logo


Home Projects Building Womens Activism Reformism in the women’s movement in South Africa: which way to the revolution?
Reformism in the women’s movement in South Africa: which way to the revolution? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Anna Davies van Es   
Monday, 20 February 2006 00:00
South Africa’s “progressive constitution” is often touted as proof that the government is taking women’s issues seriously. However, it is clear that despite legal recognition, the right to basic services, housing, education, freedom from sexual violence and all the things necessary to make possible full participation in public life do not extend to the majority of women.

The form and content of the current women’s movement in South Africa is reformist and disconnected from working class women’s experience of institutionalised patriarchy and neoliberalism. Thus it is unable to mobilise for social change. There is a need for a different type of women’s movement to develop based on popular feminist mobilisation.

Recently, feminist academics have once again engaged the question of reform or revolution? This is described in terms of inclusionary versus transformatory tactics – the one seeking inclusion in the current dispensation, the other seeking to change it. Some see this as a dichotomy – a case of either/or, others as a continuum where inclusion and transformation can be combined in various degrees. Another useful way of analysing feminist action is to see it in terms of being directed towards practical and strategic gender interests. Meeting practical gender needs might involve meeting basic needs or providing employment whilst strategic interests would involve changing society to ensure equal citizenship – for example to change society in such a way that there is no gender based violence. Often discussions around reform and revolution fall into the trap of making value judgements – this is good, this is bad but this does not serve the aims of revolution. In my view revolution of necessity includes elements of inclusionary tactics, practical gender interests and/or reform. But we need to discriminate between types of reforms.

There are reforms which are in and of themselves reformist and in fact preclude the possibility of a revolutionary project. Then there are revolutionary reforms which change the state’s engagement on specific issues which improve the quality of life for women and create the possibility or circumstances that can contribute to revolution. In this way revolution can be seen as being made up of a series of revolutionary reforms as well as non-reformist revolutionary action. A revolutionary feminist agenda is an agenda for the emancipation of all women based on the principle of universality. A reformist agenda could mean the improvement of one particular aspect of life and/or for one particular group but it will not bring about universal benefits for the whole of society.

Often discussions around reform and revolution fall into the trap of making value judgements – revolution is good, reform is bad but this does not serve the aims of revolution. In my view revolution of necessity includes elements of reform. In terms of the women’s movement, a revolutionary feminist agenda is an agenda for the emancipation of all women. A reformist agenda could mean the improvement of one particular aspect of life and/or for one particular group but it will not bring about universal benefits for all women. But we need to discriminate between types of reforms. There are reformist reforms which preclude revolution and revolutionary reforms which create the circumstances for revolution.

In the light of this it is important to identify the main components of the women’s movement in South Africa and how they attempt to address these concerns. Although there are a number grassroots initiatives, networks etc who don’t fall into this framework, I will focus on what I see as the four primary strands that make up the women’s movement post-1994 – the National Gender Machinery, NGOs involved in advocacy and lobbying work, development NGOs involved in service delivery and since 2001 the new social movements.

In this paper, I will discuss the women’s movement prior to 1994 and what I see as the main elements of the women’s movement post-1994. Then I will spend some time outlining a framework to analyse the women’s movement in terms of reform and revolution before posing some questions and making some suggestions for building a revolutionary women’s movement. These are my observations as someone involved in various initiatives linked to women activists in the Western Cape and my reading and assessment of the broader make-up of the women’s movement post-1994.

The Women’s movement prior to 1994
The current weakness of the women’s movement can be contrasted with its strength prior to 1994 where a strong, vibrant movement was crucial to the national liberation struggle; fighting both Apartheid and patriarchy. This period saw the creation of the United Women’s Congress (UWCO) and the Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW), amongst others, as well as the setting up of women and gender committees in all the COSATU unions. It also saw overarching attempts such as the Women’s National Coalition (WNC) which mobilised organisations across party lines nationally to consult on women’s issues (over 100 organisations) (Gouws, 2005-2006). The strength of this period of struggle resulted in some gains for women’s rights in the constitutional framework; making discrimination on the basis of gender illegal and compelling laws to guarantee gender equality including representation for women on decision-making bodies.

All of this was in the general context of mass uprising from the 1970s onwards. Although feminist consciousness was not high even then, the depth and breadth of the movement and the fact that the state was seen to be illegitimate allowed for a flurry of revolutionary perspectives. In the context of challenging the illegitimate Apartheid state it was possible for organisations like the United Women’s Congress to exist and was evidence of early feminist possibilities.

The women’s movement today
After 1994, large numbers of gender activists left the women’s movement and moved into government, business and NGOs. Many accepted the political dispensation as legitimate and saw their task as adding women to structures or making legislation more ‘women-friendly’. They have largely failed to look at the growing instances of neo-liberalism and the effects these are having on the majority of women. The political settlement and the defeat of the mass movement led to a de-link between the women’s movement and working class women’s struggles and left women interested in feminist issues isolated from the broader working class. This is not an experience unique to the women’s movement since neoliberalism has made people poorer and mobilisation in general harder.

There are four main strands of the women’s movement post-1994 – the National Gender Machinery, NGOs involved in advocacy and lobbying work, development NGOs involved in service delivery and since 2001 the new social movements. These components are not involved in a revolutionary struggle aimed at transforming the power relations between men and women in society. In addition, apart from some of the new social movements none of them are involved in a revolutionary project to transform relationships between rich and poor.

I will not focus on the labour movement – in part due to my limited knowledge but also because it seems that whatever is happening or not happening within unions it is not shaping the national discourse on the women’s movement. This is despite the great part played and the unions’ role as incubators for much of feminist thought in South Africa pre-1994. I’m sure Sandra and others with more knowledge will be able to provide some explanations for that.

Inclusion, advocacy and lobbying
The National Gender Machinery and NGOs involved in advocacy and lobbying work aim to increase the number of women in state structures and/ or campaigning to strengthen existing legislation affecting women’s rights (for example the GAP 50/50 campaign). This is reformist because they fight for dispensation for women within the neoliberal capitalist framework but do not challenge it. Whilst this might result in relatively progressive laws the reform they advocate for are not connected to the struggles of working class women nor are they part of a revolutionary project. The campaign actions tend to focus on legal reform and redress (e.g. lobbying for a more progressive Sexual Offences Bill). Both groups tend to be apolitical and not directed towards challenging the patriarchal state or transforming society. In addition, the gains tend to be on issues where women are addressed as a group (e.g. abortion rights) rather than ones which challenge gender relations and male power and control over resources (e.g. land rights).

Also ANC tactics of appeasing traditional leadership have entrenched patriarchal laws in rural areas. In effect the better laws the laws tend to benefit women in positions of wealth and power whilst failing to challenge the structures which create women’s oppression. The focus on the legal public domain has also ignored the private sphere where women’s roles and oppression are concentrated leaving so-called cultural issues unchallenged and patriarchy legitimised as tradition. As a result there is not a strong movement capable of articulating positions and mobilising around gender issues. This can be described as a movement for women’s rights but it is not a feminist movement (which challenges patriarchy).

The reforms are decided on and articulated by women who already have class power which means the issues that they identify do not necessarily have resonance with the broader working class and when challenged they are more likely to compromise since they are not directly affected. If they were linked or held accountable by a broad constituency whose lived reality is directly affected such compromise would not be possible. The reforms are not connected to working class women’s struggles which might mean that they do not feel a part of its creation and might not choose to access the dispensations (in other words there are issues of ownership and relevance).

This is compounded by the fact that organised women’s groups have a lack of autonomy – either from the state or from funders affecting who sets the agenda and limiting the type of reforms. Even in cases where organisations have explicit feminist agendas, their work ends up being reformist because they don’t start where working class women are at. This is because only strategic gender interests are valued and working class women are considered “not revolutionary enough” - preoccupied with their daily struggles for food and services rather than attempting to change society.

In addition, the class power of women in the state and NGOs is as a result of the capitalist system sustained by the exploitation of working class women. They do not have an interest in challenging the system which gives the privilege and this ensures that the reforms proposed are within a liberal feminist framework and serve to sustain the system.



There are exceptions like the New Women’s Movement (NWM) whose mobilisation and campaigning is based on grassroots membership and which does not engage the state. This can be viewed as a political strategy but as a result the organisation has struggled to maintain itself and its own actions have focused on campaigning (e.g. anti-poverty campaign) (Gouws, 2006).

‘Development’ NGOs
In the context of neoliberalism and the resultant privatisation the state has started sub-contracting services to NGOs. Thus is in some ways the women’s movement has been replaced by NGOs providing services to women (e.g. counselling) or empowerment projects focused on micro-business (e.g. beading projects). This has also been as the result of influence from international NGOs funding such projects. The practical actions involve filling the gaps left by the government’s neo-liberal policies (e.g. providing home based care).

Service provision is reformist because it doesn’t challenge societies’ structures which ensure that women are responsible for the well-being of families or the state set-up which deprives poor people from accessing services. Empowerment projects are reformist as they tend to reinforce women’s traditional roles and are aimed at producing micro-entrepreneurs who can sustain themselves at low income levels rather than challenging the state to provide proper employment opportunities (e.g. sewing projects).

These three strands of the women’s movement are clearly reformist and lack revolutionary potential because they are not attached to a broader women’s movement and they do not challenge the prevailing capitalist paradigm. In fact, the reforms they advocate for maintain the system by giving the appearance of a ‘gender sensitive’ framework.

The new social movements.
The legacy of patriarchal Apartheid history has been exacerbated by neo-liberal globalisation with women bearing the brunt of privatisation of social services as well as the gendered impact of the AIDS epidemic. In response, there seems to be a revitalisation of working class women’s activism beyond the government-sponsored initiatives such as the Progressive Women’s Movement of South Africa (PWMSA). Women are becoming increasingly active in class or issue-based organisations fighting for housing, against privatisation and for the treatment of people living with HIV/AIDS. The struggles by women against the neo-liberal attacks on the traditional areas of women’s activity provide opportunities for women to challenge patriarchy but these opportunities do not directly lead to women’s power. In fact the defensive struggles to protect the female spheres may well reinforce gender stereotypes and male domination. The neo-liberal world in which women find themselves simultaneously serves to recreate and maintain gender oppression even though the interlocking of gender, race and class provide opportunities for new social movements to challenge gender oppression.

“It is mainly women that use water and electricity for cooking and caring for our families. When water and electricity supplies are cut off it is women who take on the burden of looking for alternative sources since women in most of our families are expected to take care of their families.”
(TAC member, Mitchells Plain, 19/08/04)

However, that woman are the majority does not mean that they are in the leadership or that the movements advocate for changes in gender power relations. There are strong currents of sexism in a context where resources are limited and poor people are pitted against each other to access limited welfare provisions.
“Women do the hard work, they are involved on the ground but men make the important decisions and seize leadership.”  (BWA Participant comment)

When gender issues are taken on they tend to focus on training women activists to take on leadership roles rather than challenging the patriarchal nature of their own structures. For example, initiatives like women’s leadership courses which aim to get women into leadership.
There are some examples of movements taking initiatives to reflect on the gendered nature of their organisations but this has yet to bring about significant challenges to institutionalised sexism. Attempts to bring a feminist analysis is often meet with the critique that feminism is western and anti-culture without recognising that culture is invented and reinvented. Spaces need to be created for movements to self-critique and challenge the power relations invested in seeing culture as static especially within the context where coalitions like the 1 in 9 campaign received intense backlash as a result of their mobilisation around the Jacob Zuma rape trial.

Since patriarchy feeds capitalism, it is not possible to conceive of an anti-capitalist strategy which is not also anti-patriarchal but few if any struggles define themselves as anti-patriarchy/feminist. However, they do represent a possible revitalisation of the women’s movement and an alternative to the liberal NGO initiatives and the PWMSA

It is clear that what we have now is a reformist set-up. Whilst a revolutionary movement would include reform (improving the lives of women within the current system) and revolution (working to transform the system to create a society free from institutionalised sexism). However we need to fight for a different type of reform than one based on elite groups bargaining with and asking from the patriarchal neoliberal state concessions that are considered women-friendly.

So why would a revolutionary movement be any better than a reformist movement?
Reformist reforms
Working for reforms without a revolutionary agenda is reformist. Reformist reforms do not aid mobilisation for revolution. They are fought for by elite groups without broad based mobilisation that could take on other issues plus they are often easily accessed by those fighting for them so there is no incentive to continue to fight for access or additional concessions. There seems to be a number of reformist reforms:

First, reforms which provide legislative rights but with limited or no access - for example, a law which provides for legal abortions but where there is only access for those who can afford it is not revolutionary. Second, reforms that ask concessions from the state but does not change the way the state handles a situation - for example a moratorium on evictions which halts struggle momentum and does not change the way the state deals with evictions is not revolutionary. Third, reforms that do not bring substantial change to the affected groups’ lives - like a child grant which doesn’t cover the costs of nappies in the context of unemployment and poverty is not a revolutionary reform. In addition, reforms which make concessions to a smaller section of society than requires it – like building houses for 20,000 in an area where 40,000 people are homeless - pits poor people against each other inhibiting the possibility of building a revolutionary movement.

Reformist reforms do not aid mobilisation for revolution – they inhibit revolution or are neutral to it. In part this is because they are fought for by small elite groups – meaning there is no broad based mobilisation that could take on other issues. Plus reformist reforms are often easily accessed by those fighting for them so once a particular right has been fought for and gained there is no incentive to continue to fight for access or additional concessions.

Revolutionary reforms
Revolutionary reforms make a substantial (and positive) difference in the lives of working class people and may also change the state’s engagement in regard to the specific issue which is being challenged. For example, TAC’s access to ARV campaign was revolutionary because it achieved the right and the roll out of ARVs to those most affected (although the reality is that roll out has been slow). The campaign changed the way the state deals with infected people contrary to its neoliberal orientation even though it did not change the way the state deals with other issues like service provision. It is a revolutionary reform which both meets people’s practical needs for ARVs and creates the conditions where an organisation like TAC can start connecting their struggle to a broader revolutionary project.

Revolutionary reforms within the women’s movement are important because they do two things: improve the lives of women and at the same time create the circumstances under which institutionalised sexism can be challenged. Revolutionary reform can engage the state without giving into the state or merely replacing male with female patriarchs. However this is not sufficient for revolution. A revolution is not a moment in time but a series of moments which win practical and strategic battles. The broader revolutionary project is based on a series of actions that lead to the transformation of society – and in the case of feminist struggle a society free from sexism. Revolutionary action includes all attempts to change the institutional set-up of society which could include both changing institutions or abolishing them.

Revolution
But revolutionary reform will not in itself lead to revolution. The broader revolutionary project is based on a series of actions that lead to the transformation of society – and in the case of feminist struggle the forging of a society free from institutionalised sexism. A revolution is not a moment in time but a series of moments which win practical and strategic battles. Revolutionary action includes all attempts to change the institutional set-up of society (which could include both changing the state’s relationship with working class people or the abolishment of the state).

Whilst the fact that the current women’s movement is series of reformist projects because they do not connect with grassroots struggles it is not sufficient to simply add working class women to the project to make it revolutionary. Groups of women activists – like the Overcome Heights Women’s Action Group which attempt to meet the practical needs of women in their community is not a revolutionary group just because it is all women. They must also fight to transform society into a place where women are not oppressed.

Sikhuhla Sonke attempts to address both women’s practical needs and challenge patriarchy - this social movement union recently had to adapt to being an organisation that fights for the rights of women farm workers but has male members. They, along with Women on Farms, have both a practical and strategic focus – lobbying government, challenge multi-national corporations and address the issues facing farm workers (including evictions, alcoholism) whilst defining themselves as a women-led organisation. The patriarchal context means that continual popular education for both women and men involved is required so that old patterns of behaviour – like voting to be represented by the small number of men involved don’t continue.

So how do we get from the current reformist set-up to a situation where the women’s movement is able to fight for revolutionary reforms as part of a broader revolutionary project that tackles both neoliberalism and patriarchy? First a revolutionary struggle needs to be created in which both reforms to the current system and transformation are based on grass roots struggles. Second, social movements need to recognise the value and the necessity of liberation for women as critical for the broader revolutionary project.

The different arenas of the women’s movement require different interventions. Clearly the arenas that lobby for more ‘women-friendly’ legislation would benefit from being better connected to grassroots struggles – this might ensure that legislation and policy more closely reflects and takes account of women’s lived reality. The inherent contradiction between those with power fighting for reforms and working class women’s experiences can only be addressed if women in power positions are held directly accountable by a broader women’s movement. However, issues of autonomy from the state and funders create problems of accountability and relevance for working class women. Whilst energies directed towards supporting the creation of a working class women’s movement might aid here, the example we have of the PMWSA has not dealt with these contradictions and the situation does not seem hopeful.

Where services are being provided to women that better their quality of life in the absence of state support, it’s hard to argue against this. However we need to be cautious because it could be argued that this negates the desire/need for mobilisation and maintains the status quo with the added problems encountered by the above including funder requirements on outputs rather than meeting needs.

Whilst we may have elements of a new women’s movement – fighting against the gendered nature of neo-liberalism - and a growing number of woman activists, we do not yet have a feminist movement which recognises patriarchy as a system of oppression; one which fights to transform society and relationships including the personal. Therefore we need to make women’s activism in social movements more self-conscious, more willing to explicitly put changing gender power relations at the centre of campaigns and struggles. Improving women’s representation at various levels of organisational leadership may be a good step but does not in and of itself break the constraints. Consciously challenging male power within the social movements and within the domestic sphere requires that social movements must connect to women’s needs as identified by women themselves, as they struggle to meet their economic needs. Without tackling the issues facing women in their everyday life, gains in terms of gender representation will be inadequate and hard to sustain.

Improving women’s representation at various levels of organisational leadership may be a good step but does not in and of itself break the constraints. Consciously challenging male power within the social movements and within the domestic sphere requires that social movements must connect to women’s needs as identified by women themselves, as they struggle to meet their economic needs. Without tackling the issues facing women in their everyday life, gains in terms of gender representation will be inadequate and hard to sustain.

There are alternative networks of women activists emerging and the creation of spaces for working class women activists to engage, support and learn from one another about the issues that they are challenging. This might go a long way to strengthening and re-politicising a revived women’s movement in South Africa and challenging the  state-influenced women’s movement and the liberal lobbying of NGOs and professional women. Examples include Khanya’s women’s consortium and ILRIG’s Building Women’s Activism public forums which create spaces for women active within social movements to reflect on their experience as women and as activists. But these types of initiatives don’t come without backlash – they emerged out of sexist behaviour and structures and inevitably come into conflict. Spaces which debate power and patriarchy are controversial but hopefully they won’t be shut down.

But these types of initiatives don’t come without backlash – they emerged out of sexist behaviour and structures and inevitably come into conflict. Which way these processes will go is still up for debate and we need to continue to engage around these issues.

Because reformist reforms often end up splitting possible sources of more revolutionary mobilisation as they convey opportunities or resources to a limited number or a section of society, social movements involved in struggle need to conceptual and practically connect their struggles – for housing, services etc – to others’ struggles for housing, services etc. In other words they must have the idea that the revolutionary project is more than individual liberation but liberation for all (principle of universality).

In sum, energies seem best placed and less top down if the focus is on supporting groups already challenging the societal structures to both meet their practical needs and change society. Social movements involved in struggle need to conceptually and practically connect their struggles to other struggles to ensure that reformist reforms don’t divide up sources of more revolutionary mobilisation. In other words they must have the idea that the revolutionary project is more than individual liberation but liberation for all. Feminism is about challenging sexism and a feminist vision of society benefits anyone – women and men – interested in human liberation. Struggles will not be successful unless all activists are equal and able to contribute to the revolutionary process. In addition there should be more encouragement for men to contribute to fighting sexism. Popular feminist education for women and men should be part and parcel of mobilising for change.
 

Events Notifier

«
<
September 2010
>
»
S M T W T F S
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 1 2

New Publications


Website by Kanata Software Developers.