Misrepresentation: Flawed Affirmative Action in Uganda’s National Parliament

by CRISTINA COSTANTINI

Decem­ber 2009

In the past fif­teen years, the African con­ti­nent, thought by many to be a breed­ing ground for tra­di­tional con­cep­tions of gen­der, has seen the induc­tion of some of the world’s high­est per­cent­ages of women’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion in their national legislatures.

As of 2007, Burundi, Rwanda, Tan­za­nia, Mozam­bique, Namibia, South Africa, and Sey­chelles boasted leg­is­la­tures that included from 25 to 50 per­cent women in posi­tions of lead­er­ship. Rwanda even became, in 2008, the first leg­is­la­ture in which female rep­re­sen­ta­tives out­num­bered males. These lev­els of rep­re­sen­ta­tion pose a sig­nif­i­cant shift from the almost entirely male power struc­tures that existed dur­ing the early period of inde­pen­dence across the continent.

Yet while this phe­nom­e­non may seem encour­ag­ing, a deeper look at the source of these num­bers reveals a catch. The African move­ment towards rep­re­sen­ta­tional equal­ity has been inspired in large part by a global push for increased women’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion.  In many coun­tries, African women have taken a fast track to equal leg­isla­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion through elec­toral quo­tas and con­sti­tu­tional man­dates of affir­ma­tive action. Instead of fol­low­ing the exam­ple of many Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries, in which decades of socio-economic devel­op­ment and changes in cul­tural atti­tudes have finally brought large num­bers of women into the national leg­is­la­ture, African gov­ern­ments have used gender-based elec­toral quo­tas to allow women to enter their par­lia­ments quickly and in great num­bers, even if their cul­tures are not ready for the leap.

Uganda’s quota-system has failed to meet its goals due to faulty design and implementation.

Uganda, an East African nation with a pop­u­la­tion of about 30 mil­lion, is no excep­tion to the trend.  With women rep­re­sent­ing 33% of its national leg­is­la­ture due to a con­sti­tu­tion­ally man­dated quota sys­tem, Uganda has pro­vided many of its women the oppor­tu­nity to con­tend in elec­tions on the national and local level. But if, as Pres­i­dent Yow­eri Musev­eni claims, the pur­pose of the Ugan­dan quota-system was to bring women into posi­tions where they would later be able to con­test on equal foot­ing against men, the sys­tem has largely backfired.

Uganda’s quota-system has failed to meet its goals due to faulty design and imple­men­ta­tion. Uganda’s “add-on” affir­ma­tive action sys­tem gives women rep­re­sen­ta­tives in Par­lia­ment a much more dif­fi­cult job than those of most male rep­re­sen­ta­tives, and in the process rein­forces con­stituents’ notions of women as inef­fec­tual lead­ers. In order to allow women to prove their capa­bil­i­ties as great lead­ers and thinkers in the national arena, Uganda’s exec­u­tive branch should con­sider either a) bring­ing an end to the quota sys­tem on the national level or b) edu­cat­ing the pop­u­lace about the true man­date of affir­ma­tive action, while also estab­lish­ing a fairer and more appro­pri­ate means of pro­vid­ing devel­op­ment funds and other forms of sup­port to Woman MPs.

In 1989, Uganda’s first model of women’s affir­ma­tive action, based on an elec­toral col­lege sys­tem, was intro­duced by Pres­i­dent Musev­eni. In 1995, this model was replaced by a quota sys­tem that allot­ted one “Woman Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment” for every dis­trict of Uganda. Woman MPs con­tinue to be directly elected from all-female lists of can­di­dates by both male and female vot­ers in their dis­tricts. Con­versely, the over­whelm­ingly male non-affirmative action MPs, also known as “Con­stituency MPs” or “Direct Ticket MPs,” are directly elected—one per county. With about three coun­ties in each dis­trict on aver­age, the Con­stituency MP will rep­re­sent only one con­stituency, while the Woman MP may rep­re­sent an entire dis­trict made up of mul­ti­ple sub-counties. While both Woman MPs and Con­stituency MPs share equal votes in par­lia­ment, the “add-on” role of Woman MPs has cre­ated many mis­con­cep­tions. Although Uganda’s affir­ma­tive action sys­tem has pro­vided many women the oppor­tu­nity to stand in elec­tions on the national level, and allot­ted women a sig­nif­i­cant pro­por­tion of votes in the par­lia­ment, its flawed design and imple­men­ta­tion have detracted from women’s abil­ity to gain polit­i­cal foot­ing equal to their male counterparts’.

African gov­ern­ments have used gender-based elec­toral quo­tas to allow women to enter their par­lia­ments quickly and in great num­bers, even if their cul­tures are not ready for the leap.

Uganda’s “add-on” affir­ma­tive action design, which has cre­ated a pub­lic space reserved for women, is flawed in two inter­de­pen­dent ways. In the first place, it pro­vides women rep­re­sen­ta­tives in Par­lia­ment a larger area of juris­dic­tion with­out pro­por­tional sup­port or fund­ing for devel­op­ment ini­tia­tives. Sec­ond, its con­fus­ing “add-on” sys­tem has been imple­mented with­out proper expla­na­tion of its man­date. Together, these flaws have rein­forced notions of women as inef­fec­tual lead­ers in the minds of Uganda’s populace.

In research I con­ducted this sum­mer under the guid­ance of the Hon­or­able Betty Amongi, Woman MP of the Apac Dis­trict, I inter­viewed twenty-five of the one-hundred and two Woman MPs of the Ugan­dan Par­lia­ment about the suc­cesses and fail­ures of the affir­ma­tive action sys­tem, fif­teen years since its implementation.

Out of twenty-five women inter­viewed, more than three fourths (76%) affirmed that the “add-on” sys­tem of affir­ma­tive action has given women a harder task. The Woman MPs must rep­re­sent larger areas, but with inad­e­quate allot­ments of sup­port and cap­i­tal for ini­tia­tives in their dis­tricts. Three of the six women who didn’t men­tion this harder job, dis­pro­por­tion­ate sup­port notion, served as rep­re­sen­ta­tives to dis­tricts made up of only one con­stituency, while the remain­ing three had only two con­stituen­cies in their dis­tricts (per­haps explain­ing their sat­is­fac­tion with the cur­rent sys­tem). The Con­stituency Devel­op­ment Fund  (CDF), a pro­gram funded by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment of Uganda, allots each mem­ber of par­lia­ment $10m Ugan­dan shilling (about $5,000 US) for the spon­sor­ship of pub­li­cized devel­op­ment ini­tia­tives in their con­stituen­cies. Despite the much larger areas they rep­re­sent, most Woman MPs receive the same amount of fund­ing as Con­stituency MPs with much smaller areas of rep­re­sen­ta­tion. The vast major­ity of Woman MPs I spoke to felt that they were mis­un­der­stood in their con­stituen­cies due to this dis­crep­ancy. One Woman MP said,

“In Gulu dis­trict I am one against three con­stituen­cies… I am the Woman Rep­re­sen­ta­tive for the whole dis­trict includ­ing all three con­stituen­cies. The direct ticket mem­bers, how­ever, are rep­re­sen­ta­tives to just one con­stituency of the dis­trict. These men get ten mil­lion [$5,000 US] each to run one con­stituency from the CDF? Then I’m to be given thirty mil­lion [$15,000 US]! Give me what is equiv­a­lent to what they are given. How can I leave my foot­mark and show that I am per­form­ing suc­cess­fully as a rep­re­sen­ta­tive to my con­stituents if I only have one-third for each dis­trict? My foot­mark is per­haps remem­bered by some ani­mals, goats, or an ox plow, but all the women, all the chil­dren, they expect me to use the money for their cause. But how can I if I am given so much less?”

The “add-on” sys­tem of affir­ma­tive action has inad­ver­tently made Woman MPs appear incom­pe­tent. This effect is per­pet­u­ated in var­i­ous insti­tu­tion­al­ized forms. Of those inter­viewed, more than half asserted that because the Par­lia­ment hires no addi­tional assis­tants for Woman MPs with mul­ti­ple con­stituen­cies in their dis­tricts, the MPs are forced to use their per­sonal funds to keep up with con­stituency demand. In addi­tion, the Ugan­dan Par­lia­ment defrays costs of gas spent going to and from one’s con­stituency, but fails to cal­cu­late the cost of gas that many women use when trav­el­ing within their con­stituency on most week­ends. The remain­der, of course, comes from their own pock­ets. Although these impli­ca­tions of the “add-on” sys­tem may seem minor, they present insti­tu­tion­al­ized dis­ad­van­tages which make prov­ing one­self as a com­pe­tent leg­is­la­tor a much more dif­fi­cult task. In a devel­op­ing nation like Uganda, ques­tions such as pay­ing for gas out of ones own pocket can add up to effect a woman’s abil­ity to be as effec­tive as her male coun­ter­parts. A Woman MP from the Soroti Dis­trict sum­ma­rized the situation:

“Affir­ma­tive action has stopped being affir­ma­tive in nature…What my con­stituents want is for me to be more involved and the expec­ta­tions are greater for me than they are for the con­stituency MPs. Again, my chal­lenge is big­ger. I have 17 sub-counties [in five con­stituen­cies], the males all only have 2 or 3 each [in one con­stituency]. This is not affir­ma­tive, it is not eas­ier for me, it is a much harder job. And you look at our staff? We have to hire our own per­son­nel and assis­tants to keep up. Par­lia­ment doesn’t do this for me. Respond­ing to their mail, their let­ters, their requests? For 17 sub-counties? Com­pare this to my friends who have four sub-counties. My con­stituency doesn’t under­stand it this way though, they expect me to be the super MP, the par­lia­ment thinks that with­out so many offices, staffers, gas money, babysit­ters, and other resources that I need, that I can still be a good MP. It doesn’t work that way.”

Although every rep­re­sen­ta­tive inter­viewed agreed that affir­ma­tive action has made large gains for Ugan­dan women, the “add-on” quota sys­tem has cer­tainly insti­tu­tion­al­ized dis­ad­van­tages for female rep­re­sen­ta­tives at the Par­lia­men­tary level. The Ugan­dan Par­lia­men­tary Score­card, a watch­dog ini­tia­tive of the African Lead­er­ship Insti­tute that aims to hold rep­re­sen­ta­tives pub­licly account­able to their con­stituents, pub­lished find­ings in Uganda’s major news­pa­pers in May 2009 show­ing that Woman MPs on aver­age per­formed con­sid­er­ably worse than men in areas of “acces­si­bil­ity to con­stituents,” one of the three major areas the score­card assesses. In their flawed design and imple­men­ta­tion, gen­der quo­tas in Uganda have had a neg­a­tive impact on the per­ceived legit­i­macy, and ulti­mately the polit­i­cal effi­cacy, of woman politicians.

The “add-on” sys­tem of affir­ma­tive action has inad­ver­tently made Woman MPs appear incompetent.

The Ugan­dan Parliament’s gen­der quota sys­tem has caused wide­spread con­fu­sion about the man­date and roles of Woman MPs in the nation’s pop­u­lace. All inter­vie­wees asserted that there was a gen­eral mis­un­der­stand­ing, in their con­stituen­cies, of the man­date of affir­ma­tive action. These rep­re­sen­ta­tives affirmed that many con­stituents think that Woman MPs “only rep­re­sent the women con­stituents,” or that Women MPs “cham­pion only women’s issues,” or that Woman MP seats are the only seats which women should fill (and that by run­ning on the direct ticket a woman would essen­tially be tak­ing a male candidate’s seat). Per­haps the most promi­nent and trou­ble­some mis­per­cep­tion, how­ever, applies to Woman MPs’ actual areas of rep­re­sen­ta­tion. Accord­ing to the women I spoke with, a large num­ber of Ugan­dans do not know that a Woman MP rep­re­sents an entire dis­trict as opposed to a small con­stituency. This com­mon mis­con­cep­tion, in con­junc­tion with a lack of pro­por­tional resources to serve one’s dis­trict, undoubt­edly encour­ages the opin­ion (expressed by the Par­lia­men­tary Score­card) that women tend to be less acces­si­ble to their constituencies.

Although laws relat­ing to women’s rights have improved dras­ti­cally since the imple­men­ta­tion of affir­ma­tive action in 1989, Uganda has a long way to go.  For exam­ple, Uganda still main­tains one of the high­est mater­nal mor­tal­ity rates in the world and its legal code still refuses to rec­og­nize a women’s equal­ity in most mat­ters of mar­riage, divorce, and child cus­tody. Fur­ther­more, the Ugan­dan judi­cial sys­tem still treats domes­tic abuse as a fam­ily mat­ter rather than as a crim­i­nal offense. Ugan­dan women would still ben­e­fit from the incor­po­ra­tion of a fem­i­nist pol­icy agenda in decision-making bod­ies. There­fore, an imme­di­ate ter­mi­na­tion of the quota-system would be too rad­i­cal of a leap.

In a coun­try with a patri­ar­chal cul­ture, tra­di­tion­ally male-dominated polit­i­cal land­scape, and severely gender-biased media, woman rep­re­sen­ta­tives can­not afford to be insti­tu­tion­ally dis­ad­van­taged by Uganda’s poorly imple­mented “add-on” quota sys­tem. Although research has cer­tainly made me ques­tion the suc­cess of the reserved seat sys­tems in east Africa whereby an unof­fi­cial rank of “second-class” rep­re­sen­ta­tives cre­ated, the afore­men­tioned Scan­di­na­vian model is a slow and dif­fi­cult process. The Ugan­dan sys­tem has been suc­cess­ful in increas­ing women’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion in par­lia­ment and has also acted as a step­ping stone for a hand­ful of women who have been able to launch them­selves into con­stituency seats by prov­ing them­selves as a Woman MP despite the position’s inher­ent dif­fi­culty.  If Pres­i­dent Musev­eni truly imple­mented the affir­ma­tive action quota sys­tem to help women achieve polit­i­cal and social equal­ity (as he claims to have done), he should over­haul his “add-on” ini­tia­tive. To allow women to prove them­selves to be as capa­ble as their male coun­ter­parts, Musev­eni should launch a cam­paign to edu­cate the pop­u­lace on Uganda’s affir­ma­tive action sys­tem and Woman MPs’ roles as dis­trict rep­re­sen­ta­tives. He should also estab­lish fair and appro­pri­ate amounts of finan­cial sup­port for Woman MPs.

Cristina Costan­tini is a junior in Yale College.