Deconstructing the role of the African First Lady in post-conflict reconstruction: the peculiar case of South African First Ladyship

by Siphokazi Magadla, Dimpho Motsamai and Melanie Roberts

The term First Lady and the institution of First ladyship is a precarious role due to its “extra-constitutional” nature. Given that the role of the spouse of the president is not mentioned in the Constitution; and the position is neither elected nor appointed, it is technically not an office. However, many of the first ladies in the modern era have enjoyed office space, a budget, and staff of considerable size. Robert Watson in “Toward the Study of the First Lady: The State of Scholarship” argues that the office of the first lady can therefore be regarded as an office without portfolio, statutory legitimacy, electoral mandate, or clearly defined roles and responsibilities, making it unaccountable to the public and difficult to study. Traditional first ladies have functioned as their husband’s trusted confidante, key supporter, and couselor in time of national crisis as well the nation’s primary hostess. Others have transgressed this traditional role by actively taking part in the election campaign of their husbands, editing their speeches, lobbying for their legislation, championing particular causes and travelling internationally as part of the presidential envoys.

Feminists argue that Eleanor Roosevelt’s departure from the traditional role of first ladies in post-depression America illustrates the transformation of women’s role in conditions of national instability. While the role of African women in peace, security and development are rooted in post-colonial struggles, their dominance in peace and security has been exacerbated by the post-colonial intra-state conflicts. It is the excessive nature of violence against women that has led to calls for a greater role of women in peace making, peacekeeping and peace building; also putting to the spotlight debate about the contribution of First Ladies in Africa. However the role of the First Lady as an unelected actor thrust into public life by virtue of her relationship with the elected president, has contributed to the ambiguous role of the First Lady as a political player in domestic, regional and international spheres. Is it possible for the first lady to play different roles in African politics as well as being able to positively influence societal social cohesion and moral rejuvenation in her country and beyond? Therefore, a key question is how can these women utilise their strategic proximity to the highest office in African states, to contribute meaningfully to advancing peace and security?

Since South Africa’s democratic transition in 1994, there have been several first ladies who have played various roles in the country’s politics. The list of these women include: Marike De Klerk, Graca Machel, Zanele Mbeki and more recently, President Zuma’s 3 wives (Sizakele Khumalo, Nompumelelo Ntuli and Tobeka Madiba). South African first ladies have traditionally played an important role in the transitional period and in the processes leading up to the consolidation of the country’s democracy. Marike de Klerk was the leader of the National Party’s women’s league during president de Klerk’s presidency. In 1993 she was awarded the ‘Women for Peace award’ in Geneva for her role in promoting the well being and development of rural women. During this period, de Klerk had expressed pride in her husband’s role in bringing an end to Apartheid. Graca Machel, the widow of Mozambican president Samora Machel, and currently the wife of South African liberation icon, Nelson Mandela, is a renowned humanitarian who notably produced the landmark UN Report on Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. Machel is best known for her work and contributions in Mozambique during the 70s, when she was the Minister of Education and Culture. She continues to lead various humanitarian focused projects- particularly those relating to refugees and children. Zanele Mbeki established an independent reputation beyond her role as the wife of former president Thabo Mbeki. She is the founder of South African Women in Dialogue (SAWID) that was formed at the backdrop of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in Sun City, Johannesburg, in 2003 paving way for peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This brought together Congolese women from different party lines, exclusively to encourage the inclusion of women in Congolese negotiation party teams; to ensure that gender is identified as a principle, goal and outcome of the peace settlement; and that peace agreements promote and are aligned with, international policy instruments and legal conventions. Mbeki also established the ‘Women’s Development Bank’ which advocates for social and economic development in poor communities.

South Africa finds itself in a peculiar situation as for the first time the country has three First Ladies. This is occurring at a critical period for South Africa when the country serves on the UN Security Council for the second time, from January 2011. The advocacy of woman, peace and security issues during this period is and should be an obvious priority for the First Ladies. The current First Ladies have largely remained out of the public space, with the exception of the recent formation of the Nompumelelo MaNtuli-Zuma Foundation and the Tobeka Madiba-Zuma Foundation. The MaNtuli-Zuma Foundation has more recently provided assistance to women whose houses were destroyed by fire, in Weza Village, Willowvale, Eastern Cape. The Madiba-Zuma Foundation focuses on health with First Lady Madiba-Zuma currently charring the Forum of African First Ladies Against Breast and Cervical Cancer. The First Ladies growing public role raises the question of how the three women coordinate their projects. Should South Africans expect the founding of the Makhumalo-Zuma Foundation? What does this mean for the budget of the Office of the First Lady? Moreover, how can the First Ladies compliment the work already done by their predecessors, in the realm of post-conflict reconstruction? Certainly, the slow yet decisive emergence of the MaNtuli-Zuma and Madiba-Zuma foundations is indicative of the power held by the First Ladyship even in the context of a polygamous presidency.

Evidence from the rest of the continent demonstrates the growing importance of the First Lady as a political player. The pragmatic founding of such institutions as the Organization of African First ladies against HIV/AIDS established in 2002, (in close collaboration with UNAIDS and the International AIDS Trust) work in reinforcing policies and programs against HIV/AIDS, advocacy, resource mobilization and development of partnerships at national, regional and international levels. This resulted in the declaration of the African First ladies Against HIV/AIDS on the occasion of the AU Summit, Kampala, Uganda, 25-27 July 2010. The alliance of 22 first ladies, known as ‘African Synergy Against AIDS and Suffering,’ was formed in 2002. Collaborations to date include the opening of maternal health clinics, HIV treatment centres, orphan care programs and vocational training schools in Guinea, Niger, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mali and Cameroon; as well as numerous other initiatives and advocacy efforts throughout all 22 member countries. Indeed, the launch of the African Women’s Decade 2010-2020 by the African Union underscores the extent to which a gender conception of security and development is being adopted internationally and on the continent. The precedent already set by former South African first ladies in the realm of peace and security highlights the instrumental role the South African First Lady can play in engendering peace and security in the continent.

»»  read more

The Housing ‘problem’: Words and Misconceptions

By Sarita Pillay,

In early December, while watching the evening news, I became suddenly acutely aware of a problem with the South African government's approach to housing. I watched with a sense of disbelief and outrage as the infamous 'Red Ants' tore down hundreds of homes in Ramaphosa, Ekurhuleni. The local government justified the destruction of the homes and displacement of families by highlighting the 'problem' of the makeshift homes being built on the land illegally. However, there were two worrying things that stood out from the local government's approach which could be applied to the national government's sentiment.

Firstly, the language used by the local government raises some concerns. As homes were being torn down and possessions damaged, no reference was made to people and their livelihoods but instead all we heard was ‘shacks’, ‘illegal settlements’, 'structures' and 'squatters'. The power of words can never be underestimated. Language plays a role in avoiding the true nature of the ‘housing problem’ and poverty in South Africa. By using words which desensitize and remove the human element of the situation, government officials succeed in downplaying reality.

Removing people from places where they have shaped their livelihoods and established their homes therefore becomes a process, a formality. The reasons why individuals have chosen to live in these areas, the conditions which force them to create makeshift homes in places near the city, the challenges they face daily through lack of sanitation and electricity, all of these factors become masked behind the usage of certain words and justification of tackling illegal land occupation. Unfortunately, the media often serves to perpetuate these terms.

Secondly, the removal of people from settlements which have been established illegally was brandished as a solution in solving the ‘housing question’. Now, even Friedrich Engels in the late 19th Century could have told you that the simple destruction and removal of informal housing settlements provides nothing but momentary ‘success’. The housing problem, namely the reality of informal houses, lacking durability, sanitation and/or electricity, is a feature of all of South Africa’s cities. In 2008, 1 in 10 South Africans were estimated to live in informal homes. Although the removal of the families living in that particular informal settlement in Ramaphosa may have provided momentary clear land and less of an ‘eyesore’ for passing vehicles - that is about the only ‘success’ established.

This approach is particularly worrying as it creates a sense of complacency in dealing with the establishment of informal housing settlements. The removal of those families living in Ramaphosa settlement will only spur the establishment of an informal housing settlement elsewhere (and, likely, nearby). Even where alternative housing is provided, in many cases these houses are located on the outskirts of urban areas where residents are made to live far from work and the convenience of urban life. In this case, the informal settlements continue to spring up in urban areas. So although the local government official who featured on the news that evening in December may have been proud of the fact that the ‘illegal settlement’ had been removed, it did little to remove the probability of a similar settlement being established nearby.

The housing problem is bigger than a few sheets of corrugated iron, a few cardboard boxes and makeshift toilets. The housing problem cannot be reduced to ‘illegal settlements’, ‘shacks’ and ‘squatters’. Arguably, the housing problem can only be truly solved by reshaping the way in which our economy and society functions - a world in which the few have a lot and the many have a little, where these conditions are perpetuated and it is almost impossible for the cycle to be broken.

»»  read more

How about we quit holding elections?

By Oumar Ba, Bokamoso Leadership Forum

Elections are expensive. Really expensive. I propose that the African Union convene a group of experts to do a cost/benefit analysis of elections in Africa. In the meantime, let me explore the ways in which elections are costing many African countries so much money and time that they are hindering their “development”.

First cost: money. One has to print the ballots, transport them, pay the electoral personnel, pay to transport people to the meetings during the electoral campaign, buy them sandwiches and a bottle of Coca Cola after they have spent a whole day clapping and screaming their candidate’s name. Moreover, the new trend in African politics is to hire Western polling companies, and communications firms, etc...

More often than not, during the electoral campaign, which lasts many years in some cases, the ruling party hijacks the governments’ vehicles, gasoline, chauffeurs, TV stations, newspapers, radio stations, journalists, and its security forces to protect their candidate(s).

The cost of elections in Africa can be also tallied in the terms of human lives lost, stores looted, crops ravaged, careers ended, schooling time shortened, and dreams shattered.

As I’m writing this article, Cote D’Ivoire has two presidents, and two governments. Laurent Gbagbo was “elected” in 2000, and after a failed coup two years later, the country was divided de facto with the loyal army controlling the South, and the rebels re-baptized Forces Nouvelles occupying the North. Gbagbo’s presidential term ended in 2005, but he managed to stretch his rule by another 5 years, postponing the elections multiple times. Finally, according to many reports, when French pollsters assured him that he will win the elections without any problem, he decided to hold them. The rest of the story is still breaking news...

Back to the elections cost, why in the world should people decide to go to elections without a prior firm decision to respect the vote of their constituency?

Elections cost us valuable time. Many African countries are in a permanent state of electoral crisis. President Wade of Senegal announced that he will seek a third term two years before the end of his current term, despite the fact that the Constitution, which he drafted himself, clearly limits the number of possible terms to only two. That, coupled with the fact that he named his current Prime Minister as the head of his electoral campaign committee, one will wonder who the hell is running the state. I mean, do we elect our leaders so they can keep trying to get reelected, or so they can take care of our business? Former President Tandja of Niger is still under house arrest for having tried to do the same...

Another example of this silliness is Burkina Faso. Blaise Compaore came to power in 1987, after the coup that killed Thomas Sankara. He won the elections in 1991, and 1998. Lifting the constitutional ban that limited the number of terms to two, he was re-elected in 2005 by 80% of the votes. In November 2010, he won again 80% of the votes, which really didn’t surprise anyone. Since we all knew what the outcome of this election would be, why not save the money and not waste our time re-electing the man? How about a vote by acclamation? Are you listening, Hosni Mubarak? You too, Paul Biya.

At least, Laurent Gbagbo has put his PhD in history to good use. He knows that when the contender wins the election and the incumbent decides that he isn’t going anywhere, we can have a power sharing agreement. I think that if the winner of the election settles for the post of VP, he is not worthy of the trust of the people, and it shows that he just wants his piece of the pie. Yes, Mr Odinga and Mr Tsvangirai, I’m talking about you.

I can only imagine the dreadful atmosphere in the conference room in which the presidents of the 16 countries that comprise ECOWAS decided to send Presidents Pires of Cape Verde, Koroma of Sierra Leone, and Boni of Benin to go ask Gbagbo to leave office. I mean, the possible choices for such a delegation are extremely limited. The presidents need only to look at each other to realize that very few of them are well suited to ask Gbagbo to accept the wish of the Ivoirian voters.

Finally, I was discussing with a friend a few weeks ago about the fact that plastic bags are banned in Rwanda. Although Paul Kagame has an outrageous human rights violations record, one must recognize that as a president, he is getting things done. And yes, he got elected with a landslide too, and I told my friend that if he leaves power after his current and last term, he will be a respectable man. My friend said that he probably still be around and said just two words: “Vladimir Putin.” I hope he is wrong.

»»  read more