leadership

Day two of the seminar started on time at 9h00 with a wonderfully concise and accurate account of the proceedings of day one, the key points raised and the ways to meet the challenges. But before I get to the summary of the day, I want to reflect briefly on the presentations of the afternoon from civil society which got me thinking again about what can only be described as a level of mediocrity that has seeped into the nature and content of civil society engagements. It would appear that civil society leaders and representatives are trapped in the outdated modality of only being able to state their narrow position based views. They seem to lack that essential quality of NGOs and civil society of being able to engage with ideas and in short, even just listen!

Maybe, during the Apartheid era, it was an absolute necessity to have and hold on to a very clear position as the system was at fault and thus we had to fight it. This practice has however remained with us as we moved into being part of a free society and this dogmatic and outmoded way of working now reflects on civil society as mediocrity and just plain dullness. This dullness was in stark contrast to some of the vibrant and engaging presentations from government officials and made me feel rather sad to be on the civil society delegation.

Maybe it is time for a new school of learning for civil society leaders and representatives to learn how to think, to listen, to engage with ideas and focus themselves on building a great country instead of retreating to the dark and dank spaces of being in opposition to government, being unable to engage with ideas and being just plain boring! Remember when NGOs and civil society in general was a space buzzing with the energy of ideas and action to build a better society and world?

Well, please can we have offers to help us with working with and among our leaders and representatives to take us back there or to an even more amazing new space where we can be inspired and energised to learn, grow and contribute to building this country? Where are our NGOs and their leadership? Based on what I saw and heard over two days, I can confirm that (as a sector), we need help us to get back to this space of being thought leaders action heroes of delivery of the Freedom Charter!

Who will volunteer to lead this process and dialogue?

Now that I have made some people happy and others happier, let me list for you some of the key outcomes of the first day of the seminar. It reads like an amazing outcome for a single day of work and bear in mind all this largely without the direct influence of NGOs…

The key points noted on day one of the seminar:

There was consensus and understanding that Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are about human dignity at their core and in South Africa, they reflect the values of our Constitution and Freedom Charter. Giving life to the MDGs is as Minister Manuel said, is an expression of democracy.

It was re-iterated that there is a clear commitment to the minimum standards of the MDGs and their achievement.

There was a commitment to the necessity of a coordinated approach of activities from all three spheres of government to make sure the MDGs are met.

That the process to institutionalise the MDGs at all levels of government work with an emphasis on the quality of the services provided will be promoted.

There was also a clear acknowledgement on the need for emphasis on improved oversight of Parliament at provincial and national level. In addition, it was noted that monitoring and evaluation must be stepped up and tied to a larger role for the research and development aspects of delivery of the MDGs.

That any lag in the delivery of the MDGs must be picked up via the oversight process and addressed. This oversight process must use the existing oversight tools to ensure that MDGs are met and implemented for all.

That the MDGs will only be achieved through partnerships across all sectors of society and the questions, process, and implementation of partnerships with academic institutions and civil society must be addressed to ensure that all South Africans own the deliveries of MDGs.

It was also good to hear and see Parliament being very aware of the post 2015 agenda and taking some steps of its own to ensure that the post MDG landscape in SA is informed by local conditions and imperatives first and foremost and that any international instruments are secondary to what out lofty and noble ideals are.

The words of Minister Manuel that the MDGs are “important but not sufficient” must remain a focus for our thoughts about the post MDG era.

That the focus on the rights enshrined in the Constitution must form the basis of any post 2015 agenda in SA with a clear focus on not just delivery numbers but quality of services.

In terms of the role of Parliament, it was noted that:

Effective delivery of the MDGs is tied to the effective oversight of such delivery in the four years remaining.

That the legislature will use all available tools for such oversight and that such oversight will form part and parcel of annual institutional activities of the provincial and national legislature. This will be brought to life through improved coordination between houses of parliament and committees and cluster committees and in particular through using the Multi Party Women’s Caucus as a key driver of the process of ensuring realisation of gender rights.

That this improved oversight will be supported by requests for increased financial and research support for Parliament.

It was also noted that a holistic policy and legislative framework for development and social services, which was fit for, purpose was developed and promoted. That any such process was tied to the development of the role of civil society.

- Rajesh Latchman is Coordinator at the National Welfare Forum and serves as a volunteer Convenor of GCAP-SA.

 

If nothing else, President Jacob Zuma's belated apology about his out-of-wedlock child with Sonono Khoza following unprecedented outrage at the way he has demeaned the highest office in the land has shown the power of public opinion in a democracy. We have also established once and for all that the personal is political and that leaders must practice what they preach where HIV and AIDS is concerned.

Still lacking from the public discourse, however, is how Zuma has taken the country back a few decades when it comes to the progressive gender discourse so proudly a part of the new South Africa. In the week that we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from jail, and awaited President Zuma's State of the Nation address at the start of a new decade, his crass behaviour reminded us that there is still a long walk to freedom for South African women.

2010 opened with a frenzy of reports about Zuma's third wife and fifth marriage, peppered with letters and opinion pieces justifying polygamy on the grounds that it's not illegal or unconstitutional; that it's better to be transparent about relationships than have concubines hidden away and that liberalism demands tolerance of all lifestyles.

The love child case shattered this sycophantic barrage. It showed that contrary to Zuma's own claims about openness within his polygamous circle, the president philanders at will outside this circle. Of course, we already knew this to be the case from the trial that acquitted Zuma of rape, but revealed that he had unprotected extra-marital sex with an HIV positive woman half his age before he became president.

That case and the outcry it caused when he said he had a shower to prevent himself getting infected got conveniently forgotten as Zuma earned brownie points on World AIDS Day by going for testing. Now we are at least waking up to the fact that it's as dangerous to have a hypocrite as it is to have a denialist leading the country in the fight against this deadly pandemic.

We're also coming around to the fact that whatever the African National Congress (ANC) and Zuma himself may say about his right to privacy, leaders answer to a higher set of standards than even the courts may set. They are role models who set the tone and pace for the rest of the nation: think, for example, of the messages that Barack and Michelle Obama exude about race and gender in the US and further afield.

Yes, polygamy is not illegal in South Africa. But how does it square with a Constitution that provides for the equal rights of women? The South African Law Reform Commission concluded that a system that allows men to have several wives while a woman can only have one husband is self-evidently unequal. It went on to say that unfortunately allowing women to have many husbands offered no real solution in a deeply patriarchal society. The Commission argued that giving women in polygamous relationships equal rights would protect these women and lead to this system gradually fading away for social and economic reasons.
The role of progressive leaders is to push the envelope, not take us back in time. Mandela, despite having similar traditional roots to Zuma, struck a goal for gender equality when he married former Mozambican first lady Graca Machel who kept her surname and identity, and negotiated a commuter marriage between two countries. With Zuma, who has tried to step into Mandela's shoes, it has become the fashion to flaunt women and children in a way that says: my conquests, my wealth, my possessions.

In response to the frequently asked question: what about the women who choose to be his additional wives or mistresses it is amazing that we fail to question the meaning of "choice" where the forces of power are still so heavily stacked against women. Wherever there is a power imbalance, some in the ranks of the powerless will buy into the agenda of the powerful: witness for example the homeland leaders under apartheid. That surely did not make the system right!

What is frightening about the effect of Zuma on gender discourse in South Africa is that because the most powerful man in the land is involved, the ANC Women's League (also the driving force behind the Progressive Women's Movement) has lost its voice, joining in the cacophony of Zuma's right to privacy, to practice his culture, without the slightest critique of how this sits with constitutional provisions for equality.

According to Zuma, all men need do if they go around fathering children with many women is accept paternity, pay damages, invoke children's rights, blame the media and claim their right to privacy. If that does not work, you can also say "sorry" before rushing off to deliver the State of the Nation address.

In a serious case of de je vu its only in another moment of crisis that we are being reminded that although the judge in the 2006 rape trial did not find sufficient evidence to convict Zuma, he took a dim view of Zuma's conduct. Following the outrage over Zuma's comments in court about showering away the AIDS risk, he said: "I wish to state categorically and place on record that I erred in having unprotected sex. I should have known better. And I should have acted with greater caution and responsibility."

Evidently, no lessons were learned as Zuma has since not abstained, acted faithfully, or used a condom. The issue is not whether or not Zuma should step down as president, but the fact that if we had included attitudes towards women as a key test of leadership - a point many of us made at the time - he should never have been president!

Now, as Sibongile Dabeka, a disgruntled ANC supporter, asks in a letter to the Sunday Independent this week: "How do you market a president who sees young women as potential sleeping partners rather than comrades? How does a revolutionary become a feudalist or traditionalist?" How, indeed, are we to square polygamy, promiscuity and the progressive values of the ANC that Mandela gave his life for and that Zuma agrees he must uphold? If we are to push our democracy to greater heights, how now are we to emerge from this quagmire?

- Colleen Lowe Morna is executive director of Gender Links. This article is part of the Gender Links Opinion and Commentary Service. It is republished here with permission from Gender Links, a NGO committed to a Southern Africa in which women and men are able to participate equally in all aspects of public and private life.