Dear Editor,
The appearance in the letter column of SN June 2nd and KN June 3rd of another gender-rights petition, signed by several advocates, prompts the question: do Guyanese women have the power and the means to get the policy outcomes they seek? In this instance, the petition focused on sexual harassment and called on the government to do several serious things: enact legislation, sign and fulfill international treaties, launch an investigation, and review policies and practices. That the letter columns were the chosen outlet to advocate and appeal for solutions suggests that the political process has failed. This is not how it was supposed to work. The process was designed to be responsive to women issues in several ways. What is amiss?
Take, for instance, the once-heralded constitutional amendments on “gender representativeness”. These led to women occupying a secured minimum of one-third of the 65-seat National Assembly. Such presence was intended to be more than window-dressing. It was intended to foster political consensus and a more caring society (based on the inherent qualities of women). Twenty years later, has this feminization of the legislature advanced women issues? Even more, a substantial number of women have held and today hold cabinet and ministerial positions. A woman was also the President of Guyana and the leading figure in her party. Both of the major political parties have a women’s arm. So, why do we still have, according to our gender rights advocates, inadequate laws, unsigned or dormant international accords, and other failings on women rights? It is apparent that the presence of women in their party’s leadership and in the executive and legislature arms of government has not translated into effective representation and activism on women issues.
True, among us, the common people, and ethnicity dominantly shapes voting preference. There is no mass mobilization of voters around gender issues. But women at the top of the political establishment can rise above these electoral calculations—with the right mental attitude. The system inserted additional features to ensure the voices of women are heard and their concerns addressed. A Women and Gender Equality Commission (WGEC) was established and given a sweeping mandate that includes the proposal and review of laws and policies, the monitoring of gov’t compliance with international accords, and the investigation of complaints—some of the very demands made of the government in the advocates’ petition. Also added to the system is the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Social Services as a potential forum for problem solving and decision-making.
Evidently, the entire infrastructure for women representation has collapsed (or never ever worked well). Sporadic letter writing and media releases seem to be the last resort. It was supposed to work differently. To fix this, the first step would be for the government to be called upon to hold national stakeholders meetings. For effectiveness, planning must include key aspects, such as: (i) the overall focus of the meetings must be to activate and optimize the system, not to vent on issues such as sexual harassment; (ii) invited stakeholders must also include institutions with a sizeable share of women in their midst, such as labour unions and religious organizations, (iii) meeting agendas must be highly structured, with action plans produced to fix each problem, and (iv) a high-powered task force must be established to quarterback and monitor implementation. Timeframe for full completion: six months.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe
