indeed their life. For instance, on November 30, 2011, the Nigerian parliament passed legislation that would see individuals found guilty of homosexuality imprisoned for 14 years. The persistent international dialogue on gender
equity and sexual rights is running parallel to the decades long pursuit by civil society organisations toward more inclusive practices of community-based and participatory initiatives. For many individuals working in development, gender equity, sexual rights and community participation are largely agreeable principles. However, when carefully considered simultaneously we begin to run into difficult contradictions between them. Dr. Kazibwe’s situation and the more recent developments in the Nigerian parliament help to highlight some very challenging questions for development workers and civil society as a whole. In many communities and regions globally, gender
and sexual rights are not being genuinely recognised and in many cases these rights are actively subverted or resisted. In some cases this resistance may be driven by long standing cultural traditions or foundational belief systems. Consequently, the development community must ask a foundational question: to what extent should civil society be engaged in changing cultural traditions and beliefs? To address these challenging questions many development agents, ranging from large multilateral organisations to academics to thousands of small civil society organisations all over the world, have advocated for ‘community-based’ and ‘participatory’ programming. While certainly not synonymous, these two approaches to development programming have emerged from a series of shared beliefs. It is argued that the people for whom a development initiative is designed should have significant influence over all aspects of the programming. It should meet the self-identified priorities of the developing community. They should design, implement and evaluate the success of their own programs. Theoretically, this will lead to more effective, empowering, sustainable and cost- effective programming. The various political, economic and capacity related issues that limit the implementation of such approaches cannot be ignored and the very premise poses a distinctive challenge for gender and sexual equity initiatives. In communities or regions where widespread acknow- ledgement of gender and sexual equality remains a distant reality, the principles of participatory practice inherently limit progress toward equality. Initiatives led by and meeting the self-identified priorities of such communities and regions may be unlikely to put women’s empowerment and LGBTTQ rights at the forefront. For nations that have made strides in gender and sexual
30 iAM
equity we can’t ignore the significant role of international support, coercion and pressure driven by a wide variety of social justice and development agents. Many important and powerful grassroots activists, such as the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winners, might very well have been silenced without international backing and solidarity. In Uganda, for instance, we need only to read the IMF- influenced Poverty Eradication Action Plan for evidence of internationally influenced policy. It is strikingly at odds with a deeply conservative nation. Gender is highlighted in the plan as one of three overarching, crosscutting issues. Contrast this with the opening quote of this article, spoken by a well-educated Ugandan woman and it begs the question: where have the plan’s notions of gender equity come from? Progress on sexual rights is even more stinted, as some governments have balked at international pressure that would drive them to recognise the rights of homosexuals. In another instance, a November 30th CNN article quotes leaders from Zimbabwe, Ghana,
“In the face of such complexities, what role can civil society play?”
Tanzania and Uganda all re-affirming that they believe homosexuality to be wrong and that they will continue to promote legislation that affirms it as a crime (Karimi). Many development agencies have engaged the
issues of gender and sexual equity through awareness and education campaigns. These campaigns seem to presume that if communities are taught women should be equal or gays should be allowed to live their lives freely and openly, then in time these ideas will be openly embraced. However, views on sexuality and gender are not like financial management or sustainable agricultural techniques. They are not skills that can be taught, but cut to the very core of what people believe and how they view the world. Teaching notions of gender and sexual equality consists of actively changing cultural and traditional understandings. In the past, many top-down development efforts that seek to create social and cultural change have ended in disaster, and consequently prompted the rise of participatory and community-based initiatives.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47