Ghanaian Member of Parliament Sam George is a man of controversies. From the much commented anti-LGBTQ bill, which he defended tooth and nail, to the issue of women representation in politics, for which he says that “Using Rwanda to argue for more women in parliament is bogus,” he seems to have deep seated convictions, and no reasonable argument could make him budge. One would even admire the eloquence with which he argues the case concerning women in Rwanda parliament, if it wasn’t for the glaring flaws of reasoning and the ignorance he displays, all with amazing confidence. Mr George’s arguments are absurd, to say the least. “Rwanda had fewer men than women at the time they first had more female representatives in parliament,” he said, as he explained why Rwanda should not be an example to emulate when it comes to women representation. He went on to add that “After Rwandas civil war, the country had no choice than to have more women in its parliament.” In other words, Mr George thinks that demographics and war - rather than the RPF’s and its political partners’ deliberate decision to encourage women to occupy platforms where they could exercise their innate potential - are what led to the good place Rwanda finds itself in. The reasoning is absurd because if political positions of every post-conflict society were dominated by women, courtesy of demographics, there would be by now an established pattern indicating that Rwanda is not an exception in this sense. Yet, no similar phenomenon took place in post-conflict European societies after major wars, not even after World War II. As shown in studies, only the US, a late comer in the war, had a balanced gender ratio at the end of the conflict. Even after the tragedy, there were still enough men to occupy places of power. Clearly, only ignorance can confidently argue that Rwanda had no enough men left to occupy the seats reserved for women. In other words, at no time in history has Rwanda ever had demographics that rendered the participation of women in politics as the only alternative to the powers that be. Indeed, Mr George doesn’t bother himself with facts such as the constitutional obligation that provides that 30% must be seats reserved for women, or the hundreds of awareness campaigns around gender equity which have changed mindsets progressively over the years. If he paid attention, he would realize that no reasonable person in today’s Rwanda questions the ability of women to lead. Moreover, if Rwanda’s post-conflict demographics – rather than its progressive political orientation - dictated the rise of women in position of power, there would be no need to establish a 30% threshold for them. Perhaps, sensing that his argument wasn’t strong enough, Mr George pivots: “In Rwanda, the woman is a law maker, but when she gets home she is still subjugated to all the prejudices of the patriarchal system against the woman.” From this, he concludes that “Rwanda is a classic example of a sham” when it comes to women empowerment. Mr Georges observation that the high social status of women law makers does not insulate them from patriarchal violence is most probably correct. However, the conclusion that he draws from this observation betrays the same lack of nuance pervading “woke” circles for whom women empowerment must happen in full instantly. Their ill-conceived strategy is to disparage genuine, progressive efforts to dismantle the system of patriarchy, thereby tossing away the baby with the bathwater. Of course, election and law reforms don’t mean that Rwanda is no longer a patriarchal society. There is so much the law and political will can do in just two decades against ingrained, deep-seated cultural biases, the kind which Mr George himself suffers from. It is one thing to try and change the status of women and how they are perceived using the tools provided by law and through political reforms; it is quite another to change mindsets in societies. The former can be instantly achieved by a thoughtful leadership; the latter is an educational and socialization process that most societies resist and which takes shape through generations as psychological dispositions of men and women shift towards the value of equality, the unhindered contribution of men and women, for societys progress. The irony is that “critics” who want instant change turn against the very governments whose commitment to making this change a reality is genuine. They do so by calling the whole process a “sham” or “cosmetic”. In this, they unwittingly ally with the likes of Mr George who refuse to see that women exclusion from politics and positions of power is the manifestation of an issue that is both societal and institutional. Mr George, and the likes of him, will argue that in an ideal society, women don’t need reserved seats in parliament, or that they shouldn’t be subjected to patriarchal violence if they occupy such powerful positions. However, the ideal society, in which women will feel safe regardless of their social status, is what Rwanda and other progressive countries aim for. So far, no society has achieved such a feat. Therefore, a genuine advocate for women empowerment ought to criticize the lack of political will to change our societies for the better. Mr George is no such an advocate. He disparages Rwanda’s efforts before even taking time to understand how they came about and what their prospects are. Only proponents of patriarchy and the ignorant criticize those who are genuinely attempting to change our societies gradually due to the resistance of cultural forces that slow this very process.
