Is there no woman qualified? The uncomfortable question government must answer
A recent High Court ruling has laid bare the reality behind the Kenya Kwanza administration’s gender parity rhetoric.
What you need to know:
- Why are we affirming women? Because they are: part of humanity; more than 50 per cent of our population; and Kenyans paying burdensome taxes.
- Because they have: knowledge, skills, talent, and wisdom; and unique needs and interests, neglected when they are absent from decision-making platforms.
- Because it is: their democratic right to belong; and our moral duty. Because excluding them has no rational basis, and including them is not a favour.
The High Court has ruled that the President flouted the two-thirds gender rule in composing the Cabinet. Article 27(8) of the Constitution states that "the State shall take legislative and other measures to implement the principle that not more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies shall be of the same gender."
The Women Agenda in the Kenya Kwanza manifesto acknowledges that "women are largely excluded from participation and decision-making in our governance and political institutions." It makes an unequivocal commitment to "implement the two-thirds gender rule in elective and appointive positions in the public sector within 12 months after the elections, including 50 per cent Cabinet positions for women." This is the fourth year of the (mis)rule of Kenya Kwanza, for heaven's sake! Simple arithmetic.
The June 30 ruling by Justices Eric Ogola and Stephen Githinji observed that the Secretary to the Cabinet is not a member of that organ and cannot, therefore, be counted in determining compliance. In other words, the current 22 members of the Cabinet, of which seven are women, minus the Secretary, amount to only 31.8 per cent, below the mandatory 33.3 per cent threshold. Although defenders of the regime may argue that the difference is negligible and that the ruling is frivolous, it is not. "Shall" means the required action is not discretionary. The court ruling has, therefore, effectively exposed the chicanery in camouflaging non-compliance through the post of the Secretary, which balloons the proportion to 36.3 per cent.
A statistical breakdown indicates that the number of women in the Cabinet has stagnated at seven to eight, plus or minus the Secretary, a loaded message that this is the most the regime considers enough for womenfolk.
Questions arise on the habitual reluctance to appoint more women to the Cabinet. Is it that there are not enough qualified women to serve as Cabinet Secretaries? Are there no women cronies and bankrollers of the regime to be rewarded? Or is it simply naked contempt for women? A more fundamental question relates to accountability. When Kenya Kwanza made the 50 per cent promise in its manifesto, did it expect to be reminded about it?
Which leads to another vital question: What tangible difference has this regime made for women? Well, the Secretary to the Cabinet has been a woman throughout, Dr Monica Juma (2022–2023) and Mercy Kiiru Wanjau (2023 to date). The President has appointed women to some portfolios not hitherto occupied by their lot. It is also the first government to have a presidential advisor on women's rights. But of what use is such an office if it does not provide as simple advice as that relating to this mundane matter?
Even as the ruling is debated, it is crucial to note the tendentious reductionism in the assumption that the two-thirds gender rule means women must always be the lesser group. This brings to mind the various bureaucratic forms of resistance to gender mainstreaming.
First is lip service, verbal enthusiasm without action. The case of the manifesto illustrates this. Second is subversion, where incompetents are appointed to address gender issues in the full knowledge that they will be starved of the resources to work and, eventually, fail to perform. Your guess is as good as mine on this. Third is tokenism, appointing a woman just for optics.
Kenya perfected this in 1995 by designating the first full woman Cabinet minister just in time for the Beijing conference. Fourth is investigation, a claim that there is inadequate information about a matter, hence the establishment of a working group to conduct research. This is meant to hoodwink the public, buy time, and push the issue out of public limelight. Fifth is shelving, inaction on the resulting report. These last two are illustrated by the National Task Force on Femicide, the National Dialogue Committee, and all task forces appointed to develop a formula for realising the two-thirds rule in the National Assembly.
This contested rule is a form of affirmative action. To affirm is to say "Yes" to something, to endorse. Why are we affirming women? Because they are: part of humanity; more than 50 per cent of our population; and Kenyans paying burdensome taxes. Because they have: knowledge, skills, talent, and wisdom; and unique needs and interests, neglected when they are absent from decision-making platforms. Because it is: their democratic right to belong; and our moral duty. Because excluding them has no rational basis, and including them is not a favour.
Will the President comply with the court orders within the stipulated 120 days? Doubtful. But he might just do so, considering the looming 2027 elections and the need to appear attractive again. Could this be a perfect political opportunity?
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya ([email protected])
