Bev and I were interviewed last month as part of the Global Voices research project and podcast series Technology for Transparency research project. Victor Kanoga asked us some interesting questions about what we do, why we do it, and what difference it makes. It’s a bit rough and ready – we know from our experience with Inzwa how difficult it can be to accurately transcribe recorded interviews, particularly when they’re conducted over the phone. But it’s still a useful overview of our work and some of the challenges we’re facing. You can read more – and listen – here.

I have never been too fond of radical feminism or any form of extremism for that matter; finding it to be an aggressive, usually narrow and unhelpful approach to conflict resolution.

Radicalism is often reactionary, manifesting as a reaction to some undesired reality and is usually the preserve of those who feel they have something to defend against all costs and something to fight for against whatever odds.

As an activist, I have found that radicalism has its place, its use and its benefits in pursuing the elusive goal of attaining social justice for womankind.

Some weeks back, I read with glee, that Emilia Muchawa and a group of women had broken into song and dance protesting the negligible female representation in the constitution-making process’s committees and even had the gumption to threaten to derail the process altogether.

Now I reckon there are those who found such conduct distasteful, extreme and even uncalled for – but every once in a while, it is necessary for discontent to erupt into something more than passive resistance.

I do not know whether these women intended to make such a vocal display of their displeasure but I would like to think it was neither premeditated nor meant as a gesture of disrespect for the process – I’d like to think it was a spontaneous and extreme reaction to long suppressed frustrations that women have felt at having to be side-lined time and again in critical decision-making processes.

And I daresay, no one can argue that women’s grievances are legitimate and their frustration a natural consequence of ineffectual words never put to practice as our country has a great gender policy on paper and absolutely nothing to back it up on the ground.

The transition from theoretical gender policy frameworks to the implementation and practice of the same has yet to manifest; and while one can appreciate that it is not easy to reverse the thinking of years and that gender equity will be a process – one expects to see a degree of commitment towards living up to the words enshrined in the treaties, legislative instruments and laws which Zimbabwe has signed, ratified and enacted.

From the CEDAW to the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, and other treaties focusing on the need for gender parity, Zimbabwe has made a commitment on paper that is yet to manifest in actuality; so with the imminent crafting of a new Constitution, women have every right to insist – no – to demand equal representation.

Article VI of the Global Political Agreement having stated without equivocation that the parties are, “Mindful of the need to ensure that the new Constitution deepens our democratic values and principles and the protection of the equality of all citizens, particularly the enhancement of full citizenship and equality of women,” it is only natural that a deviation from these noble goals be met with resistance, and if need be, outright mutiny.

However, cognisance must be taken of the fact that men folk have deeply internalised cultural values and have often related to women on a paternalistic level – an unfortunate consequence of being born and raised in a patriarchal society.

Having said this, I found the gesture made by Emilia Muchawa and the other women present at that gathering to be a definitive act of kicking paternalism to the curb.

Emphatically, Zimbabwean women are making a statement they have no use for paternalistic gestures; men do not ever need to make decisions (regardless of how well-meaning the intention) on behalf of women.

We can and we will speak for ourselves.

In this context, my view is that paternalism is premised on two considerations; the first being that men adopt a benevolent and ‘fatherly’ attitude towards women and by assuming this attitude they (men) then make decisions ostensibly meant to benefit women without the inclusion, consent or will of the women themselves.

So perhaps, it was with good intent that these men gathered, figuring that they would ‘know what was best for women’ and go ahead with the business of crafting the constitution without the permission, participation or involvement of women.

Inexorably, the women’s movement in this country has over the years consistently challenged and resisted patriarchal and paternalistic attitudes – suffice to say, the constitution-making process presents the most volatile battlefront yet.

Zanu PF held their National People’s Congress last week. The Congress resolved that “the Party’s national strategic objective for the next five years shall be the checking, containment and ultimate defeat of the West’s neo-colonial regime change agenda.”

Other highlights of the Congress resolutions include:

• Congress has noted that the national economy continues to be under siege from the machinations of the Western detractors and their internal MDC surrogates.
• Congress has noted that the Inclusive Government brings the Party into partnership with ideologically incompatible MDC Formations from which it must extricate itself in order to retain its mantle as the only dominant and ascendant political party that is truly representative and determined to safeguard the aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe.
• Congress condemns, in the strongest of terms, the reckless actions of the Minister of Finance, T. Biti, in particular his abuse of constitutional authority to prevent the release of the US$510 million IMF Global Financial Crisis mitigation facility, his systematic denial of seasonal support to the agricultural sector and his peanut budget for the year 2010 in pursuance of petty personal ambitions and the parochial reactionary agenda of his MDC Formation.
• There should be no movement on the concerns of the MDC Formations without corresponding and simultaneous redress of ZANU-PF’s concerns such as the illegal Western sanctions, Western Funded pirate radio broadcasts and Western interference in Zimbabwe’s internal politics through the funding of parallel government structures and the sponsoring of political activities of NGOs as a force multiplier for the MDC Formations.
• Condemns, in the strongest terms, the continuing violation of Zimbabwe’s airwaves by the Voice of America Studio 7, Voice of the People, Short Wave Radio Africa and a myriad of Internet based platforms in blatant breach of the GPA.

Discuss these resolutions with your friends and family. Plan how you can get involved in rejecting intolerance – and building positive politics – in 2010. Read the full text of their resolutions here and leave us your comments below.

I’ve been feeling increasingly sickened by The Anti-Homosexuality Bill (yes, that’s its official name. At least it’s not trying disguise sheer hatred with a euphemism) currently being debated by the Ugandan Parliament.

As summarised by the Guardian’s Xan Rice in Kampala:

Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda’s parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a “person of authority” over the other partner, or if the “victim” is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty.

Members of the public are obliged to report any homosexual activity to police with 24 hours or risk up to three years in jail – a scenario that human rights campaigners say will result in a witchhunt. Ugandans breaking the new law abroad will be subject to extradition requests.

A landlord who rents to homosexual tenants risks seven years imprisonment.

Ugandan feminist and lawyer Sylvia Tamale shared her concerns about the Bill at a recent public dialogue and in this article.

News reports suggest that the bill is likely to be passed – even though doing so would violate international human rights treaties to which Uganda is a state party, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and would jeopardise Uganda’s international standing and assistance. Sweden has already pledged to cut aid to Uganda if it passes the legislation. But Uganda’s move into oil production makes it less likely to be sensitive to international donor pressure.

Ironically, the drive for the bill came in the wake of a seminar hosted by Ugandan organisation Family Life Network, which brought in American evangelical speakers known for their anti-homosexual stance. According to Rice: “After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up.”

Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) is working with the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) to protest the legislation. Email the Ugandan officials listed below and add your voice to these protests.

View the IGLHRC sample letter here

• President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni – info@statehouse.go.ug
• Prime Minister Apollo Nsibambi – ps@opm.go.ug
• Speaker of the Parliament Edward Ssekandi Kiwanuka – speaker@parliament.go.ug
• Minister of Gender, Labour, and Social Affairs – ps@mglsd.go.ug
• Med Kaggwa, Chair of the Uganda Human Rights Commission – uhrc@uhrc.ug
• Directorate for Ethics and Integrity – info@dei.go.ug
• Mathisen Gørild, Chair of the Uganda Diplomatic Human Rights Working Groups – gorild.mathisen@mfa.no
• Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uganda to the United Nations – ugandaunny@un.int
• Send a copy to: communications+action.alert@iglhrc.org

We’re in the midst of the yearly 16 Days of Activism Against Violence Against Women. The annual event has prompted public events, film screenings and discussions across Zimbabwe, as elsewhere. Last week, 600 men marched against violence against women in an event organised by Padare, the Men’s Forum on Gender. Journalists like Charlene Smith in South Africa have used the period to highlight their own experiences and that of others. Initiatives like Take Back the Tech create an international advocacy, support and campaign forum.

All of these initiatives are useful and important. But the basic fact is that beyond the events, features and media attention that the 16 Days generates each year, violence against women remains endemic – and we remain pitifully unable to prevent it, much less to offer the support that women need after they have been through this violence.

We got this email from a subscriber today:

i am a man aged 23 and i have a passion for helping young people going though tough times. i have six people in need or urgent help. but of most importance is a girl (19) raped and destitute, very bright in school and she dropped out of school because she has no one to pay for her fees.

Every day, a single clinic in Harare treats an average of 20 children who have been abused. And yet the counselling, medical, and other support services available to help people through abuse – much less to help them get out of an abusive situation and rebuild their lives afterwards – are pitifully inadequate. If we can’t do enough to help those most in need even during the 16 Days of Activism, what about the other 349 days of the year? And how many more years of 16 Days do we need before stories like this 19-year-old’s become the exception, not the rule.

In recent weeks, there has been a lot of muttering on the streets about the US $152,000 Mercedes Benz recently acquired by Harare Mayor Muchadeyi Masunda.

Now, it turns out, the City of Harare has also bought two Prados, valued at as much as US $190,000 together.

According to a statement from the Combined Harare Residents Association, the money spent on these three vehicles would be enough “to procure water treatment chemicals that can supply the entire city of Harare with clean water for almost half a year.”

We asked our SMS subscribers what they thought about the Mayoral Benz. We received over 50 replies from across Zimbabwe. A few subscribers were supportive of the new vehicle, but overall the responses were quite condemning. We share some of these responses below:

A pity he already forgets we have no water. Our robots don’t work. Our roads are bad. Shame on him.

——

You’re just jealous. He deserves it.

——

That’s shit. These high profile people are not concerned about the masses.

——

Why r we not surprised! They will never change there bad habits, Never!

——

This is madness and lack of direction when City is losing lot of treated water

——

It simply confirms that Zanu Pf and the MDC are one and the same. They are all after riches and nothing else. We are alone in the struggle against poverty!

——

Residence should boycott paying rates and water bills till the services improves

——

Water first be4 luxuries

——

It is very bad. People in Kuwadzana are taking ten hours in a queue to fetch water from a borehole.

——

Lets all refuse to pay for bills charged by parastatals and local authorities coz the money is going to pay for luxuries and hefty salaries and no services.

——

This is quite pathetic. How cum that they use such an amt for nothing yet they sey the gvt is bankrupt & fail to pay civil servants & leave our cities in a poor state.