Violence against women in Zambia: Challenging the complicity of the middle class

Last week, I was shocked to read about a 12 year old girl who was sexually abused and murdered by a 32 year old man in central province.  That was not the only story I read on violence against women.  I felt as though I was standing in front of the presses as the newspapers rolled with story after story of physical abuse. I asked myself whether the apparent increased incidence of newspaper reported cases was as a result of a vigilant culture to report and deal with these matters or that it was because the crimes were so gruesome that hiding them wasn’t possible. I decided it was the latter.

Through generations of enculturation, we have learnt to ‘accept’ abuse and to look the other way when little girls and women are brutalized by men as often this happens in family settings and away from the prying eye of neighbours.  This is a dangerous culture. Sexual abuse and violence against women occurs far more than most people imagine. The tragedy is that many women suffer abuse without getting any help, but the violence syndrome is both cause and effect of stereotyped roles and the unequal power relations between men and women. 

There is an assumption that violence against women is perpetrated by uneducated men, mostly in rural areas or in high density areas. But this is a fallacy. No social class is exempt as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in paragraph 112 observes in part:  “In all societies, to a greater or lesser degree, women are subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse that cuts across lines of income, class and culture.”

In Zambia today, there are many educated middle class women who have been brutalized but will remain silent or if they don’t, their peers, relatives or community will ensure that their silence is secured.  Ours is a society that is pre-occupied with saving face and keeping up appearances.  Staying with an abusive partner is extolled as a virtue and women are, through this twisted enculturation,  forced to stay for various reasons mainly economic  as well as to feed our society’s need to ‘keep the home’  a duty which falls at the feet of women.  Men are not charged with the heavy burden of ‘keeping the home’ because it is in their ‘nature’ to find another home if their wives ‘rebel’.

Thus, violence against women should be largely seen through the lenses of a patriarchal society which accepts the dominance of males over females. There are various structural and individual risk factors at different levels that make expression of dominance violently possible.  As children, little girls are asked to be ‘seen’ and not heard, and to remain stoic in the face of the many chores that are lumped at their feet. Boys are taught not to ‘cry like girls’ and encouraged to exhibit lazy and aggressive behavior around the home. Parents often excuse bad and aggressive behavior from boys thus: “You know how boys are”.  The excuses have the effect of maintaining the unhealthy status quo. They do not have any basis in science at all.

There is nothing in boys’ biology that suggests that they are born to fight and women are born to be servile, yet for boys, the way to resolve disputes is to fight and for girls, the way to be viewed as a ‘well behaved’ girl is to be servile. This mentality is nurtured into adulthood and Zambian culture has assimilated the teachings of age old philosophies and stubbornly holds on to them.  In the 18^th Century, Swiss Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rosseau in his influential treatise “Emile” said: “The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up; to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable. These are the duties of women at all times and what they should be taught in their infancy.”

The struggle for women has been long and hard and history is replete with stories of these struggles. In the 19^th Century, philosopher John Stuart Mills, against much resistance, in his time, challenged this thinking in his “Subjection of Women”. In Mills time, a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and /or father because of social norms that dictated that women were both physically and mentally less able than men and therefore needed to be ‘taken care of’. 

This is the view still very strongly present in Zambia, centuries later and is based on the fallacious understanding of biological determinism and also religious views supporting a hierarchical view of men and women within the family. In Zambian society, the archetype of the ideal woman is a mother, wife and homemaker. The fact that women are now increasingly finding work in male dominated spaces doesn’t dilute this assertion.

Women in Zambia are as complicit as men in invoking nature in order to defend oppression.

The complicity of the middle class in this regard must be challenged. Where are the educated middle class women? Why are they not speaking up against this? Why are the few who dare to air their views quickly called names such as ‘bitter’ or ‘frustrated’ and quickly silenced?  Where are our own local heroes? We can’t rely on 19^th Century European male philosophers as heroes in the fight against violence against women? What will be the defining transformative traumatic event that will change this psyche?

A society with such an enabling normative attitude towards violence against women is just appalling. Instead of vilifying women who stand up for their rights, we should be incorporating programmes at all levels that aim to empower girls and women to participate fully as citizens. Zambia needs to replace this growing culture of gender based violence with a system of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other. It is not enough to arrest perpetrators. This thing needs to be stopped at source.

Arguments on equality should raise the fundamental question about social attributes ascribed to gender identities.  The first should be the ‘biological’ approach that accepts male violence as ‘natural’ because this view makes it difficult to change male behavior. The second, which is strongly influenced by feminist scholarship, is the social acceptance of the exercise of male power through an enabling patriarchal system.

Turning Brain Drain into Brain Gain.

I have been living in the diaspora for more than ten years and I come to Zambia pretty often. I am amazed at how exciting each trip to Zambia is, from the moment I pack my weekend bag, on the train to the airport, through airport security, on the plane and the childlike anticipation I feel as I look out the plane windows as the plane lands at Kenneth Kaunda International. It is not so much the promise of great home cooked food nor the never ending drama stories from friends and family that gets me. It is knowing that I am coming home, yes, after all this is where my other home is. I have two homes, one in Zambia and the other in South Africa and to be honest I can’t really chose one over the other. They are both very special to me for different reasons, but those reasons are not what my discussion is about.

It is about the much talked about constitutional proposal on dual citizenship. I have listened to various, sometimes schizophrenic arguments for and against this in Zambia.  I will argue for dual citizenship to be included in the final constitution because many arguments against are precipitated by fear and a narrow conception of what dual citizenship entails. Calling for dual citizenship should not be an indictment of a person’s patriotism but should instead be viewed through the lenses of the practical realities of living in a globalised world.

Dual citizenship has not caused a crisis where it is allowed. In fact in 2005, the Migration Policy Institute, an independent American think tank found that almost half of the world’s countries allow dual nationality in some form. This number is still growing. In Africa, countries such as Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and South Africa among others allow or are in the process of allowing dual nationality. The rationale for this has been well captured in a statement made by Ghana’s minister of the interior when a new Act to provide for dual citizenship was promulgated in that country in 2002.

He said: “The legislation is a tribute to the great support Ghana has received from her citizens who have been living beyond her shores over the years. This support has been in the areas of economic, technical, social and infrastructural development. Nonresident Ghanaians’ contribution of 400 million dollars can’t be treated lightly and so the importance Ghana attaches to nonresident Ghanaians can’t be overemphasized.”

I have no idea how much Zambians in the Diaspora are contributing to the national economy but with our extended family structure not completely disintegrated, there are many Zambians paying for various projects to support family members back home. In addition, there are many more setting up investments and thus contributing to the local economy. Denying these people a chance to have a foot in two countries is oppressive as there are various reasons people live and work outside of their birth countries. As a forward thinking country, Zambia should be thinking of how to attract citizens to bring investment back to Zambia and be part of a growing middle class that is already contributing to development in the country.

In a growing economy such as Zambia’s, the idea of free enterprise and democracy has renewed meaning.  Zambia’s middle class is still fledgling and the development of a strong middle class is essential to a democracy. There are thousands of Zambians living all over the globe and every year, perhaps, thousands of children are born in the Diaspora and without sounding condescending, these children, with their multiple experiences, some of them in highly developed economies and democracies will more often than not have a broader world view as well as a good grip on social-political engagement. This can only be good for a country especially when one thinks of meeting the challenges we face in this century.

As a country, it would be folly to ignore the plethora of skills and expertise in Zambians living in the diaspora. This is not to say all Zambians in the Diaspora have exceptional skills, but there is a significant number of them who do. Many of them have a strong emotional affinity to Zambia and are genuinely interested in the affairs of their country. This is why many continue to or are prepared to offer voluntary expertise in their various fields of work. As such, political or national loyalty reasons that have been used to reject participation in national affairs are absurd in the face of benefits.

Presently, there cannot be an overabundance of development projects in Zambia and the clever countries are those that maximize their investment opportunities and increase their rates of return on them. Development in telecommunications, education systems, health care, water systems, road networks, etc, would benefit greatly, in a situation where the most of the best brains in those areas are engaged both in and outside Zambia. This is good economic and political strategy.

Why do people assume multiple nationalities?

This is an interesting question, but as with everything else, there are different reasons why people have more than one nationality.  I won’t go into the nobility or lack thereof of such decisions because those are value laden. But I will address the practical necessities.

While people feel an attachment to Zambia, there are socio-economic imperatives that make it easier for some to live beyond Zambia’s borders. For example work and the benefits attaching to it such as education and health, may be a huge motivating factor for people to stay and take advantage of those systems in their acquired countries. Often, in order to access these benefits, migrant workers may have to acquire citizenship and it is hard to renounce the citizenship in the acquired country because of the benefits attaching to belonging. 

Living in a new country also increases the possibility of more children being born into multinational families. Their heritage cannot be defined by associations only to a single parent, or where both parents are Zambians, only to the country of their birth. They should have the freedom to exercise their mixed heritage. This is enriching both socially, politically and culturally.

Zambia has come a long way and as each era goes by, we see the many strides we have made towards political maturity. Dual citizenship among others, would enhance a higher level of this maturity and rather than frown up on it, we should embrace it.

ZAMTEL TAKE OVER

Today, the Zambian government has taken over the operations of ZAMTEL, the largest telecommunications utility company which was sold under circumstances which have now been confirmed to have been dubious, by a Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the sale of ZAMTEL to a Libyan company LAP Green.

In fact this sale was opposed by different opposition parties at the time, not least the Patriotic Front, which is now the party in power. With this reversal of fortunes, leaders involved in the sale of this company now face possible prosecution for helping to fleece millions of  dollars from a public utility. What does this singular action by the government of Zambia tell us?

Firstly, it reminds us what we have come to know in the past 10 years: That each new President brings his own set of brooms to sweep his new turf for better or worse, but more importantly for me, that investors will think twice before sinking their money in ventures that could, by a singular action, be declared null and void and politicians will be more cautious about entering into dodgy deals.

If there is something the September 20th, 2011 election did for Zambian politics, it was to remind politicians that power lay with the people. Not even the suspicion of rigging that had reached ominous proportions could stop the people from removing the MMD government.  PF leaders now know this and they will do one of two things: Tread carefully and stay on the right side of the masses, or continue with the dubious distinction of using politics to enrich themselves.

The latter option would seem the 'natural' choice given our past, but I doubt this will be the case for most, principally because our politicians have become accustomed to living well off the backs of the sweat of tax paying Zambians and the thought of 'giving it all up' if they were caught with their hands in the till is frightening. There are too many lessons in our recent past and most of them do not have a happy ending.

But why am I still uneasy about  this new broom sweep? I am supposed to be happy that something is being done to end the rot right? Well, the repetitive nature of the lessons make me cynical about change. The past 10 years have shown us that politicians have a curious mixture of fatalism and hope. The fact that people were arrested during  President Levy Mwanawasa's time did not deter anyone, when President Rupiah Banda assumed office. Almost immediately, Mr Banda threw away Mwanawasa's broom and brought in his own, only his was already murky and he merely smeared over what had been 'cleaned' off by Mwanawasa.

His broom was like a paint brush, which erased any attempt at catching those who had stolen state money. Instead he made them his friends and what followed was a brazen scramble for whatever people could lay their hands on.  The sale of Zambia's national bank to First National Bank of South Africa at a pittance, the appropriation of a privately owned bank, Finance Bank, to settle political scores with its owner (Not that his own hands are clean), the shambolic sale of ZAMTEL... the list goes on.

With this history, cynics may be excused for wondering if Sata is driven by vengeance. Given what he went through on his campaign trail, I would be surprised if the thought of retribution hasn't crossed his mind, but at the same time, I am impressed with his bark, which so far has matched his bite. His unorthodox methods may not always go well with many people, but his heart seems to be in the right place. But in these times, we do not need someone who only has their heart in the right place, they should also do the right thing.

Sata's penchant for micro managing and making ill considered and lone decisions may prove fatal. He may be excused for running his household like that, but this is a country people! He has people scampering for cover with his sharp tongue and as the fashion in Zambia, the President knows it all. Anyone who challenges that is state enemy numero uno. This is where the fraternal twin adjectives of sycophancy and muteness find meaning.  One either prostates themselves before the President to gain favours or stay mute, for fear of saying anything wrong. But choosing sycophancy and muteness is one sure way of leading the ship to the rocks.

We need to be vigilant and check that our leaders don't go off the rails.

Let us continue the momentum started when the last government was shown the door. As for investors, beware! Don't go into Zambia hoping to make a quick back by circumventing the rules. Those days seem to be over, over, over.