It is often said, the definition of madness is doing the same thing the same way expecting different results. In the fight against gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) we often find ourselves repeating campaigns to raise awareness or hold duty bearers accountable. Unfortunately, the term duty bearer is often limited to officials within the criminal justice system, government or political office, the known state actors. However, the term duty bearer is not limited to state actors. It includes persons who have obligations and responsibilities to protect, promote and realise human rights or abstain from human rights violations[1]. On this basis, non-state actors such as religious and cultural leaders may be brought into the ambit of duty bearers and as such ought to be tasked with the responsibility of addressing GBVF.
As we embark on 16 days of activism campaign this year emphasises collective responsibility. One of the areas Sonke has chosen to prioritise is the role of religious and cultural leaders as duty bearers in addressing GBVF. The hope is to bring fresh perspective in the role that religion and culture ought to uphold in addressing GBVF.
In July 2023 Africa celebrated 20 years of the existence of the Maputo Protocol. This is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation developed specifically to protect the rights of women in Africa. Unlike the Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), [2] the Maputo Protocol specifically addresses violence against women by firstly defining violence[3] and then prohibiting all forms of such practices.[4]
Despite how relevant this piece of legislation is to the experiences of African women, reduction in violence against women in the region is yet to show significant results. South Africa for example, is high in index listings as a violent society globally with at least one in four women winding up in abusive relationships, and research that every six hours a woman is killed by her intimate partner.[5] These statistics are confounding especially in the light of the robust legislation in South Africa that is reflective of the spirit and intent of the Maputo Protocol. These include Domestic Violence Amendment Act,[6] which provides for protection especially in cases of intimate partner violence, the Criminal Law Amendment Act,[7] and the Criminal Law Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act,[8] which has codified sexual offences, that had previously only been defined in terms of common law and extends the ambit of sexual offences to include non-contact sexual offences under sexual harassment and most recently, the National Strategic Plan on Gender Based Violence and Femicide (NSP_GBVF). It is therefore apparent that there is a de jure protection of the rights of women that does not translate to substantive protection.
The question we must therefore ask ourselves as a society is “Why is GBV so prevalent?”. The answer is not simplistic. There is probably a complexity and multiplicity of factors at the root of this disconnect between policy development and policy implementation. One of these roots maybe be situated in religion and culture.
The Maputo Protocol has provisions that require parties to regulate and prohibit harmful practices that arise from religion and culture. It is possible that this was specifically included in because the drafters were fully aware of the impact of religion and culture on the rights of women.
The South African Constitution prohibits all actions likely to infringe on the human dignity of women[9] and right to equality,[10] it does protect freedom of religion[11] and religious association,[12] the right to participate in a culture of choice[13] and protects cultural and religious communities.[14] Inadvertently this has facilitated a strong plural legal system in South Africa. With the secular State law on the one hand and religious text and oral traditions handed down over generations creating pseudo law for person-to-person interaction.
At least 90% of the population in South Africa subscribe to religious practice[15] and an estimated 17 million South Africans who live in the former homeland[16] areas still subscribe to customary laws. Bearing these figures in mind, one may argue that culture and religion are deeply embedded social structural drivers of GBV. This because they create a fertile environment for gender inequality and discriminatory patriarchal practices that often favour men over women. Practices such as lobola have been misconstrued to give men a sense of entitlement over women and this has led to intimate partner violence in marriage. Similarly, interpretation of biblical versus relating to submission of a wife to her husband have also been misinterpreted and used to give men full autonomy over their spouses. Unfortunately, women also normalise this abuse in marriage.
In a study conducted in 2005, 84% of women interviewed in Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo agreed that, once he has paid lobola, it is culturally acceptable for a man to beat his wife if she does something wrong. Payment of lobola is seen as entitlement to punish women who are not subservient to their husbands. [17] Traditional idioms such as mosadi o hwela bagadi (a woman must endure the pain in the marriage until she dies) encourage women to stay in abusive marriages.
A lot more needs to be done by way of addressing deep interconnection between faith and cultural practice and violence against women.[18] If the message shared by those who are the custodians of religion and culture is one that allows for sexual abuse and physical violation then the message absorbed by those wielding political influence, those in positions of authority and those entrusted to protect in the criminal justice system will have no will to deviate from what they have been indoctrinated to believe is the normal way to live.
Sonke Gender Justice and its partners Activate Change Drivers and Action Aid South Africa embarked on a campaign entitled #GBVNotMyHeritage which kicked off on the 24th of September which marks Heritage Day in South Africa. The campaign engages the religious and cultural leaders on Pillar Two of the NSP which provides for Prevention and Rebuilding of Social Cohesion. This pillar looks at (among other things)factors that drive violence against women such as the pervasive patriarchal norms that promote use of violence, social and gender norms from childhood, ideas of masculinity that are centred on male domination and control of women, ideas of femininity that promote women’s subordination to men and an expectation of women to acquiesce to their male partners sexual desires and needs.[1]
By making religious and cultural leaders the key stakeholders and target audience of our campaign we seek to acknowledge the forces that shape individual attitudes and community norms and practices and how these in turn affect economic, political, and social position of women.
The campaign is a call to action for community, traditional leaders and religious leaders to reject the normalisation of GBV in all its forms and its association with cultural heritage in South Africa.
For us to achieve milestone success in addressing GBVF beyond international, regional and national policies and laws there must be a strong sense of collective responsibility that refuses to normalise GBV as part of our heritage. This goes hand in hand with accountability that extends beyond state actors and involves key community role players such as the religious and cultural leaders.
Written by: Namuma Mulindi
Edited By: Kgomotso Mophulane
[1]UNICEF Glossary of words, definition duty bearer https://www.unescwa.org/sd-glossary/duty-bearer Retrieved 14 November 2024
[2] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, UN GA Resolution 34/180 18 December 1979 Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13
[3] Maputo ProtocolArticle 1(j)
[4] Maputo Protocol Article 5
[5] Elizabeth Petersen (2016) Working with religious leaders and faith communities to advance culturally informed strategies to address violence against women, Agenda, 30:3, 50-59, https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2016.1251225 at p51
[6] Act No14 of 2021
[7] Act No 13 of 2021
[8] Act No 12 of 2021
[9] South African Constitution 1996 Section 10
[10] ibid. Section 8
[11] South African Constitution 1996 Section 15
[12] ibid Section 18
[13] ibid Section 30
[14] ibid Section 31
[15] Elizabeth Petersen (2016) Working with religious leaders and faith communities to advance culturally informed strategies to address violence against women, Agenda, 30:3, 50-59, https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2016.1251225 p 51
[16] Classens A & Cousins B (eds) Land Power & Custom: Controversies Generated by South Africa’s Communal Land Rights Act, Cape Town, UCT Press 2008,109-137
[17] Ludsin, H. & Vetten, L. (2005) Spiral of Entrapment: Abused Women in Conflict with the Law (Johannesburg: Jacana)
[18] Elizabeth Petersen (2016) Working with religious leaders and faith communities to advance culturally informed strategies to address violence against women, Agenda, 30:3, 50-59, https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2016.1251225 p 52
[1] Department of Women Youth and Persons with Disabilities (2020) National Strategic Plan on Gender Based Violence and Femicide 2020-2023, Pretoria p45
