jctr.org.zm - Quarterly Bulletin; Bulletin 67

The issue of gender inequalities is, among other reasons, said to be perpetuated by patriarchal structures that have existed for quite some time now. Do we hope to see a time when such structures will be no more? Some human rights activists have contended that introduction of positive discrimination or affirmative action could address some of the imbalances in, for example, women’s participation in decision-making processes. Are these initiatives limitless? Dominic Liche, a graduate student of Philosophy and Applied Ethics at the University of Zambia, reflects on factors that have contributed to gender inequalities including culture and religion.

When something is structural, it is organised, it follows a certain trend or pattern and, most often, it is acceptable and even exalted. Something that is structural is systematic. By justice, I will mean the respect and fulfillment of a person's or a group's claim to be treated fairly. Normally, human beings, apart from masochists perhaps, want to be treated well and it seems reasonable that if one claims to be treated fairly, one should respect and honour other people's claims to be treated fairly. It is from this recognition of one’s claims and those of others that justice is manifest.

In day-to-day life, we like things that are well structured, like the human body, skyscrapers in our cities, a good seminar, a good composition, religion, etc. And we hate things that are unstructured; we even call the unstructured things disorganised, messy and crap. We most often despise them. Structured things are better than unstructured things.

But when bad things that go against our claims to be treated well start being well structured, I think we have a cause, against all etiquette, to shout out to our neighbours in the middle of the night to wake them up and encourage them to stand with us to question these bad things. I know other authors have written on “structural sin” and early this year I wrote on “structural poverty”. The common trend in these articles is that bad things in our societies that have started being seen as normal, right and even good are highlighted and challenged.

In this paper, I will be diagnostic and prescriptive to the so many injustices that have started being the order of our day-to-day living but go unchallenged.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to exhaust all structural injustices, and so I will only highlight and concentrate on five areas in which structural injustices have found root and are flourishing namely: (1) our laws, (2) culture and religion in dealing with women’s rights, (3) dichotomy between government and her peoples, (4) international politics and relations, and (5) our attitudes towards the built and natural environment.

The Laws of the Land: In any country or group, there are agreed-upon laws and rules that make sure that the citizens live in harmony and live their lives to the full. This is what is often times called “social contract”. Citizens are therefore bound to the laws and rules (which are either verbal or written) by virtue of agreeing to the rules or by virtue of simply accepting to belong to the group.

In Zambia, these laws are in the form of a Constitution and the bulky, 27 volume “Laws of Zambia” consisting of the various Acts and Bills. Accompanying these are the customary laws of the 72 tribes of Zambia that are sometimes in conflict with the statutory law (Constitution and laws of Zambia). I will leave customary law for later.

Zambia’s Constitution and “Laws of Zambia” are basically photocopied from British laws based on a Westminster model for British Colonies and Protectorates in the 1960s. Without involvement of Zambians in these laws, no real effort was made to adapt them to our Zambian situation. These laws were adopted, conveniently, at independence but have seen no major change despite people’s dissatisfaction in Kaunda’s time, Chiluba’s time and even now in Mwanawasa’s time. In 1973 (after the 1970 Chona Commission), 1991 (after the 1990 Mvunga Commission) and 1996 (after the 1993 Mwanakatwe Commission), for example, there were attempts to amend, or even write a new Constitution altogether.

But, despite the submissions at that time, no real changes occurred in the Constitution. Instead, personal agendas by some people, especially the politicians of the day, motivated these reforms, and not the will of the people as expressed in the drafts submitted. In 2003, under pressure from Zambians and promises made in 2001 elections to review the Constitution, the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission was embarked on.

This led, not only to a review of the current Constitution, but to the fuller 2005 draft Constitution that, among other concerns, included economic, social and cultural rights, concerns of women’s rights, rights of children, rights of elderly, rights of physically challenged people, appointment of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers from outside parliament, a workable loan contraction process, and addressing the conflicts between customary and statutory laws.

Again, there has been much resistance from government and other stakeholders to adopt or even “review” this new draft Constitution. The much needed pressure from Zambians, Civil Society Organisations, and University of Zambia students can be claimed to have forced the government to enact the National Constitutional Conference Act (2007) to establish the offices and basis for reviewing the Constitution.

Although this has been seen by Oasis Forum (the big actors in pushing for a new Constitution), and some Zambians as a way of derailing the real need for a fuller new Constitution, I think it is sad that Oasis Forum, some CSOs and individuals are pulling out of the move to review the Constitution. It is like saying that “we want what we don’t want but we still want it”. It is hard to find the meaning of such a phrase. The real fear, though, is that we might end up with the 1973, 1991, 1996 types of Constitution.

Having said enough on the Constitutional reviews and need for a new Constitution, let me name a few unjust laws that need reform or need to be added to the existing Constitution; (i) lack of comprehensive dealing of economic, social and cultural rights, (ii)lack of fuller treatment of rights of discriminated groups like women, children, and physically challenged persons, (iii) lack of fuller treatment of conflicts that arise from customary law and statutory law, (iv) review of the current loan contraction processes, and (v) lack of expressed commitment in putting explicit laws that will hasten and make effective the judicial system.

On the whole, lack of literacy on the contents of the Constitution and the “Laws of Zambia” is unjust, where Zambians are ignorant and do not know the implications of the various laws and Acts. With this illiteracy, if let to continue, Zambians will continue to suffer unjustly even when a new Constitution is adopted. Our savvy and stern lawyers, judges, and academicians will continue to simply dictate to the illiterate “shivering” defendants, plaintiffs, citizens what they ought to do to be law abiding citizens.

Culture and Religion in Dealing with Women’s Rights: A whole area of structural injustices has to do with lack of respect of women’s rights by both women and men, but more so, by whole groups, societies, governments, and religious groups. Our children, if we have any, have grown up knowing that men are superior to women and that women are there to satisfy men’s needs.

Despite the “affirmative action” propagated by international NGOs and the West, that is filtering into government policies, if these attitudes and cultural views are not dealt with, the disrespect of women’s interests and rights will continue. Where religion would have acted as a guide in terms of women’s rights, religion keeps letting us down by reserving leadership roles to men and not sensitizing its people enough on the value of interests and rights of women.

Our Zambian cultures have also failed to move up with the times in responding to emerging needs of modern ways that have brought with them education, new ways of relating, globalization, new needs and interests, and even new diseases like cancer and HIV and AIDS. Culture and religion continue to perpetuate attitudes that downplay the value and rights of women: by continuing to reserve leadership and important roles to men in religion, families, social groups, and in occupational places; by supporting or just being indifferent to hurting practices that affect women like polygamy, forced marriages, wife inheritance, divorce and separation procedures, property grabbing from widows, demagogic female initiation ceremonies; and by misinterpreting religion (bible) and culture (customs) as to the inferior place of women in society.

Whilst it is easy to see, as unjust, these attitudes and mentalities, it is often “safer” to just keep quiet (passive and indifferent) and let things move as they have always been. Social change is often not welcome because it demands a lot of us, that it is easier and seems better to just let things be.

Dichotomy between government and its peoples: I often wonder, when I observe what goes on between government and its peoples, but also between government and the so-called Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), who, and when, is doing and saying the right thing. The people and CSOs are on one front and the government on another front, in a battle of words, wills, and interests.

CSOs and people are busy blaming and finding fault in the government for not delivering in the social sector, over borrowing and amassing debts for their own already bulky pockets, not reviewing the Constitution the way the people want, lacking in accountability and transparency, rigging the elections and voting processes, stealing money from citizens, making empty promises and pledges, corruption, and laziness.

On the other hand, the government is busy blaming the CSOs and its citizens for lack of cooperation, ignorance due to lack of interest in what is going on in government, indifference, negativity, and misdirection due to imported and grafted foreign agendas perpetuated by donors and creditors of these CSOs. In this battle of wills, the losers are the local women and men who do not participate and are not concerned about these battles. By continuously blaming the other for their faults, justice and real development needs are forgotten and swept under the carpets.

The interplay creates a gap where injustice continues to flourish. It also creates a situation where the two camps develop mistrust of the other. Imagine CSOs continuously criticizing government actions, say in the budget, or Constitutional review processes, even when government seems to be on the right path. When real concerns are voiced out, the government might not take them seriously.
What is not realised in this battle is that as regards justice, peace, poverty alleviation and reduction, easing the burden of disease, ensuring respect of human rights to all, we, government, CSOs or mere citizens, are all on the same side. Despite the often political motivation on the side of government in dealing with socio-economic issues, it must be recognised that people in government are citizens with similar concerns with those in CSOs, for in any case, government is its people.

I wonder and seriously doubt if people in government have no conscience at all in dealing with pressing issues in Zambia of poverty, corruption, and rights violations but they are meant to look like they are by CSOs and citizens.

I suggest that cooperation and empowerment should be a way forward. Instead of being on two separate sides with long-sharp accusing fingers pointed at each other, and pans and pots flying from one side to the other side, admitting when things go wrong and mapping a coherent way forward on many justice and development issues should be the way.

Surprisingly, most CSOs are faith based, but the spirit of cooperation, appreciation of good things that government is doing, and reconciliation are most often forgotten for their own agendas. If CSOs are unwilling to listen to government, how would they expect government to listen to them?

In any case, this dualism and dichotomy between government and CSOs is becoming so boring and irrelevant to true human development. Cooperation and mutual understanding can lead to the much needed structural justice.

International Politics and Relations: Gone are those days, where a tribe could live and survive on an island, cut off from all relations from outside. Gone are those days when a tribe could organise its own affairs without interference from outside. Trade, slavery, colonisation, neo-colonisation, globalisation, communism and capitalism have made it difficult for any group of people to live independently of others. The world is now interdependent and continuously interacting. An outbreak of bird flu in Bangladesh, poses almost an immediate threat to Zambia, with rapid communication and transport.

In these relations, the dynamics of universalism and reductionism (dynamics that tend to reduce all reality and ways of doing things to one reality that should be applied universally) have motivated the belief of having ONE world leader, ONE world government, ONE world organisation (UN, WB, IMF), ONE legitimate economic system and ONE only good way of governing. These mentalities perpetrated by the so-called G8 countries, have downplayed needs and interests that are unique and applicable in particular countries and cultures.

Democracy is now being forced on all governments in the world, especially on poor countries (one wonders why British monarchy has stood the test of time whilst Swaziland has pressure to end its own or at least democratise their monarchy). Strategies to deal with economic problems like the SAP, ESAF, HIPC, and terms for debt repayments, are forced down the throats of poor countries with only a frowning mercy. Countries that refuse the dictates of these World Power systems, like Afghanistan, Cuba, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Libya, Somalia face war and even annihilation (as was the case in Iraq). One wonders if Zambia could evade the USA if USA follows a policy that Zambia does not like? In the first place, Zambia looks up to the USA for aid, credits and moral support, how can she then challenge and bite the hand that feeds it?

All in all, we end up with a clear one-sided relationship of the giver and the receiver. Aid, that comes with crazy and cruel conditionalities, continues to be tolerated; credits that come with unreasonable repayment terms continue to be accepted. The dilemma of our governments is simply in the question – “What else can they do?” given the harsh world economic and political order. How can governments, falsely called sovereign states, really be sovereign when their national policies are nothing but ones that ought to be paralleled to those of the World?

These world conditions and terms have continued to amass the debts poor countries owe rich organisations and countries, to the disadvantage of poor people in the poor countries. We are yet to see how sincere and realistic the debt cancellation in Zambia has been. It would be interesting to see whether these cancellations are only ways of creating more room for new debts, new markets for the rich countries.

These international politics and relations make it difficult for poor countries to make legitimate claims to be treated fairly. In a trickle-down effect, the poor people and the weaker groups cannot make legitimate claims to enjoy their rights and freedoms. Even when these claims can be made, they are often not taken seriously.
Consider the time it has taken for some of Zambia’s debt to be cancelled, with claims having been made in the late eighties? Look at the time it is taking for the recognition of women’s rights with claims having started seriously in the eighteen hundreds.

A redefinition of these international relations and politics is needed, where sovereign states can, to a certain extent, be in a position to make rules, laws and design systems that fulfill the needs and interests of their people as long as these respect the dignity and rights of human beings. Simply following the dictates of the stronger, the richer and the more powerful will continue perpetuating injustices that we have suffered on the international scene in forms of incompatible economic systems, huge debts, daunting globalization, and inappropriate communism and capitalism.

Despite the fact that international systems have often good motives at heart, this does not allow them and guarantee them an international dictatorship that we are beginning to see and feel. I feel, if we stop reflecting on our world order today and stop challenging this new dictatorship, the pre-World War II power games could soon begin.

Our Environment: Even when there is consensus that we, human beings, are solely dependent on the natural environment, there might be no real consensus on what type of relationship we ought to establish with our environment. Our environment -- that includes the built environment (homes, cars, computers, electricity, industry, etc.) and the natural environment (plants, trees, soil, earth, rivers, air, skies, sun, moon, etc.) -- has continued to suffer and led to much human suffering.

Our built environment continues to affect negatively our natural environment, when this can be avoided. Pollution from cars, aeroplanes, and industry continue to lead to greenhouse effect that contributes to global warming and acid rains. Scientific advancements have placed much pressure on human and natural systems in forms of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), cloning, and other complex systems that are disturbing the stability of natural systems much needed for life on earth. Charcoal burning for energy (food and warmth) and paper industry continues to lead to deforestation that leads to fewer rains, warmer temperatures and less fertile lands for growing food and other needed plants.

What is interesting here is that it is human action that affects the stable systems in the environment, the very systems that human life and flourishing is dependent on. Surprisingly, it is difficult to get people to agree that concerns about a sustainable use of our built and natural environment are important for our wellbeing and that actually these concerns are about respect of one another’s wellbeing. All things being equal, the effects of careless and self-centred people and organisations on the environment make claims of people to be treated fairly very difficult to enjoy.

Is it just when a person gets cancer because of the effects of pollutions and radiation resulting from the “much needed” industry? Is it just when a child in Mpika lacks basic needs of food and clean water because the land is infertile and the rivers polluted? Respect of our natural environment and responsible use of our built environment should be a way forward.

But more so, attitudes we have towards the environment need to change. We should start seeing the careless use, disrespect of nature, regarding nature as an infinite source of our needs, as issues of injustice and disrespect of the rights of fellow human beings and not merely issues of use and scarcity.

What is common in all instances of structural injustices, and in the five areas highlighted above, is that the strong, the rich, the powerful perpetuate these injustices and other self-motivated agendas on the weak and the poor. The weak and the poor, on their side, work hard in accepting the system and struggle to climb up the ladder to become strong and rich, so that they can enjoy those structures that are unjust and that they detested and ran away from. This systematic downplay of justice in our world and the struggle for power and domination will make solutions to injustices very difficult and even elusive.

Whether you, my neighbor, agree with me or not, or are irritated by the wake up call, injustices in any form are unacceptable as they lead to abuses of human rights, lead to new diseases, subjugation of women and discriminated groups, but more so lead to new forms of slavery that are acceptable and seen as fine, right and justifiable.

Working for structural justice should be our way forward. It is a hope that this will lead to just attitudes, just systems, respect of good cultures and religious practices, challenging unjust structures and other bad things in the world. Of what use is my claim to be treated fairly, when I defy, systematically and against all odds, other people’s claims to be treated fairly?

Quarterly Bulletin

Bulletin 74 4th Quarter 2007

Bulletin 74
4th Quarter 2007