Ugandan women’s political mobilisation
_
‘United we stand; divided we fall’ – Women representatives’
‘gendered politics’ in Uganda’s multiparty Parliament
Word Count: 10,000
Table of Contents
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Research & Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………..7
(1) Women’s representation – problems and possibilities………………………….8
-The Shortcomings of Uganda’s affirmative action policy…………………………8
-Towards more effective participation – two contrasting views………………...9
(2) Women in the transition to multiparty politics……………………………………13
-A Brief history of Ugandan politics pre-2006………………………………………...13
-Changing views on women’s political involvement………………………………..14
-The Return of party pluralism – political opening or more of the same?....15
-A Feminist evaluation of the multiparty system…………………………………….18
-Unity in partisan surroundings……………………………………………………………20
(3) Building a gendered politics…………………………………………………………………24
-Women representatives – a gendered ‘consciousness’?......................................24
-Holding women to account………………………………………………………………….29
-Acting through UWOPA – gender and the women’s agenda…………………...31
(4) Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………...37
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………..39
2
Abbreviations
CEDOVIP
Centre for Domestic Violence
Prevention
DP
Democratic Party
FDC
Forum for Democratic Change
FOWODE
Forum for Women in Democracy
M&D Bill
Marriage and Divorce Bill
MGLSD
Ministry of Gender, Labour and
Social Development
NRM
National Resistance Movement
UPC
Uganda People’s Congress
UWONET
Uganda Women’s Network
UWOPA
Uganda Women’s Parliamentary
Association (women’s caucus)
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor for her many good suggestions throughout
the writing-up process. I would also like to thank Hon. Emma Boona for
accepting me as her intern and introducing me to the Parliament of Uganda and
the Uganda Women’s Parliamentary Association (UWOPA). Special
acknowledgements also go to Rita Atukwasa, the UWOPA coordinator, for
welcoming me as an observer in UWOPA meetings. I would also like to give a
special thanks to all the people who volunteered their time to let me interview
them: Hon. Emma Boona, Ms. Rita Atukwasa, Hon. Margaret Baba Diri, Hon. Betty
Amongi, Hon. Betty Nambooze, Hon. Amos Lugoloobi, Hon. Franca Akello, Hon.
Grace Namara, Hon. Ibi Ekwau, Hon. Krispus Ayena, Hon. Rosemary
Nyakikongoro, Hon. Ruth Acheng, Hon. Winifred Kiiza, Mr. Richard Makumbi,
and Mr. Julius Mukunda.
4
Introduction
During the 1990s and 2000s, sub-Saharan Africa emerged as a region with
some of the highest rates of female legislative representation in the world (Tripp et
al., 2009, 1). Within this general trend, Uganda stands out as one of the first states to
adopt affirmative action policies for women in 1989 (Tripp, 2003, 3). This formal
inclusion of women in Ugandan politics raises the question: to what extent do
women representatives ensure an effective representation of women’s interests?
This question calls for some initial clarification. In particular, ‘women’s
interests’ remain difficult to define. Feminist politics rests on the assumption that
women do share certain interests. However, many feminist scholars and activists
stress the need to avoid an essentialist view that fails to take into account
differences emerging along class, religious, occupational or other relevant, social
lines. One means of avoiding the ‘false homogeneity imposed by the notion of
women’s interests’ is to focus explicitly on women’s ‘gender’ interests as defined by
their distinct social position (Molyneux, 1985, 232). Scholars suggest that ‘effective
representation’ of women’s interests as a gender involves identifying ‘strategic’
interests associated with an ‘emancipationist’ aim to overcome women’s
subordination in the domestic division of labour, employment, access to property,
political inclusion, institutionalized legal or policy norms, and so on (Sapiro, 1981,
703-4; Molyneux, 1985). These ‘strategic’ interests contrast with more immediate,
‘practical’ concerns, which although deserving of attention, do not point the way
towards fundamental change. Emancipationist aims in Uganda include controversial
legislative and budgetary priorities addressing ‘strategic’ concerns, such as marital
property rights, inheritance rights, protection from domestic abuse, attention to
maternal health, agricultural support and other underfunded yet crucial services and
programme areas.
The literature on Uganda presents two contrasting, theoretical views on the
likelihood of women representatives pursuing an emancipationist agenda in keeping
with the above characterization. Goetz (2002), in what is here referred to as her
‘party first’ view, portrays women representatives’ inclusion on the basis of gender
identity as ‘anti-political’—detached from any principled mandate and vulnerable to
5
cooptation by the ruling regime. She emphasises the importance of party
competition as a means of ensuring representatives’ accountability and political
independence. By contrast, Tamale (1999) and Ahikire (2002 & 2007), in their
‘gendered politics’ argument, highlight the value of women representatives’
personal experience as a basis for developing a distinct political ‘consciousness’ and
commitment to gendered political values and aims.
The present study will evaluate these contrasting views, using fieldwork data
to develop an updated analysis of women parliamentarians’ political mobilisation
following Uganda’s 2005 transition to a multiparty system. The study focuses on the
attitudes of individual women MPs as well as their collective action through the
Uganda Women’s Parliamentary Association (UWOPA), i.e. the women’s caucus. The
first section of the study presents the Ugandan affirmative action policy and outlines
Goetz, Tamale, and Ahikire’s theoretical claims. The second section assesses Goetz’s
‘party first’ view through an examination of parliamentary independence and
emancipationist politics both before and after the multiparty transition. This section
suggests that Goetz (2002) exaggerates the potential gains of multiparty politics; it
illustrates the importance, both pre- and post-2005, of women parliamentarians’
strategy of non-partisan, collective mobilization, which enables them to make the
most of the democratic opening in what remains a ‘hybrid’ regime.1 Building on this
critique of the ‘party first’ view, the third section explores how, even after the
multiparty transition, the ‘gendered politics’ perspective better explains women’s
shared commitment and accountability to a particular set of emancipationist aims.
Fieldwork revealed how women politicians, through their commitment to a nonpartisan, gendered politics, transform the women’s caucus into a site for
independent mobilization from which to challenge government law and policy.
Women representatives contribute significantly to the effective representation of
women, in the process adding depth to Uganda’s democratic politics.
Research and Methodology
1
‘Hybrid’ here denotes constitutionalism and electoral competition within a framework
of authoritarian constraint (van de Walle, 2002; Tripp, 2010).
6
The original data used in this study was gathered during a two-month
internship in the Parliament of Uganda for the MP Hon. Emma Boona. My stay in
Parliament (July-September 2011) coincided with the beginning of the ninth
parliamentary session (2011-2016). It overlapped with the budgetary review process
for 2011-2012 and with the development of the UWOPA five-year Strategic Plan,
which outlines the agenda for the women’s caucus in the ninth Parliament.
In the role of ‘observer-as-participant’ (Bryman, 2008, 410), I attended
meetings of the parliamentary committees on Gender and Social Services, among
others. I also followed the planning process for the UWOPA Strategic Plan, attending
conferences and consultations. I recorded these meetings, transcribing relevant
segments. I also conducted fifteen semi-structured interviews averaging 45 minutes
in length. Twelve interviews were conducted with MPs (ten women and two men),
two with representatives of women’s NGOs, and one with the coordinator of
UWOPA. All interviews were recorded with the informed consent of the participants
and later transcribed.
The combination of qualitative methods of participant observation and indepth interviewing helped bring into focus the perceptions, activities and objectives
of the women parliamentarians (Esterberg, 2002, 58-9). Observations of meetings
were particularly helpful for identifying recurring themes in women
parliamentarians’ political discourse and for assessing the more subtle claims of a
‘gendered politics’ hypothesis. The interviews helped me test the accuracy of my
impressions through individual feedback. The semi-structured nature of the
interviews left room for interviewees to redirect the focus of discussion. This
enabled me to explore new themes as well as gain access to private opinions and
perceptions. Finally, by triangulating data from both observation and interviews, I
assessed the credibility of my analysis, given the diverse possible accounts of the
social reality studied (Bryman, 2008, 379).
7
(1) Women’s representation – problems and possibilities
Shortcomings of Uganda’s affirmative action policy
Uganda’s formal inclusion of women in politics implies a progressive attitude
among the country’s ruling elite. As leader of the National Resistance Movement
(NRM)2, President Yoweri Museveni supported the creation of one reserved seat for
women at all levels of the decentralized, local council system. He also granted
reserved seats for women in Parliament, one for each district (Goetz, 2002, 556). The
creation of new districts has pushed the number of women in Parliament on an
affirmative action ticket up from 34 in 1989 to 112 in the current, ninth Parliament
(“Composition of Parliament”, 2012; “History of Parliament, 2012). Increasingly,
women have also contested on a ‘direct ticket’ to represent constituencies, which
are contained within the larger district and are open to both men and women,
although often viewed as ‘for men’. In total, there are 135 women in the ninth
Parliament, viz. roughly 35% of all MPs (IPU Parline database, 2010).3 As of 2006, all
women district representatives are elected by universal adult suffrage, rather than
by an electoral college (Malin, 2010, 11).
Despite the apparent gender sensitivity underlying Uganda’s affirmative
action policies, the relevant literature on women’s political inclusion highlights a
number of factors limiting the effective representation of women. In her study of
women parliamentarians, Tamale (1999) emphasises how, in legal terms, the
Ugandan affirmative action policy in no way calls for women representatives to
represent women per se. Whereas the constitutional affirmative action provisions
for other ‘special interest’ groups require ‘representatives of the army, youth,
workers, persons with disabilities […]’, the affirmative action policy for women
simply states there should be a ‘woman representative for every district’ (Tamale,
1999, 74: her emphasis). Tamale argues that this wording reinforces a view of
women as ‘status quo’ representatives rather than active ‘emancipationists’ (Ibid).
2
The NRM, the present-day ruling party, first came to power in 1986, following a protracted civil
war.
3 Women’s numbers in Parliament also reflect women’s access to other affirmative action seats
(e.g. for youth).
8
In light of this ambiguity regarding the nature and scope of women’s
constitutional mandate, scholars question the underlying motives driving the
implementation of Uganda’s affirmative action policy for women.
Tamale (1999), Goetz (2002) and Tripp (2003) present the institution of a quota
system by the NRM as a strategic move to secure the vote of women. They refer to
affirmative action itself as an ‘add-on mechanism’ which compromises the power
and legitimacy of women representatives while extending state patronage to
encompass a new clientele of forever-indebted female politicians (Goetz, 2002, 5569; Tripp, 2003, 7; Tamale, 1999, 199). As noted in Tamale (2003), Museveni himself
portrays quotas as a ‘symbolic gesture’ to ingratiate women (Tamale, 2003, 5;
Museveni, 1997, 191-2).
Enduring obstacles to women’s effective political participation reinforce the
perception that their formal inclusion falls short of a genuine commitment to
enhancing women’s ‘voice’ in politics. For example, although the Speaker of
Parliament is now a woman, women MPs are rarely selected as chairpersons in
parliamentary committees and, despite a greater number of women ministers,
women have yet to gain access to Museveni’s inner circle, which includes the prime
minister and deputies responsible for setting Cabinet meeting agendas (Kadaga,
UWOPA conference, 05/08/2011).
Towards more effective participation – two contrasting views
The shortcomings of Uganda’s affirmative action policy raise the question of
how best to ensure that women’s political inclusion adds to the effective
representation of women’s interests. Two main positions emerge in the literature on
this point, the aforementioned ‘party first’ (Goetz) and ‘gendered politics’
perspectives (Tamale; Ahikire). These positions, in turn, map onto Pitkin (1967) and
Phillips’ (1995) conceptual distinctions between ‘substantive’ representation or ‘the
politics of ideas’, on the one hand, and ‘descriptive’ representation or ‘the politics of
presence’, on the other.
In her ‘party first’ account, Goetz (2002) suggests the mere inclusion of
women through affirmative action measures constitutes an “anti-political” approach
9
to representation (Goetz, 2002, 559; Goetz & Hassim, 2003, 12). Under these
conditions, gender becomes a “proxy for social and political values held by
individuals” without any process in place for “winnowing out likely candidates
according to effectiveness in promoting a particular party platform or social
program” (Goetz, 2002, 559). Given these apparent limitations, Goetz argues that
party “conflict and antagonism” may reinforce women’s effective representation
(Goetz, 2002, 559; Cornwall & Goetz, 2005, 796; Goetz, 2009, 15). Whereas “women
in office do not necessarily defend a feminist position”, the “accountability
relationships” established through “political party affiliation” and policy-oriented
politics provide a more secure basis for representation of constituency interests
(Cornwall & Goetz, 2005, 784-5). This is particularly true in a context where women
are perceived as in a sense beholden to the patriarchal indulgence of the Executive’s
affirmative action policy.
Goetz’s emphasis on representatives’ accountability is in keeping with both
Pitkin’s notion of ‘substantive’ representation and Phillips’ ‘politics of ideas’. These
forms of representative politics rely on “explicitly set out programmes and policies”
that enable us to “think of our representatives as bound to certain courses of action”
and subject to a “retrospective holding to account” (Phillips, 1995, 156). In stressing
the importance of parties in this process, Goetz directly references Phillips, who
admits that, unless the parties women join advocate “an explicitly woman-friendly
programme (which men might claim they were equally capable of pursuing), there is
no guarantee that women will represent women’s interests” (Cornwall & Goetz citing
Phillips, 2005, 785). In keeping with this view, Goetz describes parties in somewhat
ideal-typical terms as “key institutions through which to promote gender-equality
concerns in democratic states because they provide arenas for debating policies,
mobilizing citizens behind social change agendas, and securing a popular mandate for
change” (Goetz, 2009, 11). In sum, the ‘party first’ perspective emphasises the
overriding need for more robust party-based competition both to ensure women’s
accountability to emancipationist aims and to free them from subservience to a
restrictive Executive.
In their contrasting ‘gendered politics’ view, Tamale (1999) and Ahikire (2002
& 2007) give more weight to the political significance of women’s politicians’
10
personal experience. Women’s exposure to conservative expectations as well as the
discrimination and harassment they suffer—in the home, as candidates, and as MPs
in Parliament—contribute to their gendered ‘consciousness’, to the ‘separate prism’
through which they view politics (Tamale, 1999, 86; Ahikire, 2002). This
‘consciousness’, in turn, appears to structure women representatives’ distinctive
constituency and legislative work, particularly their focus on gender equity and
development concerns (Tamale, 1999, 80 & 158; Ahikire, 2007, 162-166). In this
sense, a focus on gender and inclusion, far from ‘anti-political’, may give rise to its
own unique pattern of ‘gendered politics’.
These scholars emphasise—along with Tripp (2000)—the importance of a
strong women’s movement. The priority is for women to “move beyond a reliance on
top-down state reforms” and to “mount a more proactive and autonomous struggle”
(Ahikire, 2002). This can be achieved, not through party competition but rather by
creating “solidarity between women as political candidates” so that women are “less
likely to succumb to or collude with patriarchal processes of selection” (Ibid; also
Tamale, 1999, 198). A ‘gendered politics’ view thus suggests a search for different
ways of doing politics that go beyond the institutional forms of party competition.
Gendered consciousness, autonomous political organizing, and group solidarity
combine to form the basis of a possible alternative.
The ‘gendered politics’ analysis resembles Pitkin’s conception of
representation as ‘descriptive’ or ‘mirror image’, although Pitkin prefers the strong
accountability ties of ‘substantive’ representation to the seemingly weak assurance
of shared understanding when representing like with like. By contrast, Phillips is more
wary of the potential for ‘substantive’ representation or the ‘politics of ideas’ to
neglect the interests of marginalized groups. She instead emphasises the importance
of a combination of the ‘politics of ideas’ and the ‘politics of presence’, which
stresses the value of shared experience and gender identity linking the
representative and represented.
In the following sections, this study evaluates these theoretical claims in light
of Uganda’s recent transition to a multiparty system. In particular, it assesses the
11
extent to which the contrasting ‘party first’ and ‘gendered politics’ views help
account for women representatives’ varying success in pursing feminist aims.
12
(2) Women in the transition to multiparty politics
This section adopts a historical outlook, highlighting the continuity between
Uganda’s pre-2005 ‘no-party’ regime and its current multiparty system. This
approach helps contextualize Goetz’s (2002) ‘party first’ view as an apt response to
the political challenges of the early 2000s. From a present-day vantage point,
however, Goetz’s account appears overly sanguine. It fails to anticipate the
shortcomings of multiparty politics while underestimating the enduring importance
of no-party style non-partisan coalition building, both for asserting parliamentary
independence and, more specifically, for pursuing emancipationist aims in Uganda’s
hybrid regime.
A brief history of Uganda’s ‘no-party’ politics
Museveni and the NRM rose to power in 1986 in the wake of a turbulent
post-Independence history of authoritarian violence (Tripp, 2004, 4). The NRM
promised fundamental change in Uganda’s politics, promoting democratic
participation while avoiding the politicization of ethnic cleavages associated with
Uganda’s prior experience of multiparty politics (Carbone, 2008, 21). Museveni
proposed to achieve this dual aim through the institution of a ‘broad based’
‘Movement’ or ‘no-party’ system of governance (Museveni, 1992). No-party rule
incorporated grassroots democracy through a decentralized system of local councils
while allowing for political competition with “individual merit as the basis for
election to political office” (Carbone, 2008, citing the 1995 Constitution, 23). The
idea was that ‘individual merit’ would eliminate the possibility of political parties
channelling communal antagonism (Museveni, 1992; Carbone, 2008, 8 & 23). Parties
could still maintain a headquarters, but their activities were otherwise severely
constrained.
The no-party system initially met with praise both at home and abroad. A
standard assessment in the literature, however, suggests that what began as a truly
inclusive Movement narrowed to centre on Museveni’s elite leadership circle with its
own ethnic-based patronage network (Tripp, 2004; Carbone, 2008; Pankhurst, 2002;
13
Kasfir & Twebaze, 2009; Makara et al., 2009). Calls for multiparty reform in the
1990s prompted the consolidation of NRM power, notably with the 1997 Movement
Act (Carbone, 2008, 187). However, the real turning point came with political
opposition to the NRM in the 2001 parliamentary and presidential elections (Ibid,
195). Museveni and the NRM responded by using state resources to campaign for
candidates sympathetic to the Movement (Kasfir & Twebaze, 2009, 83). Political
control within the core of Movement elite also tightened. Although a number of
prominent NRM politicians denounced government corruption in the late 1990s and
early 2000s, these whistleblowers were systematically sidelined (Makara et al., 2009,
191).
The heightened political repression exposed the myth of no-party politics,
leaving the domestic opposition—and belatedly some foreign donors—to call for
democratization through a transition to multiparty politics (Carbone, 2008, 188;
Tripp, 2004).
Changing views on women’s political involvement
The negative reassessment of no-party rule prompted a similar re-evaluation
of women’s political engagement in Uganda. This about-face is of particular note in
Goetz’s work, underscoring the extent to which the ‘party first’ view is a response to
the shortcomings of no-party politics.
Initially, feminist activists appreciated both Museveni’s personal support for
women’s political inclusion and the anti-sectarianism and apparent political
openness of the no-party system (Tripp, 2000). Goetz (1998) adopts this optimistic
outlook, referring to Museveni’s support as a “tremendous piece of political luck”
(Goetz, 1998, 244). She adds that women will find it easier to build coalitions and
pursue a gender equity agenda unencumbered by party affiliations (Ibid).
By contrast, Goetz’s (2002) ‘party first’ account focuses on the political
developments of the late 1990s and early 2000s, arguing that the Museveni regime
“progressively winnowed out more democratically minded NRM members”,
transforming Uganda into a “one party state” (Goetz, 2002, 554). Goetz suggests
women are now “key to Museveni’s legitimation project”, with affirmative action
14
operating both as a “tool” for capturing women’s political support and as a “strategic
palliative” to make the NRM no-party system appear more in line with a “non-ethnic
vision of citizenship and political participation” (Goetz & Hassim, 2003, 16; Goetz,
2002, 555 & 559).
According to this view, NRM support for women’s political involvement is an
alluring straightjacket. Women are not able to “advance policy on their own terms”,
remain “susceptible to patronage and have been divided at crucial moments” (Goetz
& Hassim, 2003, 13). Goetz criticises the women’s movement and women’s
parliamentary caucus for exacerbating this situation by focusing on non-partisan,
“apolitical” women’s rights issues while failing to lobby for multiparty reform, which
she argues would ensure more favourable conditions for the pursuit of
emancipationist ambitions in future (Goetz, 2002, 561). Similarly, Dicklitch and
Lwanga (2003) criticise what they see as a pervasive tendency among Ugandans to
“engage in the politics of being non-political”; people “talk politics” but they often
do not “act on it, or at least, try to rock the Movement boat” (Dicklitch & Lwanga,
2003, 495). Women’s advocacy organizations acquiesce over contentious issues
involving key ‘strategic’ concerns, such as women’s property rights, where the NRM
and the President play an obstructionist role (Ibid, 502).
This frustration with no-party politics and women’s own inability to challenge
the NRM underpin Goetz’s growing scepticism of ‘gender’ as a basis for political
inclusion and her call for multiparty politics to ensure more effective representation
of women.
The return of political pluralism – political opening or more of the same?
The 2005 return to multiparty politics suggests a process of genuine
democratization in line with the political priorities set out by Goetz (2002). However,
deeper analysis indicates that the ‘party first’ view exaggerates the promise of
multiparty politics in Uganda while also overlooking the positive implications of noparty style parliamentary coalition building.
A number of analysts highlight how political reform was introduced with the
intent of strengthening Museveni and the NRM’s hold on power (Makara et al, 2009;
15
Kasfir and Twebaze, 2009; Carbone, 2008; Tripp, 2010). The impetus came from the
elite ruling circle in response to the unprecedented 2001 display of electoral
opposition (Makara et al., 2009, 188). Multiparty reform was used to push through
additional reform lifting presidential term limits while the transition itself was
engineered to amplify the electoral advantage of the NRM (Ibid, 193 & 198; Carbone,
2008, 191). The introduction of strict party discipline in an NRM-dominated
multiparty system has problematic implications for parliamentary independence.
Kasfir and Twebaze (2009) highlight how parliamentarians in the “rebellious” sixth
Parliament (1996-2001) relied on the ideology of “individual merit” to mobilise
against the Executive through opposition caucuses and parliamentary committees,
even when they individually pledged informal support for the Movement. By
contrast, under the multiparty system, MPs in the NRM majority run the risk of
official discipline if they join the kind of ad hoc alliances used to challenge the
Executive in the past (Kasfir and Twebaze, 2009). Multiparty politics thus appears to
reinforce the “one-party-dominated state” dynamic (Makara et al., 2009, 200;
Carbone, 2008, 199).
Weak institutionalization of the opposition parties further limits the scope for
genuine political pluralism. The two ‘traditional’ parties, the Democratic Party (DP)
and the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), have both struggled to regain their preNRM predominance. They have few MPs, retain geographically and ethnically
defined electoral bases, and suffer as a result of intra-party conflict (Carbone, 2008,
198;Observer, 28/07/2011; Observer, 8/08/2011). The Forum for Democratic Change
(FDC)—created in 2004 out of an assortment of dissident groups—has emerged as
the main opposition contender. Even so, it won only 12% of parliamentary seats in
2006 and 9.3% in 2011 (Carbone, 2008, 196; Juma & Saidi, 2011). The
unconstitutional use of state resources by the NRM and the deployment of the
police, military and paramilitary groups during election periods help account for
these low electoral gains (Makara, 2010). Another issue is voters enduring tendency
to judge candidates based on ‘individual merit’ rather than party affiliation (Juma &
Saidi, 2011; also c.f. interviews). The marginalization of the opposition parties also
impairs their ability to define a clear ideological orientation. Although a number of
opposition MPs interviewed for this study suggested they do identify with the
16
ideology and policy priorities of their party, others were more sceptical. As one DP
representative commented:
“These [minority] parties are not driven by ideologies. It is just
a group of people who think that by teaming up together we
can access power. More like freedom movements, since we
have not achieved democracy yet. […] Now it seems that it is all
of us together in the opposition against Museveni. […] Even
after Museveni, we shall have still a long way to go. We shall
have the post Museveni problems. […] [There will be] people
with different ideologies who teamed up just for the sake of
getting rid of him.” (Nambooze, 08/2011)
To a large extent, the gains that have emerged since the multiparty transition
rely on a style of parliamentary politics reminiscent of the no-party system. After a
quiescent eighth parliamentary session (2006-2011), the ninth Parliament has so far
adopted a more assertive stance, rejecting four of Museveni’s proposed ministers,
disagreeing strongly with a number of government budget provisions and policy
measures, calling for the resignation of three ministers and close Museveni political
allies embroiled in a corruption scandal, and threatening the governor of the central
bank (Independent, 25/03/12). Parliament’s newfound independent voice hinges
largely on MPs’ ability to overcome partisan obstacles to unified parliamentary
action. ‘Rebel’ NRM MPs suggest that recent success is the result of representatives
“fighting as a bipartisan parliament” while some commentators have likened the
ninth Parliament to the aforementioned sixth Parliament, famed for its crosscutting
parliamentary alliances (Ibid; Independent, 29/07/2011).
There are still clear limits restricting parliamentary independence. For
example, following a lively budgetary review process in summer of 2011, NRM and
opposition MPs alike responded in disgust as ministerial budget proposals were
pushed through Parliament at the behest of the Deputy Speaker during a recess
period with the majority of MPs absent. What is more, “bipartisan” alliances dissolve
when opposition energies are directed against Museveni personally, as became clear
17
with the “mission impossible” motion for Museveni’s impeachment (Independent,
25/03/12).
In sum, despite the formal transition to a multiparty system, Uganda has yet
to break free from the confines of a ‘hybrid’ regime. Whereas the ‘party first’ view
emphasises the benefits of party competition and accountability—both empirical
uncertainties—NRM dominance and weak party consolidation suggest no-party style
bipartisan coalition building offers a more promising strategy for challenging the
Executive in the immediate future.
A feminist evaluation of the multiparty system
Regarding feminist lobbying more specifically, weak parties coupled with
partisan and patriarchal obstacles continue to impede women’s pursuit of an
emancipationist agenda. This situation again suggests the shortcomings of the ‘party
first’ view while redirecting attention towards the potential gains of non-partisan
political mobilization.
The transition to a multiparty system has gone some way towards ensuring
that women’s interests are addressed. The NRM continues to coast on its reputation
as the party responsible for expanding women’s political horizons. However,
opposition parties are keen to compete for the support of women as a crucial voting
bloc. One former minister under the UPC government went so far as to suggest, “the
future […] of UPC lies in the youth and women” (Sunday Monitor, 29/08/2011).
Women representatives and activists alike are using this desire to court the
women’s vote as leverage to influence party policy priorities. Following the return to
pluralism in 2005, the influential women’s advocacy organisation, Forum for Women
in Democracy (FOWODE), helped coordinate national consultations with women’s
groups to outline a set of demands presented in the document, “Women’s Minimum
Demands to Political Parties and Organizations”. This was followed by “The Women’s
Manifesto 2006” and “Equal by Right: the Uganda Women’s Agenda”, which was
used to lobby political parties in the run up to the 2011 elections (FOWODE, 2010, iiiiv). Women representatives have also lobbied from within their parties, although
18
there is nothing to ensure that their demands are implemented. As one MP noted in
an interview:
We [i.e. women representatives] make sure that individual
party manifestos […] include concerns of women. For example,
[the FDC], they make sure that for […] any party body, at least
40% must be women. Even [within the] NRM […], 40% of
positions must be given to women. But what I have not seen is
the implementation part of it. (Baba Diri, 07/2011).
One additional benefit of multiparty politics is the added political space
afforded women representatives when seeking to criticise official government policy.
For example, the Shadow Minister for Gender claimed that her relations with the
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development remained good “because the
Ministry is the least funded and [needs] funds to run activities, [but] being the party
in power, they cannot talk for themselves and they need someone to blow their
trumpet […]. So that is what I am doing. I am trying to […] push for [changes]”
(Ekwau, 09/2011).
Despite these apparent gains, multiparty politics also ushered in a new set of
difficulties for women politicians. Parties themselves may not be open to women.
Hon. Amongi, the current UWOPA Chairperson, stresses how she met with
propagandistic attack from within her own party both when she ran for an
affirmative action seat and when she contested against a male candidate on a Direct
Ticket (Amongi, 07/2011). In addition to this, Amongi comments on how, despite the
incentive for parties to align themselves with women’s policy concerns, “party
agendas rarely overlap completely with female advocacy agendas, and too often, the
party agenda wins the fight” (Amongi, manuscript, 59). This situation can be
particularly trying for women representatives committed to a women’s agenda. Hon.
Baba Diri (NRM) offered anecdotal evidence, commenting:
“There are certain issues concerning women which maybe our
ruling party has not taken into consideration […]. So when you
19
come out and talk too openly or angrily, it will look as if you are
against the party. So definitely it will compromise your
allegiance to women because you feel if you talk about it, they
will not be happy. […] I remember one time I talked quite
openly, very angrily. Afterwards the prime minister called me in
and said, "Honourable, you know in this here party you cannot
talk like that". […] So it may limit your free expression on
certain issues.” (Baba Diri, 07/2011)
The above observations suggest that, although engaging with parties remains
an important part of a feminist political strategy in Uganda’s multiparty system, there
are clear obstacles limiting the potential success of this approach at present. The
weakness of opposition parties prevents them from developing a clear agenda and
operating as robust accountability mechanisms in keeping with the ‘party first’ view.
Parties’ patriarchal tendencies and partisan differences also stand in the way of
women representatives’ attempts to mobilise behind a gender policy agenda. This
difficulty hearkens back to Kasfir and Twabaze’s (2009) concerns regarding MPs’
ability to form extra-party alliances in a multiparty system. Contra Goetz, it suggests
the need to reach beyond party politics if women representatives are to succeed in
enacting an emancipationist agenda.
Unity in partisan surroundings
Women MPs acting through UWOPA have adopted a number of measures
aimed at making the most of the political space afforded them. UWOPA has
maintained its historical commitment to an autonomous, non-partisan stance (Tripp
et al., 2009, 100). The UWOPA Strategic Plan for the eighth Parliament—the first
multiparty session—cites one of its key objectives as, “to develop and promote
solidarity and mutuality between UWOPA members to enable them triumphs beyond
the ideologies of their respective political parties” (Strategic Plan 2006-2010, 8). The
updated Strategic Plan 2011-2016 reiterates this message, listing among UWOPA’s
20
core “values and principles” a commitment to “unity” and to the “promotion of a
nonpartisan spirit” (Draft Strategic Plan 2011-2016, 16).
This non-partisan commitment does not imply deference to the NRM, as
suggested by Goetz (2002). Speaking at a UWOPA conference on the Strategic Plan
for the ninth Parliament, a founding “doyenne” of UWOPA delivered the following
lesson, reminding members of the need for unity to make a political stand:
“When I started UWOPA I said, let us be united and change the
politics of Uganda to being clean politics, not dirty, rumourmongering, back-biting and jealous. Because as women we
have one cause: to fight for the women's cause. […] Whether
you are Catholic, Pagan, Christian, Muslim, DP, UPC… Forget!
When we come to UWOPA, there is no politics. […] So please,
honourable ladies, when you get to the House, do not fear to
talk women's issues. […] If women are dying in the hospitals,
stand up and point it out to the honourable ministers
responsible. […] I pray that united we shall stand; divided we
shall fall.” (UWOPA conference, 05/08/2011)
In practice, UWOPA members play multiparty politics both ways, aiming to
transcend partisan difference while also using their diverse party affiliations to
strengthen UWOPA’s associational independence. The most recent elections to the
UWOPA Executive Committee illustrate this dual dynamic. The association’s members
voted for a committee with a mix of ruling-party and opposition MPs. This result, in
addition to acting as a reaffirmation of UWOPA’s non-partisan identity, also conveyed
a strong message about UWOPA’s unfettered choice. In particular, the election of
Hon Amongi (UPC Chief Whip) as UWOPA Chairperson was interpreted in the press as
an act of defiance on the part of the majority NRM women MPs. In a dramatic
incident, the First Lady, Janet Museveni, invited the NRM women MPs to a preelection meeting to nominate an NRM candidate who they could all agree to support.
Some MPs recoiled at the excessive ‘politicization’ of the process, contributing in part
to the ultimate victory of the Hon. Amongi (Observer, 21/07/2011). The general
21
consensus was that this episode provided an indication of women MPs’ more
‘rebellious’ attitude (Independent, 29/07/2011).4
UWOPA’s emphasis on a ‘nonpartisan spirit’ merges with a broader
consensus building strategy. As UWOPA Chairperson, Hon Amongi stresses the
importance of building bipartisan support on controversial agenda items through
focused lobbying of the different Chief Whips and party caucuses (Amongi, 07/2011).
More generally, the UWOPA Strategic Plan 2011-2016 calls for women MPs to
‘advocate for women’s issues during plenary debates’ and to target policy makers
and parliamentary committees in key sectors such as social development and social
services. Women MPs also ‘build consensus’ by courting sympathetic male
‘champions’, seen as key to ensuring that ‘women’s issues’ are recognised as
‘general issues’ (Namara, 08/2011). The focus on male MPs suggests a shrewd
understanding of how best to exploit the shortcomings of the multiparty transition.
Whereas Goetz (2002) emphasises the role of parties in making MPs accountable to
their constituents, in actual fact politicians have strong incentives to adopt a
particular policy stance to build a reputation for themselves in keeping with the
“individual merit” model. This point came across in the comments delivered by a
male minister at a UWOPA conference:
“I hoped that by coming here I was making a statement. I have
a passionate commitment to women's issues, not just because I
am born of a mother, but also politically because I know that
65% of my votes actually come from women. So issues that
concern women, concern me, concern my political survival. I
therefore want to encourage you to tackle the issues that affect
women broadly. You have my support and I will help you along
with the support of so many other men.” (UWOPA conference,
05/08/2011)
4
NRM MPs’ comments and the jubilant atmosphere at the AGM following the
announcement of the election results support this interpretation.
22
These observations suggest that, far from impeding the pursuit of an
emancipationist agenda as per the ‘party first’ view, UWOPA’s non-partisan stance is
a judicious response to the weak party consolidation and enduring partisan and
patriarchal obstacles of Uganda’s multiparty system.
More generally, the historical contextualization of the ‘party first’ view
indicates how, as a response to the frustrations of no-party politics, it is overly
optimistic in its championing of multiparty reform while it fails to acknowledge the
importance of no-party style bipartisan consensus building in the pursuit of
parliamentary independence and feminist objectives. In a hybrid regime where party
politics are constrained and controversial initiatives routinely thwarted, this
conciliatory approach is adopted as an effective long-term strategy.
23
(3) Building a gendered politics
This final section explores the driving factors behind women
parliamentarians’ joint political mobilisation in the absence of party ideology and
accountability mechanisms. In keeping with Tamale and Ahikire’s ‘gendered politics’
hypothesis, it examines how women politicians’ personal experience of gender bias
informs their political ‘consciousness’ and shared commitments. It then documents
how the ‘gendered politics’ of the women’s caucus reinforces women’s
accountability to an emancipationist agenda, hence their effective representation of
women’s interests.
Women representatives – a gendered ‘consciousness’?
A wealth of commentary gathered from observations and interviews
conducted for this study illustrates the varying ways women politicians experience
gender bias—in their private lives, their constituencies, their parties, and Parliament
itself. In many instances, this gender bias appears to place women politicians in a
similar position to that of their women constituents.
Regarding women’s domestic experience, MPs gathered together for UWOPA
meetings frequently discussed the trials of married life. These light-hearted
conversations lost their soft edge when addressing more concrete pressures faced
within the home. Women MPs explicitly cite their economic obligations vis-à-vis their
husbands as evidence of a shared set of concerns linking them to their far more
economically disadvantaged women constituents.
This issue was brought to the fore during a UWOPA discussion of the Marriage
and Divorce Bill (M&D), which guarantees women’s marital property rights (UWOPA
meeting, 29/08/2011). Reflecting on the various obstacles blocking the passage of
the bill, a non-MP woman suggested that part of the problem is that “women MPs
are not suffering because of the M&D Bill not being there. It is the women down
there who are suffering. Which man is going to divorce his wife when she is the
woman MP bringing in money […]? Unless it is the woman MP who wants to divorce
her husband, it is not the issue for them.” Upon hearing this statement, a woman MP
24
present quickly rejoined, “you know, those loans we got [for vehicles], most of [the
women MPs] gave it to their husbands so that they could have peace. It is bad. It is
bad.” Thus the implication was that women MPs share in the struggle over property
ownership and financial autonomy in their private lives.
As argued by Ahikire (2002 & 2007), the blurring of women politicians’ private
and public lives becomes all the more pronounced during campaigns. Interviewees
repeatedly hinted at how the act of running for political office might, in and of itself,
heighten women’s awareness of restrictive gender expectations as their own
conformity to such prescribed norms came under public scrutiny. The following
statement provides a telling example:
“[As a woman representative], a home is your first constituency
because in the African setting, if you are to represent a woman,
the first qualification you should have is you should be a
woman with a stable family […]. If you [contest] when you are
not married, then you have so many other questions to answer,
which are not even related to the job you are going to do.”
(Kiiza, 08/2011)
A forceful statement delivered by a young, unmarried MP at a UWOPA conference
gives some indication of what kinds of ‘other questions’ an unmarried women might
face. The MP in question decried how “women out there in the field, we are
threatened, we are called all sorts of names, ‘prostitutes’, especially us newcomers.
[…] You are called everything you can imagine” (UWOPA conference, 05/08/2011).
In addition to exposing women’s private lives to conservative social sanction,
popular prejudices inform preconceived notions of women’s political identity as
representatives. Hon. Kiiza’s phrase, “if you are to represent women…” deserves a
second reading. The assumption is clearly that women MPs represent women with
‘represent’ here taken to mean: conform to a conservative archetype of womanhood.
This point comes across even more strongly in Hon. Akello’s comments:
“There is a tendency [for] voters looking at you as a woman [to
25
think of you] much more as somebody who caters to women
more than the men. Actually, they think [...], for you, you are
supposed to be cooking in the kitchen.” (UWOPA meeting,
22/08/2012)
This statement further implies that women’s decision to run for political office
already constitutes a major transgression.
Women politicians continue to face obstacles within their constituencies even
after elections. Women district representatives, in particular, note how they are
upstaged by male MPs representing constituencies contained within the woman MP’s
district. In interviews, these women MPs commented on how local council
chairpersons would often think to invite only the male constituency MP to public
functions, or else entrust a keynote speech to the male rather than female
representative. Women MPs also expressed frustration when their arrival at a public
event was met with disappointment as constituents expressed a desire to meet with
their ‘real’ MP.
In addition to these more localised constraints, women politicians confront
obstacles within party organizations and Parliament. Although the chief whips of
both the FDC and the UPC are women, as is the FDC Secretary, these parties remain
male-dominated institutions. FDC women MPs fault their party for failing to honour
its constitutional requirement to allocate 40% of party positions to women. The UPC
Chief Whip indicated in an interview that the party President opposed her bid for the
position, which she won by donning the conventional role of welcoming hostess,
offering support to UPC MPs new to Parliament by helping them find accommodation
in the capital (Amongi, 07/2011). All parties failed to choose women as chairpersons
on parliamentary committees, resulting in only three women chairpersons at present
in the ninth Parliament, an omission that left women MPs outraged. Less blatant
forms of gender discrimination include the widespread assumption within Parliament
that women are less competent than their male counterparts. Women MPs are
conscious of this perception and express sympathy when they fear other women are
being judged, regardless of party affiliation.
26
This account of women’s exposure to gender discrimination leaves the
political significance of this experience uncertain. In keeping with Tamale and Ahikire
analysis, women MPs clearly express sympathy for both women constituents and
fellow women politicians. A number of MPs emphasised this capacity for sympathy
when conveying their understanding of the rationale behind the Ugandan affirmative
action policy:
“That was […] why affirmative action was created. It is not that
[women] have numbers in Parliament or in councils but when
you are there, what are you doing to change the women’s
lives? […] We felt maybe it would be too much for the men or
maybe they would not care. Maybe they would be interested in
other issues. It takes a woman to understand what a woman
goes through really.” (Boona, 09/2011)
In a way reminiscent of the ‘politics of presence’, this statement suggests women’s
understanding of “what a woman goes through” enables them to bring otherwise
neglected women’s interests to the fore. Interviewees’ self-declared commitment to
women’s interests corroborates this assessment of the woman MP’s role. Despite the
absence of any constitutional requirement to act as the ‘representative of women’
(Tamale, 1999), nine out of ten women MPs interviewed for this study professed a
specific interest in representing women’s concerns. Although this is not a
representative sample size, the results nonetheless suggest women MPs do pay
special attention to women’s interests.
There are problems, however, with relying on self-reported evidence of
women’s gendered ‘consciousness’ and political aims. Women politicians may have a
vested political interest in projecting a particular image of themselves and their aims
(Lovenduski et al, 2003). It is also important not to assume too strong a link between
women’s diverse, if similarly patterned, experiences and some essentialist identity or
shared set of feminist priorities, a point discussed below.
Nevertheless, women’s self-reported evidence aside, the process of sharing
personal experience of discrimination contributes in a vital, if subtle way to the
27
distinct ‘consciousness’ and esprit de corps that drives debate within the women’s
caucus. At larger UWOPA meetings, the invocation of women’s shared struggle and
their common cause contributes to the elated atmosphere. Addressing a UWOPA
conference, with women MPs from both past and present parliaments in attendance,
the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Kadaga captured the mood with these opening lines:
“Today is a very, very happy day. Very happy indeed because
the objectives of UWOPA, the vision of UWOPA is visible,
because we have got our elders. When we started UWOPA, we
wanted it to be a bridge between the present, the past and the
future and I see the past, I see the present and I see the
future.” (UWOPA conference, 05/08/2011)
Hon. Kadaga’s speech was met with applause, shouts of “women power” and a
celebratory ululation commonly sung by Ugandan women. A sense of solidarity borne
out of a shared gender experience and aims also pervades smaller UWOPA
gatherings. Discussion of specific agenda items, such as the M&D bill, blends into
colourful personal narrative, linking women MPs to the issues at hand whilst adding
energy to the deliberations. Women MPs’ attention is also roused by more direct
considerations of their own predicament, prompting calls for “capacity building” for
women representatives to enable them to manage technical work, e.g. budgetary
oversight, and thereby to escape ridicule. UWOPA thus provides a forum within
which women’s personal and political experiences form part of a distinctive political
‘consciousness’ and an emphatic commitment to feminist objectives.
Taken as a whole, this analysis is in keeping with a ‘gendered politics’ view. It
does not, however, respond to Cornwall and Goetz’s (2005) emphasis on the lack of a
‘guarantee’ that women parliamentarians will stay committed to representing
women’s interests (citing Phillips, 2005, 785). It remains to be seen how women
might deviate from a ‘gendered politics’ trend and how the women’s caucus ensures
more reliable accountability to a women’s agenda.
28
Holding women to account
Women’s experiences do not all contribute to a productive, consciousnessraising process. Conservative popular prejudices may, far from rousing MPs’ feminist
instincts, actually blunt their dedication to the pursuit of an ambitious ‘gendered
politics’ (Tamale, 1999, 74). For example, both male and female representatives of
areas where female genital mutilation (FGM) is commonly practiced have been
accused of remaining silent on this issue despite the recent ban on FGM. In this
instance, by not speaking out, MPs avoid jeopardizing their electoral prospects.
Moreover, although a perception of shared gender concerns appears to
contribute to women’s ability to bridge social divides (e.g. differences in class
interests as suggested in a previous passage), certain representatives may still
respond to conflicting class, ethnic, or religious partialities. As one MP observed:
“Much as we have […] an agenda, someone may have her
personal views depending on her background. […] On the M&D
Bill, some women resisted it on the name alone. Why look at
marriage and then divorce? It is like you are married one day
and then you want to break it. This is particularly problematic if
MPs have a strong religious background. The bill is opposed by
the church and by mosques” (Namara, 08/2011)
This statement is a reminder of the competing social influences shaping women’s
outlook on gender issues, not all of which point towards a feminist outcome.
Women politicians may also reject an explicit focus on women’s issues for
other reasons. For example, one of the non-affirmative action, woman MPs
interviewed for this study professed a desire to remain an active member of UWOPA
but stressed that her job was to represent her entire constituency. She saw no reason
to single out women within a context of generalized poverty (Nambooze, 08/2011).
Finally, despite women’s recent gains in terms of ministerial positions, there is
nothing as yet in place to ensure that these political promotions surpass the “level of
special pleading and success in gaining patronage appointments” (Goetz, 2002, 572).
29
Indeed, more recent commentary echoes Goetz’ sceptical attitude. Although the 22
women ministers currently serving in the Ugandan cabinet pledged to promote
adequate service delivery as well as to ensure women’s economic empowerment,
many observers remain doubtful of their likely performance (New Vision,
27/06/2011). Former Ethics Minister and prominent feminist activist Miria Matembe
warned that many women ministers would toe the government line (Ibid). Matembe
also expressed a feeling of betrayal regarding the failed attempt to advance the M&D
Bill during the eighth parliamentary session, an outcome she views as in part the
result of women MPs’ siding with the President (Ibid). Women MPs in UWOPA
meetings are also quick to convey their dissatisfaction with the performance of
women in top, ministerial positions. One MP recalled with irritation:
“When I was on the Committee of Natural Resources, we [told]
the ministers, 'remember there are women'. The response they
gave us was just a simple statement: 'yes, in our budgeting we
did cater for this'. And that was it. We said, ‘but what shows
that you did? Perhaps some sub-sector report?’ [...] Actually, it
is visible in these reports that these ministries are not serious.”
(UWOPA meeting, 22/08/2011)
Although individuals in more prominent political positions may fail to exert
pressure on government, these instances of ‘special pleading’ and ‘patronage
appointments’ (Goetz, 2002) have their counterpoint in the collective focus and
commitment of UWOPA and its membership. The above statement prompted the
following exchange between UWOPA members:
-“But actually, our women ministers are the worst. We
advocate, ‘there are not enough women on cabinet or in the
ministry’ and when they reach there, they think they have gone
there.
-Yes, they forget about us
-They think they have become men.
30
-They become part of government.
-We
must
whip
them. [Laughter]”
(UWOPA
meeting,
22/08/2011)
Women MPs thus make the wry suggestion that UWOPA act as a political party in its
own right, exercising the power to ‘whip’ its members into line.
Individual women MPs do appear to follow through on their oversight
mandate when challenging women ministers during parliamentary committee
meetings. For example, women MPs were among the loudest critics of the ministerial
policy statements presented by the women ministers of Gender and Health for the
financial year 2011-2012. MPs “vowed to block the Ministry of Health budget” with
women on the Parliamentary Committee for Social Services demanding more
resources for maternal health (Daily Monitor, 16/08/2011).
More generally, the awareness-raising and mobilizing effects of UWOPA
meetings help ensure a critical mass of women MPs remain actively committed to an
emancipationist women’s agenda, despite the more conservative tendencies of some
representatives. This is best illustrated through a study of the political objectives of
the women’s caucus and the actions taken in order to achieve them.
Acting through UWOPA – gender and the women’s agenda
The literature on women’s movements across much of sub-Saharan Africa
underscores the ambitious nature of activists’ political agendas, which may surpass
the would-be comprehensive qualities of an ideologically driven party platform.
Tripp et al. (2009) argue that, given the weakness of many existing African political
parties, “women’s NGO coalitions and networks often [represent] a more stable
coalescence of interests” (Tripp et al., 2009, 89: emphasis added). This ‘coalescence’
goes well beyond a seemingly narrow set of ‘gender’ concerns. Regarding the
Ugandan case, Tripp et al. note that the women’s movement positions “women’s
interests” within a broader spectrum of social justice concerns, touching on issues to
do with land, hunger, poverty and corruption among others (Tripp et al., 2009, 89).
31
The more recent activities of the women’s caucus confirm this view of
ambitious feminist aims, in particular as evinced by women parliamentarians’
commitment to challenging government law and policy. Discussion surrounding the
formulation of the UWOPA Strategic Plan 2011-2016, the agenda for the ninth
Parliament, drew attention to the need for women politicians to take advantage of
their unique political position to address key legal and policy areas. As noted by the
chair of a consultative workshop:
“We found that in the previous strategic plan, the activities
UWOPA was undertaking […] did not capture UWOPA's
comparative advantage. […] We agreed that for the next five
years […], we should capitalize on our legislative role […]; that
we should capitalize on advocating for increased allocation of
resources to the various areas that help women: maternal
health, economic empowerment, […]. We also looked at the
oversight
role
of
Parliament.”
(UWONET
workshop,
03/08/2011)
The political ambition conveyed through this statement shaped the backbone
of the actual Strategic Plan. Its two main ‘strategic directions’ are ‘Engendering
Legislation and Policy’ and ‘Equitable Allocation of Resources’. The UWOPA
legislative and policy agenda is notable for the breadth of issues it covers, ranging
from availability of water through to more ‘strategic’ issues at the root of women’s
socio-economic marginalization, namely property rights and inheritance (Plan, 18).
UWOPA’s second strategic direction, ‘equitable allocation of resources’, implies a
similarly comprehensive approach to issues affecting service delivery, aiming to
address “inequities in the national budget” and promising to advocate “for increased
budget allocations” and “for ring fencing of key budget lines” in under-resourced
Ministries (Plan, 19-20). Its more ‘specific objectives’ include a commitment “to build
the capacity of women MPs to promote gender responsive budgeting and effective
oversight of the national and local council budgets” as well as “to promote the
wellbeing of women through advocacy for increased budget allocations in key
32
Ministries”, including Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD), Health,
Agriculture, Water and Environment, Lands and Internal Affairs.
When it comes to implementation, women parliamentarians face an uphill
battle. However, while many of the shortfalls are a bleak reminder of the underlying
constraints in a hybrid regime—and also a resource poor state—an assessment of
recent gains suggest feminist lobbying is part of a long-term process of progressively
shifting the status quo. Two examples help illustrate this point.
Firstly, UWOPA’s focus on the M&D Bill is of particular note. The Bill outlines
the rights in need of protection at, during and at the dissolution of marriage. These
include the right to marry, consent, marriage gifts, marital conjugal rights and
property rights in the case of both marriage and cohabitation (UWONET, 05/2010).
As previously indicated, the Bill has met with diverse forms of opposition, notably
from religious bodies (Ibid). Proponents of the Bill also highlight cultural barriers,
emphasising how in Uganda ‘women are not supposed to own property, and people
feel [the M&D Bill] is against that’ (Makumbi, 08/2011).
Because of its controversial nature, the Bill marks the dividing line between a
truly emancipationist politics and an acquiescent “politics of being non-political”. As
one feminist activist commented:
‘If what [women MPs] decide on is politically sensitive, then
the party takes over. […] The [M&D] Bill is politically sensitive.
That one goes out the window.’ (Mukunda, 08/2011)
This scepticism is well grounded in historical precedent. Parliamentary readings of
the M&D Bill have been suspended on numerous occasions (Dicklitch & Lwanga,
2003, 502), most recently as a result of a direct intervention by the Attorney General
who removed the Bill from the House floor at the end of the eighth Parliament. He
cited ongoing government consultations on various clauses as justification (Daily
Monitor, 25/03/2012). The M&D Bill has suffered the same fate as other contentious
pieces of legislation such as the infamous ‘lost clause’ on ‘co-ownership of
matrimonial property’, which disappeared from the 1998 Land Act following a
personal intervention by Museveni (Goetz, 2002, 564). This is a reminder of how,
33
even when activists win the Parliamentary battle, they still face opposition from a
recalcitrant Executive, fearful of the political repercussions of unpopular legislation.
Despite these many obstacles, women politicians and their supporters
suggest that, as with bills passed in the eighth Parliament—e.g. the Gender Based
Violence Bill, the Female Genital Cutting and Mutilation Bill, and the Trafficking in
Persons Bill—there is scope for representatives to use their ‘mandate as leaders
around Uganda to popularize’ the M&D Bill (UWONET workshop, 03/08/2011). The
UWOPA coordinator indicated that women MPs have already made significant
progress towards this end:
“[Women MPs] did a great job to get the perception to what it
is now. They traversed the country, everyone from their
[constituency] levels. Get the men involved to discuss, get the
women, get the religious leaders at the local level, so that
people don’t think that law is for the educated. […] And
interestingly, in terms of the grassroots, the Bill received a very
good reception from the people.” (Atukwasa, 08/2011)
This statement highlights some of the issues associated with championing a feminist
agenda that comes across as elite-driven. It also illustrates, however, the potential
for women MPs interacting with constituents on a national scale to help change
popular norms. There are encouraging signs at the government level as well. The
Uganda Law Reform Commission has declared that all relevant stakeholders were
consulted, thereby undermining the Attorney General’s justification for preventing
another reading of the Bill before Parliament (New Vision, 8/03/2012). The lobbying
efforts of feminist activists and parliamentarians thus appear to be wearing down
the political opposition to the Bill, raising hopes of a positive outcome despite a long
history of frustrated attempts.
Women parliamentarians are also exerting considerable pressure to improve
the effectiveness of gender budgeting. In the past, individual ministries’ were
primarily responsible for engendering the budget in keeping with criteria laid out by
34
the Ministry of Finance; however, attention to these criteria in ministerial budgets is
generally superficial and largely absent when it comes to implementation,
“especially in the sectors that have a direct impact on the lives of poor women and
men” (FOWODE, Gender Budget Talking Points, 2).
Part of this failure may be the result of ministries’ underfunding and limited
ability to challenge government development priorities. Speaking before the
Parliamentary Committee on Gender, the Minister of Gender articulated this point,
suggesting that the government had other priorities—e.g. infrastructure, energy,
defence, etc.—which it had to pursue before it could provide more support for the
MGLSD (Committee meeting with MGLSD, 02/08/2011). The Minister’s statement
came across as half apologia for government neglect and half lament of her own
enforced deference as “part of government”, indicating that the Ministry cannot be
expected to adopt an independent stance.
In the face of these difficulties, there is a need to explore the potential for
women MPs to challenge government development priorities. The Minister of State
for Gender and Culture made this clear when addressing fellow UWOPA members:
“As members of Parliament, women Members of Parliament,
please try your best and see that the Ministry of Gender is
given more money so that we can do what we are supposed to
do.” (UWOPA conference, 05/08/2011)
Women MPs in the ninth Parliament have so far risen to the challenge, participating
in gender budget training workshops and lobbying for the establishment of a ‘Gender
Equity Monitoring Unit’ within Parliament (FOWODE blog, 23/02/2012 &
23/03/2012). The unit would be responsible for advising parliamentary committees
on ministerial compliance with Ministry of Finance gender budgeting criteria as well
as for awarding Certificates of Gender and Equity, a future pre-requisite for the
parliamentary approval of any sector’s plan, budget, policy statement, bill or loan
(FOWODE blog, 23/02/2012). This initiative shows a clear commitment to reinforcing
parliamentary oversight in an attempt to ensure government addresses gender
issues. Arguments placing women at the centre of Uganda’s development efforts
35
suggest this redirection of the government’s policy focus would reform Uganda’s
development approach, providing for more ‘equitable development for the country’
(FOWODE blog, 23/03/2012; Equal by Right, FOWODE).
Together, the recent UWOPA initiatives illustrate a commitment to an
emancipationist agenda that aims to harness the power of women MPs to challenge
government on a range of gender equity and social justice issues. These activities
suggest that the ‘gendered politics’ of the women’s caucus do indeed bear fruit.
36
Conclusions
This study set out to assess the extent to which women parliamentarians in
the Ugandan multiparty setting can effectively represent the interests of women. It
sought to achieve this aim through an examination of two contrasting theoretical
claims, outlined in Goetz’s ‘party first’ view and Tamale and Ahikire’s ‘gendered
politics’ perspective.
The shortcomings of Uganda’s multiparty transition cast doubt on the
relevance of the ‘party first’ hypothesis. Although women parliamentarians have
benefitted from multiparty politics in some respects, they continue to pursue the
non-partisan, consensus-oriented political strategies. Far from an “anti-political”
stance, this approach enables the women’s caucus to make the most of the narrow
political space afforded them in Uganda’s semi-authoritarian or hybrid regime. The
politics of women parliamentarians recall the crosscutting alliances that
underpinned effective parliamentary action under no-party rule, a nuance that the
‘party first’ view with its emphasis on party competition and accountability does not
explore.
The ‘gendered politics’ perspective does clarify how women’s personal
experience of gender bias helps shape their distinctive political ‘consciousness’ and
group commitment to the pursuit of a women’s agenda. Although individual MPs
and women in top political positions at times dissent over controversial agenda
items, the ambitious nature of the UWOPA agenda and recent activities indicate that
women politicians, with the support of women activists outside Parliament, are
indeed challenging government with their nonpartisan commitment to feminist
advocacy.
In sum, women parliamentarians in Uganda do appear to contribute
significantly to the effective representation of women’s interests. In the process,
they help challenge the limits of democratic engagement in a restrictive, hybrid
regime. On a theoretical level, these conclusions are a reminder of the empirical
assumptions underpinning a ‘party first’ or ‘politics of ideas’ analysis, i.e. strong
party competition and accountability. In a context where these are absent, there is
added value in looking to alternatives such as ‘gendered politics’ or ‘politics or
37
presence’, which is in turn strengthened by a logic of independent parliamentary
lobbying. Increases in women’s numerical representation across sub-Saharan Africa
suggest the broader relevance of this point. Uganda provides an example case for
women representatives elsewhere as they search for ways to engage effectively with
obstructionist regimes. From a more practical perspective, this study also suggests
scope for further inquiry. In particular, women’s political influence and policy
concerns have the potential to shape government priorities in interesting ways, such
as in the pursuit of a more equitable development approach.
38
Bibliography
Fieldwork – Interviews
Interview with Hon. Amos Lugoloobi, MP Ntenjeru County North. Personal
interview. 24 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Betty Amongi, MP Oyam South, Chairperson of UWOPA, and
UPC Chief Whip. Personal interview. 25 July 2011.
Interview with Hon. Betty Nambooze, MP Mukono District and Shadow Minister
Local Government. Personal interview. 23 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Emma Boona, MP Mbarara District. Personal interview. 1
Sept. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Franca Akello, MP Agago District. Personal interview. 31
Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Grace Namara, MP Lyantonde District. Personal interview.
11 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Ibi Ekwau, MP Kaberamaido District and Shadow Minister
for Gender. Personal interview. 1 Sept. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Krispus Ayena, MP Oyam County North. Personal interview.
15 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Margaret Baba Diri, MP Koboko District. Personal interview.
26 July. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Rosemary Nyakikongoro, MP Sheema District and Vice
Chairperson of UWOPA." Personal interview. 23 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Hon. Ruth Acheng, MP Kole District. Personal interview. 2 Aug.
2011.
Interview with Hon. Winfred Kiiza, MP Kasese District and FDC Chief Whip.
Personal interview. 9 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Julius Mukunda, Senior Program Director at FOWODE. Personal
Interview. 16 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Richard Makumbi, CEDOVIP Program Officer. Personal interview.
15 Aug. 2011.
Interview with Rita Atukwasa, UWOPA Programs Coordinator. Personal
interview. 16 Aug. 2011.
39
Fieldwork - Observation
Meeting to Develop a Common Women's Legislative Agenda, organized by
UWOPNET. 3 Aug. 2011. Audio recording of meeting. Imperial Royale Hotel,
Kampala.
Meeting with Parliament Committee on Gender, Labour and Social Development
and MGLSD. 2 Aug. 2011. Audio recording of meeting. Parliament, Kampala,
Uganda.
UWOPA AGM and Executive Committee Elections. 7 July 2011. Parliament,
Kampala.
UWOPA Strategic Planning Conference. 5 Aug. 2011. Audio recording of meeting.
Speke Hotel and Conference Centre, Muyonyo Kampala.
UWOPA Strategic Planning Meeting. 22 Aug. 2011. Audio recording of meeting.
Parliament, Kampala.
UWOPA Strategic Planning Meeting. 29 Aug. 2011. Audio recording of meeting.
Parliament, Kampala.
Primary sources
Amongi, Betty. Fifteen Years of Affirmative Action in Ugandan Politics.
Unpublished Book Manuscript. Print.
Equal by Right: The Uganda Women's Agenda. Kampala: FOWODE, 2010. Print.
Facts and Myths on the Marriage and Divorce Bill, 2009. Kampala: UWONET,
2010. Print.
Gender Budget Talking Points for Members of Parliament: For the FY 2011/12
National Budget. Tech. Kampala: FOWODE, 2011. Print.
UWOPA Strategic Plan: 2006-2010. Kampala: UWOPA, 2006. Print.
UWOPA Strategic Plan: 2011-2016. Draft Document: UWOPA. Print.
Secondary sources
Ahikire, Josephine. Localised or Localising Democracy: Gender and the Politics of
Decentralisation in Contemporary Uganda. Kampala: Fountain, 2007. Print.
Ahikire, Josephine. "Towards Women's Effective Participation in Electoral
Processes: A Review of the Ugandan Experience." Web.
<http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/FeministAfrica/2005/No5/feministafrica/jose
phine.html>.
40
Atuhaire, Agather. "Mission Impeachment." The Independent. 25 Mar. 2012. Web.
26 Mar. 2012. <http://www.independent.co.ug/news/news-analysis/5460mission-impeachment->.
Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Carbone, Giovanni M. No-party Democracy?: Ugandan Politics in Comparative
Perspective. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2008. Print.
Cornwall, Andrea, and Anne Marie Goetz. "Democratizing Democracy: Feminist
Perspectives." Democratization 12.5 (2005): 783-800. Print.
Dicklitch, Susan, and Doreen Lwanga. "The Politics of Being Non-Political: Human
Rights Organizations and the Creation of a Positive Human Rights Culture in
Uganda." Human Rights Quarterly 25.2 (2003): 482-509. Print.
Esterberg, Kristin G. Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill,
2002. Print.
Goetz, Anne Marie, and Shireen Hassim. No Shortcuts to Power: African Women in
Politics and Policy Making. London: Zed, 2003. Print.
Goetz, Anne Marie. Governing Women: Women's Political Effectiveness in Contexts
of Democratization and Governance Reform. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Goetz, Anne Marie. "Women in Politics & Gender Equity in Policy: South Africa &
Uganda." Review of African Political Economy 25.76 (1998): 241-62. Print.
Goetz, Anne Marie. "No Shortcuts to Power: Constraints on Women's Political
Effectiveness in Uganda." The Journal of Modern African Studies 40.04 (2002):
549-75. Print.
"I Was in Pain in DP - Lutukumoi." Interview by Evelyn Matsamura Kiapi. The
Observer [Kampala] 8 Aug. 2011: 12. Print.
Juma, Kakuba, and Mpawenimana Saidi. "An Analysis of the 2011 Parliamentary
Election and Its Implications on the Economy of Uganda." International Journal of
Politics and Good Governance 2.2.3 (2011). Print.
Karugaba, Mary. "Women Ministers Celebrate Increased Number in Cabinet." New
Vision [Kampala] 27 June 2011. Print.
Kasfir, N., and H. S. Twebaze. "The Rise and Ebb of Uganda's No-Party Parliament."
Legislative Power in Emerging African Democracies. Ed. J. D. Barkan. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Pub, 2009. 73-108. Print.
Kash, Emma. "Enhancing Parliament's Capacity in Gender Analysis." Web log post.
Forum for Women in Democracy Uganda. 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2012.
<http://fowode.blogspot.co.uk/>.
41
Kash, Emma. "MPs to Scrutinise Budget for Gender Sensitivity." Web log post.
Forum for Women in Democracy Uganda. 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2012.
<http://fowode.blogspot.co.uk/>.
Lovenduski, Joni, and Pippa Norris. "Westminster Women: The Politics of
Presence." Political Studies 51.1 (2003): 84-102. Print.
Lumu, David. "Why NRM MPs Defied Museveni to Elect Amongi." The Observer
[Kampala] 21 July 2011: 2. Print.
Mabirizi, Nsanja. "Marriage and Divorce Bill: A Remedy to Ugandan Women's
Woes." New Vision [Kampala] 8 Mar. 2012. Print.
Makara, S., L. Rakner, and L. Svasand. "Turnaround: The National Resistance
Movement and the Reintroduction of a Multiparty System in Uganda."
International Political Science Review 2nd ser. 30 (2009): 185-204. Print.
Makara, S. "Deepening Democracy through Multipartyism: The Bumpy Road to
Uganda’s 2011 Elections." Africa Spectrum 45.2 (2010): 81-94. Print.
Molyneux, Maxine. "Mobilization without Emancipation? Women's Interests, the
State and Revolution in Nicaragua." Feminist Studies 11.2 (1985): 227-54. Print.
Museveni, Yoweri. Sowing the Mustard Seed: The Struggle for Freedom and
Democracy in Uganda. London: Macmillan, 1997. Print.
Museveni, Yoweri Kaguta. What Is Africa's Problem? Kampala: NRM Publ, 1992.
Print.
Nalugo, Mercy. "Women Activists Want Marriage Bill Speeded up." Daily Monitor
[Kampala] 25 Mar. 2012. Print.
Nalugo, Mercy. "Women MPs Vow to Block Ministry of Health Budget." Daily
Monitor [Kampala] 16 Aug. 2011. Print.
Nuwagaba, Moses. "Anti-Otunnu Group Is Rooting for NRM." The Observer
[Kampala] 28 July 2011: 8. Print.
Pankhurst, D. "Women and Politics in Africa: The Case of Uganda." Parliamentary
Affairs 55 (2002): 119-28. Print.
Phillips, Anne. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Print.
Pitkin, Hanna F. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of
California, 1967. Print.
Sapiro, Virginia. "When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political
Representation of Women." The American Political Science Review 75.3 (1981):
42
701-16. Print.
Sserunjogi, Eriasa. "Power Slipping Away from Museveni in NRM." The
Independent [Kampala] 29 July 2011: 10-13. Print.
Tamale, Sylvia. Introducing Quotas in Africa: Discourse and Legal Reform in
Uganda. Rep. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 12 Nov. 2003.
Web. 2 May 2012. <http://www.quotaproject.org/CS/CS_Uganda_Tamale-6-62004.pdf>.
Tamale, Sylvia. When Hens Begin to Crow: Gender and Parliamentary Politics in
Uganda. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1999. Print.
Tripp, Aili Mari., Isabel Casimiro, Joy Kwesiga, and Alice Mungwa. African
Women's Movements: Transforming Political Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2009. Print.
Tripp, Aili Mari. Museveni's Uganda: Paradoxes of Power in a Hybrid Regime.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010. Print.
Tripp, Aili Mari. "The Changing Face of Authoritarianism in Africa: The Case of
Uganda." Africa Today 50.3 (2004): 2-26. Print.
Tripp, Aili Mari. "The Politics of Autonomy and Cooptation in Africa: The Case of
the Ugandan Women's Movement." The Journal of Modern African Studies 39.01
(2001). Print.
Tripp, Aili Mari. "The Changing Face of Africa's Legislatures: Women and
Quotas." International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2003): 19. Web.
Tripp, Aili Mari. Women & Politics in Uganda. Madison: University of Wisconsin,
2000. Print.
Van De Walle, Nicolas. "Africa's Range of Regimes." Journal of Democracy 13.2
(2002): 66-80. Print.
43