Misrepresentation: Flawed Affirmative Action in Uganda’s National Parliament

Photo: The Associated Press

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.