
Having the younger Parliamentarians speak to them that way disorients them, makes them lose
confidence and this was confirmed by the majority of female Parliamentarians that were
interviewed.
There is a procedure in Parliament in terms of which if another Member of Parliament is
speaking, and there is a misnomer that one wants to raise then one says “Point of order, Sir”, to
the Speaker or whoever is chairing that day. However, this procedure is also being abused by
Parliamentarians to throw abuses at women. An MP will raise a point of order and is given the
opportunity to speak, but, instead of saying something procedural or related to the topic under
discussion, that opportunity is used to insult the woman who is speaking or to make fun of
women’s issues. For example, I was informed that male MPs have been known to say:
“Before the Honourable Member started speaking, I did not know
that she wants to show us how uneducated she is.”
Such a statement is a deliberate and unjustified on the woman and is calculated to and often does
disempower her. Unfortunately, the Speaker of Parliament can only ask the person who would
have spoken to withdraw their statement or apologise but the damage would have already been
done. The truth of the matter is that Parliamentarians should act honourably at all times
especially since they are the trustees of people’s aspirations.
46
4.3
The Induction of MPs is not gender sensitive
As I was carrying out the research, the grounded theory approach led me to investigating the
induction of Parliamentarians. Initially, the induction process had not been an issue for my
research but rather just what happens to women stemming from the application of PIPA.
However, as I gathered information about the behaviour of men in Parliament and realised how
their behaviour resembled that of people with no clue about gender issues, I went on to find out
about the induction of MPs to find out if it had a gender component.
One female minister had this to say about the induction process.
“I don’t see Parliament going out of its way to ensure that the process is
gender sensitive or just to be gender sensitive”.
Another female minister supported the above assertion and noted that,
“The induction is not thorough. There is no differentiation between men
and women, the induction is just standard.”
The comment about the induction being standard and there being no differentiation between
women and men brought to mind the difference theory. The difference theory emphasises that
men and women are different. It points out the need to manage such differences rather than treat
men and women as if they are the same when they are not which then disadvantages one sex over
the other and usually it is women. The approach is however criticised by some feminists as
reinforcing gender stereotypes and gender roles of women. I am of the view that there are
biological differences that have to be considered like the fact that women menstruate and get
pregnant while men do not experience such conditions. To ignore such differences would
negatively affect women and disadvantage them in the discharge of their duties. As Tamale S.
(1999: 27) put it in her book while quoting the warning by Anne Phillips (1991: 5), under the
seemingly innocent guise of gender neutrality, masculinity defines the terms of political theory
and practice.
47
During the research Members of staff from Parliament were of the opinion that the objectives of
the induction programme for both the Senate and the House of Assembly are as follows:
•
To inform Members of Parliament about the Role and Functions of Parliament as one of
the three arms of the State;
•
To equip Members with basic knowledge of Parliamentary practices and procedures to
facilitate their effective participation in the legislative process;
•
To bring Members up to date with latest/new developments (e.g. Parliamentary
Reforms); and
•
To expose new Members to the services that contribute to Parliament’s effective
discharge of its constitutional mandate.
Upon inquiring about whether or not they received any gender training, it was reviewed that it
was not part of the induction programme. Women Parliamentarians benefit from separate
induction programmes by Women in Politics Support Unit (WiPSU) which is a nongovernmental organisation that supports women in Parliament and Local Government. The
female MPs noted that such training by WiPSU and other women’s organisations helps them and
specifically addresses women’s needs. In an interview with the Deputy Clerk of Parliament, he
noted that the induction takes a short period of time and there is therefore a limit to what the MPs
can be taught. He pointed out that even after training MPs on procedures, some still fail to
understand them completely.
4.4
Some Women Parliamentarians do not know about PIPPA but just know that they
have Parliamentary Privilege
The human rights approach used as a methodological approach helped in assessing the extent to
which the women knew about their rights especially while discharging their duties in Parliament.
The first question I would pose to the women during the different interviews was whether or not
48
they knew about PIPPA. On most occasions they answered in the negative. In the few instances
when the women knew about it, they had never actually read the Act. Upon asking if they knew
about the privileges and immunities of Parliamentarians, they would confidently say that they did
and then they would go on about how they were told at their induction that they have
Parliamentary privilege.
The research revealed that women mostly know about Parliamentary privilege from what they
are taught at their induction into Parliament and also from their political parties. The women
explained that their political parties also do their own inductions for those who would have made
it into Parliament. However, it would appear that the inductions are also as standard as that done
in Parliament without taking into consideration the gender dimensions of women’s participation
in Parliament.
It would seem that the fact that women do not know about PIPPA is the reason why they have
not tried to challenge nor amend the Act. From the discussions with the women about PIPPA
they have problems with the application of the Act and pointed out that most of the heckling that
happens in Parliament is as a result of the men taking advantage of Parliamentary privilege.
However, no steps have been taken by women to address the abuse of Parliamentary privilege. In
fact, some women have just given up trying to resolve the heckling problem and just accept it as
part of being in Parliament. It would appear that as a way forward there is a need to encourage
women to read PIPPA and for the different women’s organisations to look into the matter to
make women’s participation in Parliament more effective.
4.5
Parliamentary Protection is only available after the damage has already been done
Parliament is an institution of its own kind and as such is governed by its own rules of procedure.
Parliament has its own jurisdiction authorized by law in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and under
PIPPA. Parliament derives its powers from the Standing Orders that are made in terms of section
57 of the Constitution. Besides that legislation, Parliament has its own Standing Orders that
49
provide for the procedures to be adopted by and the conduct of Parliamentarians. An example of
such is Standing Order 75 in the Senate Standing Orders which provides that,
“Any Senator, having used objectionable words and not explaining or retracting them or
offering apologies for the use of thereof to the satisfaction of the Senate, shall be dealt
with as the Senate may think fit; and any Senator called to order shall resume his or her
seat unless permitted to explain.”
This is just an example of what happens when a Member of Parliament breaches the laid down
rules of Parliament. However, the challenge is that the majority of the protection mechanisms in
Parliament do not help women who would have been heckled because the damage would have
already been done. For example, if a men shouts “prostitute” at a woman who would have stood
up to speak, it is unParliamentary language and what the Speaker or Senate can do is to ask the
MP to withdraw such a statement. Withdrawing does not change the effect it would have had on
the woman concerned or other women who were planning to contribute in Parliament. I would
refer to the example referred to earlier of a woman MP who still is traumatized by the fact that
she was called a prostitute. This goes to show that sometimes it is not about an apology,
withdrawal of a statement or suspension of the responsible MP. I personally do not have the
solution but there is a need to find ways of making the institution of Parliament honourable and
discouraging the offensive use of language toward female MPs. There is a need to deal with the
sexual objectification of women in Parliament so that they are regarded as Members of
Parliament, equals and not women. Appendix B to the Standing Orders of both the Senate and
House of Assembly which speaks to offences that are contempt makes no mention of sexual
harassment or any such other gendered offences.
One might argue that the protection or rather regulatory mechanism provided for under the
Standing Orders of Parliament are enough and one could be charged with contempt. The problem
this presents is what was highlighted in the majority of interviews conducted. It is the duty of the
Speaker of Parliament to protect the honourable Members but the problem is that the Speaker has
a political party of his own and might be more inclined to protect Members from his party. The
question to be asked would then be “How feasible is it for the Speaker to be truly non-partisan
when he himself belongs to a political party?’ Legislators are of necessity partisan politicians
who were voted into power by people mainly from their political party because they are loyal to
50
their party. In some jurisdictions the Speaker of Parliament has to resign from his/her party once
elected. One female MP noted that the Speaker who is male sometimes does not give enough
opportunity to women to speak. The participation was said to improve for women when it is the
Deputy Speaker of Parliament who is chairing since she tries as much as possible to give women
a chance to speak.
During the interviews I was informed that if a Member of Parliament is charged with contempt,
the case is presented before the Privileges Committee for it to investigate the matter and reach a
decision and penalty. The challenge is whether there will ever be cases of abuse of privilege in
relation to sexist behaviour or whether comments of men against women would ever be brought
before the Privileges Committee considering the masculine nature of Parliament. How feasible is
it for the Privileges Committee to be non-partisan when dealing with a matter brought before it?
That would be the other problem which would face women if a case were to be investigated.
Besides that, in Parliament men outnumber women. Since women only make up 18% of the
composition of Parliament, it is likely that they may also be outnumbered by men in the
Privileges Committee. That effectively means that women MPs are left with no proper protection
against their abusive male counterparts because for any possible redress they are forced by
Parliamentary procedures to take their complaints to a Committee which is also dominated by
similar men. Moreover, when the Committee sits, it has vested and political interests in its own
decision. It therefore appears that when women decided to become Parliamentarians they also
decided to relinquish their rights as citizens of Zimbabwe, including the right to protection of the
law. Women MPs are not permitted to resort to general law as mentioned earlier because
Parliament has privileges and immunities under PIPPA and the courts cannot interfere. The
Members of the Committee would be Members of Parliament without any legal training yet they
would be sitting as a court. It is my view that there are bound to be violations of rules of natural
justice and the human rights of women in Parliament. It is as Wells (2006) put it:
“Not for no reason are the practices of our courts surrounded by thousands of rules of
evidence and procedure designed to minimize error and protect the liberty of the citizen.
When a matter is tried by Parliamentarians rather than Judges, we throw away all these
safeguards. We forfeit the benefit of having an individual’s liberty determined by the
dispassionate, if not cynical, minds of people dedicated to determining accurately the
facts, whose life’s work is to decide what is rather than what ought to be, and expose that
citizen’s liberty to the momentary whims and inclinations of a mob of dreamers whose
51
very job description requires them to paint with a broad brush, whose whole value to
their society lies not in any pretence to specialist skill in matters particular, but rather in
their capacity to articulate the competing ideas between which the voters will choose in
the hope of fashioning a better world”.
At the end of the day, it is not about the penalty or punishment but rather about the implications
of the words by male MPs on women’s effective participation in Parliament. What does it mean
for other women when a woman who decides to be brave enough to speak is jeered at and made
fun of? The damage would have already been done not just to the woman in question but to the
majority of women who are given more reason not speak in Parliament for fear of being made
fun of. It will have negative implications on people’s view of female Parliamentarians. I have
been in spaces where some women will even say the women in Parliament are just quiet and are
not doing anything for women yet they are fighting some battles in there and facing what most
women would not be able to face or would not want to face. I say this cognizant of the fact that
having women in Parliament does not translate to women’s issues being tackled in Parliament.
During data collection, one Parliament official explained that there are many protection
mechanisms set up in Parliament that the women could use. He noted that it was the women who
were not making use of the laws. In my own opinion, it is not about the women not reporting or
taking action but about why they are not taking action. It could well be that they know the
mechanisms available in Parliament only benefit men and not them, in other words, that they are
not responsive to women. It could also be that whether or not one’s case is considered a prima
facie case lies in the power of men and, as such, the law is just for men. It could be many other
reasons. MacKinnon puts it better when she says:
“To most women, the law is a foreign country with an unintelligible tongue, alien mores,
secret traps, uncontrollable and unresponsive dynamics, obscure but rigid dogmas,
barbaric and draconian rituals, and consequences as scary as they are
incomprehensible.... The difference is that the people who can and do make law work for
them, who designed it so it would work for them as if they were the whole world, are
men…”27
MacKinnon further explains that:
27
MacKinnon, (2005), p32.
52
“No law addresses the deepest, simplest, quietest, and most widespread atrocities of
women’s everyday lives. The law that purports to address them, like the law of sexual
assault, does not reflect their realities or, like the law of domestic violence, is not
enforced. It seems that the law either does not exist, does not apply, is applied to
women’s detriment, or is not applied at all. The deepest rules of women’s lives are
written beneath or between the lines, and on other pages.”28
28
MacKinnon, (2005), p34.
53
CHAPTER 5
5.0
WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT: ‘MATTER OUT OF PLACE’
5.1
PIPPA is backward and colonial
The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act was inherited from the Rhodesian
Government. After several years of Independence, Zimbabwe's law still exposes residual traits
of the process of transplantation of historical disempowerment and colonial takeover (Saki O.,
Chiware T. 2000). Times have changed but it seems that the law governing privileges and
immunities of Parliament has not changed. One woman minister had this to say,
“It seems Parliament forgets about its own laws and concentrates on
other things. There is need for review of our laws. What applied to the
British times doesn’t apply now. Even the Standing Orders haven’t been
reviewed, they still refer to the Queen.”
The Minister went on to comment that this lack of review of the Parliamentary laws and
procedures was a weakness in that Parliament would be forced to face certain changes when
challenged or confronted with a problem. They might not be conscious of a problem until they
are faced with a problem.
One Parliamentarian also noted that PIPPA was enacted during the colonial times when
Parliament was just for men alone and no gender issues arose due to its application. She
recommended that PIPPA be amended or reviewed to suit the current situation in Zimbabwe, to
suit the Zimbabwean context. Women were not involved in the enactment of PIPPA but it is
applied to them. It is as MacKinnon points out,
“The law that is applied to them and all women was not written by women, white or
Black, rich or poor. It has not been based on women’s experiences of life, everyday or
otherwise. No one represented women’s interests as women in creating it, and few have
considered women’s interests in applying it.”29
29
MacKinnon, (2005), p33
54
A lot has happened and there have been changes even in British House of Commons that is
referred to in PIPPA yet the Act remains unchanged. The privileges and immunities of
Parliament have been evolving yet in Zimbabwe nothing is being done to show the changed
times and our new found status as an independent nation.
“The privileges and immunities enjoyed in the UK and in France have evolved. Whether
by enactment, such as specific legislation or constitutional provision, by judicial
decision, or by Parliamentary action, in each case important changes have been made to
the privilege provisions and their application. Similarly, and as would be expected, in
other Parliaments, whether they can be characterized as more within the French or the
British tradition, significant adaptation of key features has been undertaken to ensure that
the privilege provisions are appropriate to the particular local constitutional and legal
framework.”30
There is need for changes so that both the law and practice are adequate for the needs of a
modern Parliament, and so that the rights and interests of all Parliamentarians, including women
are protected in line with human rights standards. It is rather ironical that Zimbabwe got its
independence from the British rule in 1980 yet the very institution responsible for making laws is
still governed by laws and procedures of the colonial masters. There is an urgent need to review
the Act and procedures of Parliament to suit the changed times and the dispensation that the
Zimbabwean Parliament is operating in. What is ironical is that the British Parliament itself
continues to change to suit the changed times but Zimbabwe still maintains the old Act. Wright
B (2006: 18) noted that:
“In 1997 the British Parliament appointed a joint select committee to review the law and
practice of Parliamentary privilege. The committee, chaired by a senior judge, conducted
a thorough review and received considerable assistance from academia, from many
Commonwealth Parliaments and from British authorities. The committee sought to
answer the questions ‘Do the law and practice of Parliamentary privilege meet present
and future needs? Do the existing procedures satisfy contemporary standards of fairness
and public accountability?”31
There is need to set up rights and freedoms that Parliament must observe in exercising its
privilege and immunities. Now there are many human rights instruments that speak to women’s
rights and women’s participation in decision making which were not there when the Act was first
30
31
Wright B., 2007, p13 (with my own emphasis).
Wright B, 2007, p18
55
introduced in 1971. There are many human rights instruments that now speak to women’s
participation in decision making that were not there during that time. There is a need to show
political will on the part of Government by making sure that they incorporate provisions of the
human rights instruments into local laws including laws governing Parliament. If Parliament
were able to build and maintain a human rights culture then society would also cultivate the same
human rights culture instead of the culture of violence against women and looking down on
women.
The SADC Protocol on Gender and Development speaks to the increase in the number of women
in decision making to 50% by 2015. It is my view that it is not just about ensuring the 50%
representation of women but also maintaining that 50% representation particularly in Parliament.
One of the ways of maintaining the 50% representation of women in Parliament and ensuring
that the representation of women is not just window dressing is to ensure that the laws governing
the running of Parliament are also gender sensitive. There is a need for a constant review of laws
governing Parliament to reflect the changing times in terms of conventions speaking to the
involvement of women in decision making and ending violence against women.
In the UK there have been discussions around forsaking the term ‘privilege’ for ‘rights and
immunities’. The argument for that is that the word privilege has in modern times acquired a
meaning wholly different from its traditional Parliamentary connotation. The Select Committee’s
recommendation was that if the basic concept of ‘privileges’ or ‘privilege’ is abolished it will be
easier to understand and to concentrate upon the provision of the essential protection which is
required by the House (Marleau and Montpetit 2000).
Neglecting to review Parliamentary laws is, in my opinion saying that there is no place for
women in Parliament and as such they cannot be accommodated even in the laws governing the
running of Parliament. Such gender neutrality is what results in some decisions that disadvantage
women as one female MP said,
“It is disappointing that sometimes you come from your constituency to
Harare for a Parliament sitting and you are then told tomorrow we are
going for a workshop in Victoria Falls. You would not have prepared for
56
such a trip or to stay away from home for such a long time meaning you
would not have planned for who would be looking after your children
while you are away”.
The above statement shows that women are relational in nature. They do not just think of
themselves when they do whatever they do. It also bounds on intersectional ties that they have
because in other circumstances they said they might have planned family meetings or visits and
they are told of other Parliament programmes they had not anticipated. Before they can decide on
whether to go or not, they also consider what the husband will say, in case of married women,
what the relatives will say or what their partner will say. Some might face a backlash from inlaws who might start putting pressure on the husband to take another wife who will be available
and at home instead of dashing around to workshops all over the country or region. Such
circumstances are peculiar to women and the law should thus reflect such gender dimensions.
5.2
PIPPA is gendered in its application
It is submitted that the gendered application of PIPPA runs throughout the research and it is clear
that the application of the Act affects women and men differently. I submit that it would be
relevant to give some of the views given by some of the Parliamentarians interviewed. I have
already mentioned that there is a woman who was called a prostitute in Parliament and is still
traumatised by that a long time after it was said. Since I was using the grounded approach and
the women’s law approach, I decided to probe further and ask why the woman was still
traumatised by what had been said considering that she knew very well that she is not a
prostitute. I wanted to understand the woman’s experience and how she felt. I was informed that
culturally such words were not easy words and they could not just be forgotten because to be
called a prostitute is humiliating and affects the integrity of the person targeted by such words.
Another woman MP also explained that PIPPA is gendered in its application in the sense that
men say what they like to women, and what they say, as noted before, is highly sexual and has to
do with appearance of women. All such words are said by men to women under the umbrella of
privilege and the researched showed that it is culturally not proper for women to use such words
57
especially in public. So even if a woman would like to defend herself using similar words, her
cultural upbringing would make it almost impossible for her to shout such obscenities in
Parliament.
When a woman is called a prostitute, it also has cultural implications as it can only be said to a
woman. As one MP said, “culturally, hakuna hure rechirume” (culturally, there is no male
prostitute).
Age was also said to play a factor alongside culture. Older women were said to be more affected
as they culturally expect young people, both male and female, to respect their elders. However,
that is not the case in Parliament and they are not spared the abuses that seem to flourish in
Parliament. A case was reported of how some male Parliamentarians made fun of and laughed at
an older woman who has hearing problems and so uses hearing aids. At some point she was
talking but then the chairperson asked her to resume her seat and she did not hear the request.
The male Parliamentarians are said to have shouted at her and said to her, “Iwe chembere gara
pasi hausi kunzwa here, chienda kumusha” (“Old woman sit down, can’t you hear, you
must now go to the village!”). Behaviour that would not ordinarily be exhibited to older women
is shown in Parliament because there is the excuse of privileges and immunities. The
implications of the application of PIPPA are compounded further by the fact that Zimbabwe has
a plural legal system and culture is still part of the law. Legal pluralism refers to a situation
where multiple laws operate together and are recognized as such. As a result, in the Zimbabwean
context it is not expected of a woman to speak up against men in public because culturally
women are not supposed to speak in public. I am of the view this affects those women who
would have tried to go against the cultural system and are quietened by being heckled.
It was in this light that the woman MPs and even some male lawyers that were interviewed in
this research noted that there is a need to re-visit the whole aspect of privileges and immunities.
It was suggested that there is a need for exceptions so that the privileges should only cover
legitimate Parliament business and not gratuitous personal insults or the settling of personal
scores. And I agree with such recommendations considering the gendered application of PIPPA
and the negative implications of the Act on women’s participation in Parliament.
58
A study or analysis of the text of PIPPA shows that the Act does not recognise women or
anything about them. It is as MacKinnon said about the law,
“Mostly women feel that the law is not about them, has no idea who they are or what they
face or how they think or feel, has nothing to say to them, and can do nothing for them.
When the law and their life collide, it is their life that gets the worst of it.”32
In an interview with a male official of Parliament he said that there was nothing in PIPPA that
stopped women from effectively participating in Parliament as it applies to both women and
men. However, I agree with Dahl T.S. (1987:12) in saying and I quote;
“Rules on equality of treatment do not, of themselves, materialize into equal or just
results, either in individual cases or collectively. Often it is just the opposite, that the goal
of equality demands unequal treatment in order to give weak parties or groups the
opportunity for equality and equal worth. In this respect law can only be properly
evaluated if one, in addition to understanding the text of the law and its intention, has
insight into the law’s consequences for individuals. As long as we live in a society where
men and women have different paths in life, different living conditions, with different
needs and opportunities, legal rules will necessarily affect men and women differently.
And silence strengthens inequality and injustice, regardless of the legislators’
intentions”.
5.3
Parliament is intimidating for Women (‘Matter out of place’)
Findings of this research indicate that participating in Parliament is not as simple as it might
seem. A female Member of Parliament had this to say about effectively participating in
Parliament,
“Parliament is intimidatory. When you get into Parliament, it is as if you
have been thrown into a boiling pot and you end up losing focus. Initially
Parliament was not meant for women and so even the laws were not
meant to accommodate women, men were the focus and so any other
person is secondary”.
32
MacKinnon, (2005), p32 ‐ 33
59
What makes Parliament more intimidating for women is the fact that was raised by the majority
of women interviewed. They said that when one stands up to speak, men start firing at them all
sorts of insults from their makeup, age or dress and there is no chance of recourse to the general
law while the rules of Parliament are masculine and old. It is as Rodgers puts it, “women’s space
in a men’s house”. There is no space for women in Parliament and, as a result, those who force
their way into Parliament are faced with the reality that they are not wanted and thus it becomes
intimidating. Women in Parliament thus become like ‘matter out of place’ and are at the mercy
of men. Rodgers went on to explain that;
“Matter out of place is used for things from one category found within the domain of
another category. Such intrusions are seen as a threat to the purity and integrity of a
category and as elements that pollute, they have to be dealt with or
removed...Contamination by the presence of women is controlled by the threat of rape
and assault.”
A female Parliamentarian who has been in Parliament for more than two terms highlighted that it
took her about four years to be able to speak confidently and without fear. She said when she
first got into Parliament, it was as if she had been thrown into a boiling pot. A female minister
explained that,
“Parliament is a macho war. It is a dog eat dog situation and it is not for
the lily livered.”
She went on to say that for one to survive in Parliament one would have to grow an elephant
skin. The interview also brought out the fact that the very design of Parliament is primitive in
that one has to stand up to go to a microphone to speak and so people actually focus on the
person speaking.
It would also appear that the fact that some women find Parliament intimidating is the reason
why some women will choose not to speak in Parliament but are effective in their constituencies.
They are confident to address many people in their constituencies probably because it is their
comfort zone and are not governed by complex rules of procedure. They do not have men getting
personal with them and making comments about their breasts or the way they are dressed. While
in Parliament, just to get through another day, women must spend an incredible amount of time,
60
life, and energy cowed, fearful, and colonized, trying to figure out how to be next on the list
(MacKinnon, C.A 1987).
5.4
Coping mechanisms of Women in Parliament
Responses to heckling in Parliament by women differ across the board. How one will respond or
cope with the heckling is dependent on a number of factors such as one’s level of formal
education, age and the number of years one has been a Member of Parliament. The general
response that came from the women interviewed was that the majority of women will just keep
quiet and not say anything in Parliament. They would rather not contribute in Parliament than be
embarrassed if they did so. As one woman MP put it,
“Dzimwe nguva zviri nani kunyarara pane kubviswa hunhu (It is
better to keep quiet than to be dehumanised).”
Studies have shown that sexual harassment which is one form that the heckling in Parliament
takes can have devastating effects on the people concerned. According to Minnesota Advocates
for Human Rights, one can become so traumatized by the harassment that she suffers serious
emotional and physical consequences - and very often, becomes unable to perform her job
properly. They went on to mention that the majority of sexually harassed women suffer from
some debilitating stress reaction, including anxiety, depression, headaches, sleep disorders,
weight loss or gain, nausea, lowered self-esteem and sexual dysfunction33. In addition, the
advocates for Human Rights noted that,
“Sexual harassment has a cumulative, demoralizing effect that discourages women from
asserting themselves within the workplace, while among men it reinforces stereotypes of
women employees as sex objects”.
With such effects, it is the result that some women will not speak in Parliament as a result of
feeling demoralised. While it has been argued in some spaces I have attended workshops that
33
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, 2003.
61
women MPs do not speak because they lack confidence, it has always been a challenge for me to
completely accept that. If it were only the issue of confidence then the women who do not speak
in Parliament would not be able to address their constituencies. During my work at WiPSU, I
witnessed some of the MPs who do not speak in Parliament address large crowds of people in
their constituencies and commanding respect from both men and women. As I carried out this
research, I realised that their being quiet had something to do with the heckling in Parliament.
During interviews for this research, there was one particular MP who confessed to not attending
most Parliamentary sessions because of the heckling which usually takes up most of Parliament
time according to the respondents. The MP found it better to concentrate her attention on her
constituency where there were people who would vote for her in the next elections than to be
bullied in Parliament. That was her coping mechanism and she was happy with it. This was
corroborated by one woman MP, who said that,
“Sometimes in Parliament time is wasted on heckling because people
use Parliament as a platform to settle personal scores.”
As a result, to escape from that, some MPs just do not attend Parliament. A perusal of different
Hansard copies supported this point because there were records to show that on many occasions
Parliament would sit for may be an hour or even less and be adjourned. Sometimes Parliament
would be adjourned because there would be no quorum. For me this showed that even men are
not attending Parliament sessions (for whatever their reasons) because men make up the majority
of Parliamentary members, while women constitute only 18% of them.
Neglecting one’s duty to attend Parliamentary sessions has a negative impact on women’s
effective participation in Parliament in that they will not be present when important decisions
that affect the women of Zimbabwe are made. They then fail to make meaningful contributions
on behalf of women. All this harm stems from the abuse of privilege by men and there being no
effective protection mechanisms for women in Parliament. Women’s issues are not taken
seriously and are not considered important. From my experience working with women in
Parliament and lobbying some male MPs, it appears that talking about women’s rights has
become a cliché or that it is for women who have nothing better to do and so it is not taken
62
seriously. Men would deal with it in a dismissive manner without seriously considering the
issues being raised. The issue of power comes into play again in that some men who are already
in power may seem to support women but they do so half-heartedly for fear of being challenged
or losing their own positions. This was supported in a meeting attended by my Director where
one male minister had this to say,
“It is easy for me now to say that women should be given opportunities
because I am already in power but there is also a fear that if you say we
must have more women in power, who would want to let go of their
position.”
While others keep quiet or do not attend Parliament, there are some women who said they were
now hard core and would also talk back at the male Parliamentarians. One former female MP
who was in Parliament gave an example of one other woman MP who would also talk back at
men. She also said personally she had resorted to that as she saw it as the only way out,
otherwise they would have been bullied. It was explained that for one to be able to survive in
Parliament then one had to grow a thick skin or as one female MP put it, “Unotoita mudhiniwe”
(“You have an I-don’t-care-attitude”) so much so that even when men shout at you as you stand
up to speak, you just ignore them and continue talking. Recently one female MP even made a
male MP cry after she spoke back to him using insulting words. At another occasion one woman
MP said to a now late war veteran MP, “I will dance on your head”.
However, it is my opinion that such things should not happen in Parliament because it is a place,
a platform to pursue peace, democracy and development. The majority of women and possibly
some men cannot deal with that and are traumatised by it. Parliament is a participatory place and
everyone should feel free to express themselves without fear of victimisation. It was my
observation that the few women who said they now did not care what men said or who answered
back were the ones who are formerly educated and have been in Parliament for more than one
term. One woman with a powerful position in her party actually felt that heckling is not a
problem in Parliament. I personally concluded that it was because of her education and influence
in her party and as such commanded a lot of respect that no one hurled insults at her like they do
to other women. Older women were also said to be the worst affected as they do not expect what
63
happens to them especially coming from younger people old enough to be their sons or
grandsons.
One other woman noted that it was not abuse of privilege and that usually when some of the
words are said it is amongst people who get along or who are friends. For her, the words that I
had been told by the majority of other female Parliamentarians were said but to her they were
just jokes between friends. She saw nothing wrong with the behaviour and I concluded that she
felt that it was normal. However, I am of the view point that it is not normal. The behaviour of
male legislators reveals the systemic and pervasive control that patriarchy exerts over social life,
making sexual harassment appear natural, normal and right (Wood 1994, 24). One woman MP
said she was just used to it and just carries on with life. She also said that the training by
women’s organisations also give women the strength to go on under such difficult circumstances.
While the heckling mainly affects women, men are also affected. The research unearthed the fact
that some men have not yet given their maiden speeches since the time they were sworn into
Parliament in 2008. Some do not even contribute in the business of the house but are just there
but because they are men, it seems no one questions their ability to represent people from their
constituencies. In the case of women MPs, however, they are closely monitored to see if they are
being effective in bringing about any change. If her contribution is not what society expects then
she is blamed for failing by being a woman trying to do a man’s job.
5.5
The Media makes matters worse for Women
The media34 is powerful in the way it can create perceptions or buttress a certain way of thinking
in society. In the case of politicians, the media can either build up or destroy a politician. The
media in Zimbabwe seems to be biased against women Parliamentarians whom they depict in a
sexist way almost every time they are mentioned. Women Parliamentarians that were
interviewed for this research registered displeasure at how the media portrays them and seems to
work together with male MPS to report negatively about them. One of the familiar frames
through which gender differences are produced and interpreted is the public-private divide which
34
In this case I am only looking at the print media.
64
means that women are seen to belong to family life and men are seen as political agents in the
social world (Sreberny & van Zoonen 2000, 17). Those who depart from such roles may be
stigmatized, excluded, or their actions rendered invisible. To change this current gender-based
division in relation to public and private is to change media definitions that place men at the
centre of political activity and marginalize women’s perspectives and agendas (Gallagher 2001,
83-85).
It was pointed out that men will usually take the rude jokes and statements said by other men
under privilege in Parliament and give them to the media because you find such information in
the media the following day. The problem with this is that it is almost always negative publicity.
It would appear as if women are being punished for having dared to get into Parliament and,
therefore, must now be shown that they are where they are not wanted. Such behaviour
negatively impacts on women Parliamentarians’ work and society’s view of women in decision
making. In an interview with one of the female Parliamentarians she had this to say about
women’s challenges and the media,
“The problem is that there is sometimes in-fighting within political
parties. Some can say that such and such MDC woman is going out with
a ZANU-PF man or vice versa. Men will then run with this to the media
and when it comes out, your constituency will be against you.”
Gender biases disseminated by the media are significant because they can have electoral
consequences; at a time when politics is thoroughly mediatised, voters respond to candidates
largely in accordance with information (and entertainment) received from mass media. The
women were also of the view that it is as if the media is waiting for a woman in Parliament to
make a mistake so that they can publish it in all the papers and attack all women. Instead of
focusing on the work of the women as Parliamentarians in their own right, the media sometimes
reports on the women through their husbands. If it not through someone else then the report is
very sexist in nature. There were occasions when one of the local newspapers in Zimbabwe
started making allegations that the female Deputy Prime Minister of Zimbabwe was pregnant. It
was made such a big issue and the story was run in the media for some days with the media even
speculating who the father was. It would be interesting to note that at this time the Deputy Prime
65
Minister was doing a lot of good work for example around HIV and Aids issues but this was not
mentioned. And so the media compounds the challenges that women Parliamentarians face in
Parliament as a result of PIPPA and the fact that they are women in a domain thought of as
belonging to men only. References to women politicians often include irrelevant descriptions
that draw attention either to their physical characteristics or to their femininity and derogate their
stature as unserious and incapable politicians (Tamale S. 2005: 189).
A widespread trend in the media is to depict women as beautiful objects. In this case, women are
identified and objectified according to their gender and are made to internalize certain notions of
beauty and attractiveness which relate more to a woman's physical capacities than to her mental
faculties. Such an approach encourages the long-standing patriarchal stereotype of the “weaker
sex”, where women are sexual objects and “second-class” citizens. Men in Parliament help
perpetuate these stereotypes because they also pay for some of the information they would have
heard under privileges and immunities of Parliament to be published anonymously just to
discredit and disempower women. The operation of the old-boy network within the male political
elite is extended to include the fraternity of reporters, journalists, and editors who serve as
gatekeepers to what makes news. By portraying women politicians as an aberration or as
intruders in the serious male game of politics, they perpetuate the gendered public/private divide
(Tamale S. 2005: 196).
From experience working with female Parliamentarians, they shy away from the media because
of the negative publicity they almost always receive. As Tamale put it, most women politicians
try to keep a low profile in the hope that it will render them invisible to the assaulting pens and
cameras of journalists.
5.6
Inter‐Party Rivalry
While talking to some former female Parliamentarians, they advised that the heckling of women
MPs was happening even at the time when Parliament was pre-dominantly ZANU-PF. The
female Parliamentarians who were in Parliament before and are now in the multi-party
66
Parliament corroborated this. However, the point was that with the multi-party Parliament the
heckling against women worsened because now there is a reason to heckle and women are the
victims of inter-party fighting. I discovered during the research that political parties induct their
Members who have made it into Parliament. At the induction, I was apprised of the fact that
political parties encourage their members to heckle members of the other political party in order
to discredit it. As a result, women as opposed to men, are usually selected to be the victims of
such heckling in order to maximize one party’s spite for the other. I was given an example
where the men will shout at a woman speaking in Parliament,
“Uyo wava vedu uyo, ndakarara naye nezuro (That one is now ours, I
slept with her yesterday).”
Or they sometimes say,
“Don’t bring us old women in here, the younger ones are perfect.”
Such statements are not said for the sake of saying them, they are to discredit the other political
party but women are deliberately used to do that. It is similar to the situation during times of
political violence when women’s bodies become the battlefield of men who show hatred for a
rival party by raping its women.
At some point women fell victim of the party requirements to heckle other women. I was
informed that the training received from the different women’s organisations helped unite the
women so much so that women hardly heckle each other. Women work together under the
Parliamentary Women’s Caucus and as such encourage each other to support each other. The
women also strategise around issues of importance to them.
5.7
Some Women lack Confidence
Two women ministers were of the view that the problem is not PIPPA but the fact women lack
confidence to speak. However, what I realized was that the ministers in question are formerly
67
educated and hold positions of some power within their political parties and so heckling from the
male Members might not be a problem for them. One of them has been in Parliament for a very
long time and might have chosen to forget her earlier experiences in Parliament. Also, Cabinet
Members might not sit in Parliament with the rest of the Parliamentarians except maybe during
question time and so might not go through what the other women go through.
Evidence from the research findings seem to point to the fact that it is not because women lack
confidence. As mentioned earlier, women are trained by different women’s organizations like
WiPSU on confidence building and how to handle the heckling in Parliament. Moreover, some
women that hardly talk in Parliament can easily articulate and speak about important issues in
their constituencies and address rallies with many people. For me if they lacked confidence then
they would not be able to speak in their constituencies and might not even have been able to be
successfully elected. It is my submission that their keeping quiet is as a result of the heckling that
is done in Parliament under the guise of Parliamentary privilege and immunity. The abuse of
privilege in Parliament forces women into the background as they decide to be quiet rather than
to speak and be humiliated.
Giving the excuse that women go through what they go through in Parliament because they lack
confidence is playing into the gender stereotyping of women by society that believes that women
are not brave enough to take up certain responsibilities. That is the reason why some women will
think that they have made it and thus classify themselves as “men”, “ini ndiri murume
pachangu”. Silvia Rodgers (1981) in her article noted that when women get into a male domain,
the men will either de-classify you or re-classify you. If they see that you are challenging them
and influential, they will try as much as possible to make sexist jokes to remind you that you are
a woman, which is the de-classifying. It is as Tamale S (1999: 26) stated:
“Short of an Animal Farm-type revolution, hens may begin crowing but they will
continue to lay and hatch eggs from the old patriarchal order.”
I hold the firm view that it is not about whether or not women have confidence but about the
system they are operating in. It is a system defined and run on men’s terms and men’s laws
making women the foreign objects which must be removed.
68
69
CHAPTER 6
6.0
A CALL TO ACTION AND SETTING TARGETS
6.1
Conclusions
In conclusion, the research has shown that PIPPA provides that Members of Parliament cannot
be held liable or be impeached for what they say before or during Parliament. From the history of
Parliamentary privileges it is clear that the intention was to allow for Parliamentarians to carry
out their duties without fear of repercussions or a backlash for what they say in the course of
carrying out their duties. It was to allow for the operation of the principle of the separation of
powers. However, the unintended though unfortunate outcome of the privileges is that men are
abusing them to say all sorts of degrading and sexual oriented words against women. In turn,
women are responding by keeping quiet and not speaking in Parliament; in other words, as a
result of this gender insensitive conduct, women are prevented from effectively participating in
Parliament. While there are many other reasons for women’s failure to effectively participate in
Parliament, abuse of privilege as provided for in PIPPA is one of the reasons as it negatively
impacts on women’s participation. From the research, it is clear that PIPPA perpetuates the
power imbalances between women and men as men continue to ‘protect their space’ as shown by
the dominance approach. The privileges and immunities provided for by PIPPA are not meant to
place legislators above the law, but to protect them from possible groundless proceedings or
accusations that may be politically motivated. However, the application of PIPPA has the effect
of giving men special advantages resulting in the abuse of the privileges and immunities.
Privileges and immunities of Parliament are being abused to avoid sanctions for common
misconduct and crimes. MPs are exempted from accountability by the wide privileges and
immunities they enjoy resulting in impunity.
Freedom of speech as provided for under PIPPA is abused by men who use it as an excuse to
verbally abuse women. The result is female Parliamentarians not effectively participating in
Parliament as the atmosphere in Parliament becomes intimidating for them. The words often
70
include irrelevant descriptions that draw attention either to their physical characteristics or to
their femininity and derogate their stature.
While PIPPA is gender neutral in its language, its application is not neutral but gendered. The
result is that women are disadvantaged and their lived realities not captured in the language of
the law. The gender neutral language results in Parliament being run on men’s terms as the men
are the standard. It disadvantages women who are forced into becoming the silenced minority.
The abuse of Parliamentary privileges as provided for in PIPPA exacerbates other factors that
prevent women from effectively participating in Parliament. The provisions of PIPPA work to
make things worse for women coupled with low levels of education, complicated procedures in
Parliament, the adversarial system of Parliament, cultural dynamics and political party politics
which are among several obstacles to women’s effective participation in Parliament.
There is a need for Parliamentarians to change the rhetoric of women’s rights theory into
practical realities that benefit women in Parliament and women of Zimbabwe as a whole. They
should see themselves as promoters and protectors of human rights rather than their perpetrators.
Parliamentary privilege and immunity is too wide and unlimited resulting in abuse. There has to
be exceptions to include abusing words as part of contempt. Conduct that amounts to sexual,
emotional and psychological abuse of women should be punishable.
Parliament has a duty act carefully before making any law, so that it doesn't harm other rights. It
is also the duty of its Members to properly use its privileges and not misuse them for alternate or
ulterior purposes that are not in the general interest of the nation or public at large. Power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In order to prevent the corrupt use of
Parliamentary privileges, the public and the State’s other governing bodies should always be on
the look-out for any signs of such danger.
Privileges and immunities and the power of contempt are powerful tools that need to be
interpreted and exercised with extreme caution.
The research has show that there is an
unjustified or mala fide exercise of these powers resulting in discrimination and prejudice against
71
women. It has also revealed that there is a need for the law on privileges and immunities of
Parliament to have a real relation to the lives of women and their experiences in Parliament. The
law should empower the women to expose the abuses that arise due to PIPPA and as MacKinnon
puts it:
“Once women are empowered to expose its harms in their everyday lives, there is no
place left to hide its abuses.”35
6.2
Recommendations
It is with the aforegoing in mind that I make the following recommendations which are given in
the form of an action plan as follows;
Objective:
To ensure Parliament as an institution is gender sensitive
Target:
Male and Female Parliamentarians; Parliament staff
Suggested action plan
•
Parliament is an institution sui generis, it is in its own class and as such must come up
with its own gender policy with the help of gender experts.
•
Development of a sexual harassment policy in the context of Parliament with the help of
gender experts.
•
Periodic gender training for Parliamentarians
•
Clear limited scope of immunity – it should not cover human rights abuses against
women and criminal acts. The immunity should not be absolute. The immunity regime
35
MacKinnon, (2005), p41.
72
applicable to legislators should provide for the possibility of waiving this immunity in
limited circumstances in the interests of justice and in line with human rights standards.
•
Introduction of a Code of Ethics for Parliament which is gender sensitive and not one
focusing only on MPs declaring their financial interests.
•
Amendment of PIPPA to reflect the current trends within the human rights framework. It
is also necessary to reflect that Zimbabwe is now an independent country and must as
such amend PIPPA to suit the circumstances of Zimbabwe.
•
Sharing ideas about best practices on Parliamentary privileges and immunities with other
Parliaments.
Objective:
To create gender sensitivity and awareness among women and men
Parliamentarians
Suggested action plan
•
Skills training on sexual harassment. This might enable Parliamentarians to develop
values and behaviour that will enable them to interact with each other in a positive
manner.
•
Live coverage of proceedings – knowing that there is a live recording might deter men
from abusing privilege and encourage them to behave honourably toward their male and
female counterparts.
•
The Parliamentary Women’s Caucus must strategise and advocate for the amendment of
PIPPA to suit women’s needs. There is a need to create exceptions to the privileges of
Parliament so that it does not cover personal attacks against the person or gender of an
MP.
73
•
There is need for a gender sensitive induction programme with gender as a component of
the training. The induction programme should include workshops and seminars on
mainstreaming gender and covering international women-centred obligations such as
UNSCR1325 (and the subsequent follow-up UN Security Council Resolutions such as
1820 and 1888), CEDAW, and the harmonization of non-discriminatory legislation.
•
After the induction programme, there is need for continuous refresher courses on gender.
•
Foster gender dialogue in Parliament among female and male Parliamentarians to
stimulate debate around key issues.
74
Bibliography
Bauer, G., and Britton, H.E eds. (2006). Women in African Parliaments. Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Boulder, Colo
Bentzon, A. W et al (1998) Pursuing Grounded Theory in Law: South North Experiences in
Developing Women’s Law. Harare, Mond Books; Oslo, Tano-Aschehough
Britton H.E. (2005). Women in the South African Parliament: From Resistance to Governance.
University of Illinois Press. Urbana and Chicago
Commission on Gender Equality, et al. (1999). Redefining Politics: South African Women and
Democracy. CGE, Johannesburg
Cook, R.J. and Cusack, S. (2010). Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Cott, N.F. (1987). The Grounding of Modern Feminism. Yale University Press, New Haven
Dahl, T.S. (1987).Women’s law: an introduction to feminist jurisprudence. Oslo, Norwegian
University Press
Foster, S.J et al eds. (1999). Women in Politics & Decision-making: A Gendered Political
Analysis. Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF), Harare.
Gallagher, M. (2001) Gender Setting: New Agendas for Media Monitoring and Advocacy.
London: Zed Books.
Hellum, A., Knudsen, A. L. S. (2007), “From Human Development to human rights, A Southern
African Perspective on Women and Teenage Girls’ right to reproductive choice”, In: Hellum, A.,
et al (eds), Human Rights, Plural Legalities and Gendered Realities: Paths are made by walking.
Weaver Press and SEARCWL
IPU (2010). Review of Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Gender Programme: Promoting Gender
Equality in Politics. Final Report. IPU
Jaggar, A. and Rothenberg, P. (1993). Feminist frameworks. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jaggar A.M. (1983). Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers. The
Harvester Press Sussex
MacKinnon C. A. (2005) Women’s Lives-Men’s Laws. The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press
75
MacKinnon C. A (1989) Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. In: Brodgman. J and Mills S.,
eds, Feminist Perspectives on Law: Law’s Engagement with the Female Body, Sweet and
Maxwell, London
MacKinnon C., 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Cambridge, MA:
Havard University Press
Macreadie R. and Gardiner G. (2010). An Introduction to Parliamentary Privilege. Research
Service, Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Victoria,
Australia
Marleau R. and Montpetit C. (2000), ed., House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Available
online at http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec (Accessed 5
January 2012)
May T.E. (1971) Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of
Parliament. Eighteenth Edition. Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. London
Morna C.L. ed. (2004). Ringing up the Changes: Gender in Southern African Politics. Gender
Links, Johannesburg
Mywage.org/Zimbabwe: Sexual Harassment http://www.mywage.org/zimbabwe/main/decentwork-check/sexual-harassment (Accessed on 12 March 2012)
Nyamu-Musembi C. and A. Cornwall (2004). What is the ‘rights-based approach’ all about?
Perspectives from international development agencies. IDS Working Paper 234, Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton
Pantii M., Literary review for the project Gender, Politics and Media: Challenging Stereotypes,
Promoting,Diversity,Strengthening,Equality
http://www.portrayingpolitics.net/research3.php#3 Accessed on 9 March 2012
Rai, S.M (2008). The Gender Politics of Development: essays in hope and despair. Zubaan, New
Delhi and Zed Books, London |New York
Roberts, H., ed. (1981). Doing Feminist Research. Routledge, London and New York
Schneir, M. (1994). Feminism: the essential historical writings. Vintage, New York
Sreberny, A. and van Zoonen E. (2000) (eds.) Gender, politics and communication. Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press
Tamale, S. (1999). When Hens Begin to Crow: Gender and Parliamentary Politics in Uganda,
Fountain Publishers, Kampala
Tong, R. (1994), Feminist Thought, A comprehensive Introduction, London, Routledge
76
United Kingdom, (1967) House of Commons, Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges
Report, HC34
United Nations Office at Vienna Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs,
(1992). Women in Politics and Decision-Making in the Late Twentieth Century: A United
Nations Study. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Wells D. (2006) “Current challenges for the doctrine of Separation of Powers – the ghosts in the
machinery of government” Lecture given at Queensland University of Technology on 26 April.
QUTLVV V.6:1:105-117.Available online at
http://ljj.law.qut.edu.au/editions/v6n1/pdf/7_Wells.pdf (Accessed on 14 March 2012)
Women Watch: What is sexual harassment?
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf (Accessed on 13 March 2012)
Wood, Julia. 1994. “Saying It Makes It So: The Discursive Construction of Sexual Harassment.”
In Shereen Bingham, ed., Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport,
Conn.: Praeger
Wright B. (2007), “Patterns of change – Parliamentary privilege” Australian Parliament. Found
online at http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/PUBS/occpub/privileges.pdf
ZLHR (Undated). Compilation of Key International and Regional Instruments for Women
Human Rights Defenders Documents. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
77