At several pointes through the document, women are specifically mentioned. However, a common misconception is apparent through readings of criticisms of NEPAD. Critiques that mention gender perspectives, only mention women. But gender can be defined as the social classifications usually based on sex, i.e. it is an inclusive term of both men and women, and not a term that refers to only women. The NEPAD document makes several references to women, but no references to men.
Criticisms of NEPAD include the fact that it is devoid of popular consultation. According to (), it is a well-established principle in mainstream development theory that for development policies to be successful, they must involve and include the people in whose name they are being proposed. NEPAD does not follow this. It is proposed in the name of the African people, and African women are mentioned, but there has been minimal consultation with the wider population. Therefore, applying development theories, NEPAD will not succeed, as it is not including at all levels the people that it is promising to promote.
NEPAD asserts that globalization or the economic revolution as it is called, “could provide both the context and the means for Africa’s rejuvenation”. However, the experience of Africa indicates the opposite. In the past, through implementing Structural Adjustment Policies, or World Bank policies, poverty has risen, along with unemployment and inequality. The World Bank forced water privatization in KwaZulu Natal. This meant that water became expensive, and poor people instead opted to use polluted river water, as they could not afford the piped water. There was then an outbreak of cholera, leading to 34 deaths in the area. Policies such as the privatization of water in KZN disproportionately affect women in the rural areas. These women are more likely to be living in poor living conditions, and are less likely to be able to afford the increased prices.
NEPAD mentions poverty, which is a major issue in South Africa. One of the long-term goals is poverty reduction. The objectives include
- To provide focused leadership by prioritizing poverty reduction in all the programmes and priorities of the NEPAD as well as national macroeconomic and sectoral policies;
- To give special attention to the reduction of poverty among women;
- To ensure empowerment of the poor in poverty reduction strategies.
(NEPAD, 28;118)
Firstly, poverty itself is not defined. It is not clear whether NEPAD is referring to absolute poverty or relative poverty. In addition,, there is no mention of the wider issues linked with poverty, or the impact of poverty on wider issues. Neither do the intended actions establish how the poverty stricken communities are going to be reached. Again, there is a lack of communication with populations that NEPAD seeks to promote or aid. Secondly, job creation, in particular the creation of decent jobs for women, which would logically reduce levels of poverty, is not mentioned by the plan at all. Although there are indirect references to this through income-generation and poverty-reduction.
There is a lack of coherence in NEPAD. Poverty eradication is mentioned as one of the two long-term objectives, however, from this point on, it is only listed as a sub-sectoral priority. The second long term priority is to “promote the role of women in all activities”. You would then expect mainstreaming gender considerations and women’s needs in different activities of the program. However, this is limited to “promoting the role of women in social and economic development by reinforcing their capacity in the domains of education and training; by developing revenue-generating activities through facilitating access to credit; and by assuring their participation in the political and economic life of African counties”
In addition, women are perceived as passive, in need of income-generating activities, training and education and credit. There is no recognition of the actual role women play at the moment in economic life, nor any recognition for their unpaid work.
NEPAD does not recognize that gender inequalities mediate relationships between macroeconomic policies and poverty reduction strategies, and also impact on the outcomes of such. While promoters of NEPAD argue that gender inequalities are addressed at the implementation stage, none of the actions address issues of access to time and land resources (). In addition, poverty is not addressed as the consequence of intersecting structural inequalities in and across nations, based on class, race and gender. Instead, NEPAD addresses the symptoms of poverty rather than the causes of it (ibid.)
Two of NEPAD’s goals include:
- To enroll all children of school age in primary school by 2015;
- To make progress towards gender equality and empowering women by eliminating gender disparities in the enrolment in primary and secondary education by 2005;
(NEPAD, pg15; 68)
These goals are will only solve part of the problem of gender disparities in education. Achievement of gender equality in education, and its subsequent impact on gender equality in wider society, can only be achieved by looking at incomes and outcomes. In other words, although you may have gender equality in enrolment, there could still be inequality in graduation rates or dropout rates. Also there’s no mention of attendance, in that it is possible to have equality in enrolment, but there may be disparity in truancy or nonattendance rates. Therefore attention to these wider issues must be given. In addition to the lack of attention to wider issues, NEPAD does not offer any actions that are going to be taken to facilitate the enrolment of all children of school age in primary school, or indeed acknowledge any of the problems or reasons as to why this is not being achieved already. Without the clarity that this identification would provide, makes it harder to overcome these problems.
NEPAD also mentions that it aims to reduce maternal mortality rates by three quarters by 2015, and ensure access to reproductive health by this time as well. However, these actions are proposed under second sectoral priority, which is human resources, which is gender blind. Also it is not clear how NEPAD aims to achieve these goals.
Finally the language that NEPAD uses is in places gendered. NEPAD refers to Africa as “her”, “Africa, impoverished by slavery, corruption and economic mismanagement is taking off in a difficult situation. However, if her enormous natural and human resources are properly harnessed and utilized…” (NEPAD, pg13; 52). The gender language her implies that Africa is female, and consequently by assumption ‘her’ developed partners male. Although this is not explicit, it is implicit. The use of ‘her’ to refer to Africa implies an inequality in the partnership, and Africa as the weaker of the partners. This point concerning the inequality in the partners is made forcefully by Dennis Brutus in many discussions he has given of NEPAD. Rather graphically he personifies Africa as Monica Lewinsky on her knees (begging) in front of Bill Clinton who represents the developed industrial countries. This clearly demonstrates the inequality as Brutus sees them between the developed and underdeveloped.
In conclusion, NEPAD is guilty of not incorporating gender into its conception and its implication. Although the document does make a token gesture to incorporating women, it is only a superficial focus on them as a group. There is also little acknowledgement into the effects of NEPAD on specific groups (i.e. women, men, people living in poverty) within the African region. By adopting a top-down approach, NEPAD’s very creation excludes a vast amount of the population, of both men and women. In addition, in the past, top down approaches have not had their intended effects. One wonders then, why and if NEPAD will differ significantly from its predecessors. In addition, with NEPAD being published during a period of time where foreign policy in regards to countries attitudes to one another are under international scrutiny through the “war on terrorism”, these is increased pressure on states to conform to the US’s international position, especially when it is clear through the NEPAD plan that African countries seek and want developed countries assistance. This further weakens the position of under-developed countries in relation to their “developed partners”. Finally, although the intention of NEPAD to address to position of African women is acknowledged, this intention is not reflected consistently throughout the document.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Bibliography
- The New Partnership for African Development.