leadership

• BURKINA FASO : ‘Pour une grande partie de la société civile, la sécurité est une préoccupation plus urgente que la démocratie’

  CIVICUS échange sur lecoup d’État militaire récent au Burkina Faso avec Kop’ep Dabugat, coordinateur du Réseau de Solidarité pour la Démocratie en Afrique de l’Ouest (WADEMOS).

  WADEMOS est une coalition d’organisations de la société civile (OSC) d’Afrique de l’Ouest qui mobilise la société civile afin de défendre la démocratie et de promouvoir des normes démocratiques dans la région.

  Qu’est-ce qui a conduit aucoup d’État récent au Burkina Faso, et que faut-il faire pour que la démocratie soit restaurée ?

  Le capitaine Ibrahim Traoré,actuel chef de la junte militaire au pouvoir au Burkina Faso, a invoqué la dégradation continue de la situation sécuritaire pour justifier la prise de pouvoir par les militaires, tout comme l'avait fait son prédécesseur, le lieutenant-colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba. Or il semblerait que les attaques de groupes armés ont fortement augmenté dans les mois qui ont suivile premier coup d’État mené par Damiba, en janvier 2022. Les analystes affirment que le Burkina Faso constitue le nouvel épicentre du conflit au Sahel. Depuis 2015, les violences perpétrées par des insurgés djihadistes liés à Al-Qaïda et à l’État islamique ont entraîné la mort de milliers de personnes et déplacé deux millions d’autres.

  Le coup d’État a également révélé la présence d’un schisme au sein de la junte dirigée par Damiba. Le nouveau coup a été orchestré en partie par les mêmes officiers militaires qui avaient participé au coup d’État pour porter Damiba à la tête de l’État. Désormais, ces officiers affirment queDamiba n’a pas cherché à réorganiser l’armée pour mieux faire face aux menaces sécuritaires comme ils s’y attendaient. Au lieu de cela, il est resté fidèle à la structure militaire qui a conduit à la chute du gouvernement du président Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, et a commencé à révéler des ambitions politiques.

  La question de la sécurité reste le premier défi à relever pour faire du Burkina Faso un État démocratique. La fonction principale d’un Etat, et plus encore d’un Etat démocratique, est de garantir la sécurité de ses citoyens. Une armée burkinabè unie sera nécessaire pour atteindre cet objectif.

  Il reste aussi à mener à bien l’actuel programme de transition accepté par la nouvelle junte, qui vise à mettre en place un régime civil d’ici juillet 2024.

  Au-delà de la transition, la nécessité de construire un État et des institutions politiques solides doit être soulignée. Il convient de s’attaquer sérieusement aux problèmes de corruption et de marginalisation économique. La nécessité de renforcer les institutions n’est pas propre au Burkina Faso : elle est essentielle pour toute la région, et en particulier pour les pays qui ont récemment été soumis à un régime militaire, notammentla Guinée etle Mali.

  Quelle a été la réaction de la société civile face à ce dernier coup d’État militaire ?

  À l’image de la désunion qui caractérise la société civile au Burkina Faso, la réaction de la société civile au coup d’État a été mitigée. Mais une partie notable de la société civile a semblé accueillir favorablement le dernier coup d’État parce qu’elle considérait la junte dirigée parDamiba non seulement comme autoritaire mais aussi comme s'alignant avec les politiciens du régime du président au pouvoir de 1987 à 2014, Blaise Compaoré. Ils craignaient ainsi que ces politiciens reprennent le pouvoir et ferment toutes les portes à la justice pour les victimes du régime Compaoré, ce qui constituait bien entendu un scénario plausible.

  Par conséquent, ce dernier coup d'État n'est en aucun cas perçu unanimement par la société civile comme constituant un pas en arrière pour l’agenda de la transition démocratique. De plus, pour une grande partie de la société civile, la sécurité semble être une préoccupation plus urgente et prioritaire que la démocratie, de sorte que l’élément qui a prévalu est l’incapacité apparente de la junte dirigée par Damiba à faire face à la situation sécuritaire.

  L’effort des groupes traditionnels et religieux qui ont négocié un accord à sept conditions entre les factions militaires de Damiba et de Traoré, mettant fin à la violence et prévenant le carnage, mérite toutefois d’être salué. Cet effort semble avoir créé une base pour l'engagement constructif entre la junte dirigée par Traoré et la société civile, qui s'est poursuivi avec la participation notable de la société civile à la Conférence nationale du 14 octobre 2022. Celle-ci a approuvé une nouvelle Charte de transition pour le Burkina Faso et a officiellement nommé Traoré comme président de transition.

  Quelle est la situation des OSC de défense des droits humains ?

  Les OSC burkinabè actives dans le domaine des droits humains et civils sont de plus en plus préoccupées par les représailles contre les politiciens et les civils perçus comme étant pro-français, ainsi que par la recrudescence marquée des groupes pro-russes qui demandent que la France et tous ses intérêts soient chassés du pays.

  De plus, les OSC de défense des droits humains et des droits civils s'inquiètent de la stigmatisation et des représailles contre la communité peule, ce qui vient s'ajouter aux préoccupations concernant l’insurrection djihadiste qui sévit dans le pays. Cette stigmatisation découle du fait que de nombreux groupes terroristes recrutent des combattants burkinabés d’origine peule. Des arrestations arbitraires et des exécutions extrajudiciaires de Peuls en raison de présomptions sur leur complicité dans des actes de violence terroriste ont été signalées. En dehors de ceux-là, aucun autre cas notable de violation des droits humains menaçant les civils n’a été identifié. Par conséquent, même si on n'est qu'au début du mandat de Traoré, on peut du moins déjà affirmer qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une situation d’augmentation des violations systématiques des droits humains.

  Comment la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO) a-t-elle réagi au coup d’État militaire ?

  Conformément à son Protocole additionnel de 2001 sur la démocratie et la bonne gouvernance, la réponse initiale de la CEDEAO a été de condamner fermement et sans réserve le coup d’État, le trouvant inopportun à un moment où des progrès avaient été réalisés par la junte dirigée par Damiba pour préparer le terrain aux élections et à la démocratie. La CEDEAO a également demandé à la junte de garantir les droits humains et d’assurer la stabilité.

  Malgré les sanctions en cours contre le pays, à la suite de sa rencontre avec M. Traoré, Mahamadou Issoufou, ancien président du Niger et médiateur envoyé au Burkina Faso par la CEDEAO, s’est déclaré satisfait et a déclaré que la CEDEAO resterait aux côtés du peuple burkinabé. La CEDEAO, comme elle a tendance à le faire, travaillera en étroite collaboration avec la junte militaire pour rétablir l’ordre démocratique. Le calendrier est maintenu et l’échéance reste juillet 2024.

  Comment les autres institutions internationales ont-elles réagi, et que devraient-elles faire pour soutenir la société civile au Burkina Faso ?

  Les autres institutions internationales ont réagi de la même manière que la CEDEAO. L’Union africaine a condamné le coup d’Etat, le considérant un pas en arrière suite aux progrès déjà réalisés vers la restauration de la démocratie. Le coup d’Etat a également été condamné par les Nations Unies et le Parlement européen.

  Si la communauté internationale veut aider les OSC au Burkina Faso, elle doit avant tout soutenir les efforts de la junte pour éradiquer l’insurrection djihadiste qui continue de sévir dans le pays. Elle doit également aider les autorités à faire face non seulement à la crise actuelle des réfugiés, accentuée par les défis liés au changement climatique, mais aussi justement à la crise climatique qui contribue à la propagation de la violence terroriste.

  La communauté internationale doit également continuer à faire pression sur la junte pour qu’elle tienne son engagement et qu'elle adhère aux accords conclus par l’ancienne junte avec la CEDEAO, afin de mettre fin à la répression des personnes en raison de leur appartenance politique et ethnique et de libérer toute personne emprisonnée pour des motifs politiques.

  ---

   L’espace civique au Burkina Faso est classé « obstrué » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

  Entrez en contact avec WADEMOS via sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, et suivez@WADEMOSnetwork sur Twitter.

• BURKINA FASO: ‘For a major segment of civil society security is a more urgent concern than democracy’

  CIVICUS speaks about therecent military coup in Burkina Faso with Kop'ep Dabugat, Network Coordinator of the West Africa Democracy Solidarity Network (WADEMOS).

  WADEMOS is a coalition of West African civil society organisations (CSOs) that mobilises civil society around the defence of democracy and the promotion of democratic norms in the region.

  What led to the recent coup in Burkina Faso, and what needs to be done for democracy to be restored?

  The current head of Burkina Faso’s ruling junta, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, cited persistent insecurity as a reason for the military takeover – as did his predecessor, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba. Attacks by armed groups are said to have greatly increased in the months following the first coup led by Damiba, in January 2022. According to analysts, Burkina Faso is the new epicentre of conflict in the Sahel. Since 2015, jihadist violence by insurgents with links to al-Qaeda and Islamic State has resulted in the death of thousands of people and displaced a further two million.

  The coup also revealed the presence of a schism in the Damiba-led junta. It was orchestrated by military officers who were part of the coup that installed Damiba as head of state, but who now claimed that Damiba did not focus on reorganising the army to better face security threats, as they had expected. Instead, he stuck with the military structure that led to the fall of the government under President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, and began to display political ambitions.

  The security question remains the first challenge that needs to be addressed to make Burkina Faso a democratic state. The foremost role of a state, and more so of a democratic one, is to guarantee the safety of its citizens. A united Burkina Faso army will be necessary to achieve this.

  The other thing that must be done is to see through the existing transition programme for the country to return to civilian rule by July 2024, to which the new junta has agreed.

  Beyond the transition, the need to build a strong state and political institutions cannot be overemphasised. The challenges of corruption and economic marginalisation should be tackled in earnest. The need for stronger institutions is not peculiar to Burkina Faso: it is familiar to all the region, and particularly to those countries that have recently come under military rule, notably Guinea and Mali.

  What was civil society’s reaction to the recent military coup?

  In line with the disunity that characterises civil society in Burkina Faso, the civil society response to the coup has been mixed. But a notable section of civil society seemed to welcome the most recent coup because they saw the Damiba-led junta not only as authoritarian but also as aligned with politicians from the regime of President Blaise Compaoré, in power from 1987 to 2014. They saw the real possibility that those politicians could regain power and shut all doors on victims of the Compaoré regime ever seeing justice.

  As a result, the view of the recent coup as a significant setback for the democratic transition agenda is not unanimously held among civil society. Additionally, for a major segment of civil society security appears to be a more urgent and priority concern than democracy, so the element that prevailed was the seeming incapacity of the Damiba-led junta to address the security situation.

  The effort of the traditional and religious groups that negotiated a seven-point agreement between the Damiba and Traoré factions of the military, ending violence and forestalling further bloodshed, however, deserves commendation. That effort seems to have established a baseline of engagement between the Traoré-led junta and civil society. Such constructive engagement with the new government seems to have continued, with the notable participation of civil society in the 14 October 2022 National Conference that approved a new Transitional Charter for Burkina Faso and officially appointed Traoré as transitional president.

  What is the situation of human right CSOs?

  Burkinabe CSOs in the human and civil rights space have grown increasingly concerned about the victimisation of politicians and members of the public perceived to be pro-France as well as by the marked upsurge of pro-Russian groups demanding that France and all its interests be kicked out of the country.

  On top of their concern about the raging jihadist insurgency, human and civil rights CSOs are also concerned about the stigmatisation and victimisation of citizens of Fulani ethnicity. This victimisation stems from the fact that many terrorist cells recruit Burkinabe people of Fulani extraction. There have been reports of arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings of Fulani people due to their alleged complicity in terrorist violence. Besides these two, no other notable cases of human rights abuses threatening civilians have been identified besides the ones already mentioned. Hence, even though it is still early in the Traoré-led government, it may be safe to rule out any consistent pattern of heightened human rights abuses under its watch.

  How has the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) responded to the military coup?

  In accordance with the letter of its 2001 Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, the initial response of ECOWAS was to condemn the coup strongly and unequivocally, calling it an unfortunate and retrogressive development, especially in light of the progress made with the Damiba-led junta in preparing the ground for elections and democracy. ECOWAS also called for the junta to guarantee human rights and ensure stability.

  Despite the ongoing sanctions against the country, following his meeting with Traoré, Mahamadou Issoufou, the former president of Niger and mediator sent to Burkina Faso by ECOWAS, said he was satisfied and that ECOWAS would remain by the side of the people of Burkina Faso. In what is the ECOWAS way to respond to military governments, ECOWAS will work closely with the junta to restore democratic order. The timeline stands and the deadline remains July 2024.

  How have other international institutions reacted, and what should they do to support civil society in Burkina Faso?

  Other international institutions have reacted similarly to ECOWAS. The African Union condemned the coup and said it was unfortunate in light of the progress already made towards the restoration of democracy. The coup was similarly condemned by the United Nations and the European Parliament.

  If the international community wants to assist CSOs in Burkina Faso, what it first and foremost needs to do is support the junta’s efforts to stamp out the jihadist insurgency that continues to hold the country hostage. It should also assist the authorities in tackling not only the current refugee crisis but also the challenge of climate change, which is a contributing factor not just to the refugee crisis but also to the spread of terrorist violence.

  The international community must also continue to mount pressure on the junta to deliver on its promise to adhere to the agreements the former junta reached with ECOWAS, to put an end to the victimisation of people on account of their political affiliations and ethnicity, and to set free anyone who has been imprisoned for political reasons.

  ---

  Civic space inBurkina Faso is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch withWADEMOS through itswebsite or its Facebook page, and follow @WADEMOSnetwork on Twitter.

• Celebrating our #1 position on the FAIR SHARE of Women Leaders Monitor

  

  Dear members and allies, 

  CIVICUS has just been recognised as the top-ranking organisation in the annual FAIR SHARE for Women Leaders Monitor. Here's a look at the inspirations that propelled us towards this important outcome! 

  1. Women make up nearly 2/3rds of the civil society workforce, but hold less than 1/3rd of its leadership positions 

  Launched in 2018, the  ‘FAIR SHARE of Women Leaders’ campaign advocates for a greater share of women leaders in the senior management and Boards of civil society organisations. This call is based on the analysis that while women make up nearly 70% of the civil society workforce, they hold less than 30% of the top leadership positions. The Fair Share campaign rightly reasons that the lack of diverse voices in decision making roles undermines the impact that civil society has on critical issues of equity and justice, while also undermining our ability to safeguard our workforce and beneficiaries from abuse. 

  2. A growing number of organisations are sharing evidence of their progress towards the FAIR SHARE commitment 

  The FAIR SHARE commitment requires organisations to take steps to ensure that by 2030 or earlier, the percentage of women leaders (senior executives and Board members) is on par with the proportion of women staff. Participating organisations report each year, indicating the status of women staff across the organisation and how this compares with the percentage of women in leadership positions. This data is reflected in the FAIR SHARE Monitor updated annually to measure women’s representation, hold organisations accountable and generate shared strategies for the achievement of the Fair Share goal. 

  3. A FAIR SHARE journey begins with an honest assessment of failures in women’s representation in leadership

  CIVICUS signed up to the Fair Share commitment in March 2019. I was less than two months into my role as Secretary General when we signed up. Two factors contributed to fast-tracking our decision to endorse the commitment: the  full support of our then Board Chair, Anabel Cruz, and an internal survey analysis on women’s leadership undertaken in 2017. According to this report, a mere 16 percent of management and leadership roles in the organisation were held by women. Not surprisingly there was initial skepticism about our ability to rise to the challenge posed by the campaign. Eventually, this was replaced by enthusiasm for the proposed plegde and a push to meet and expand the required commitments required before 2030. 

  4. We made progress in small but consistent increments... and braved a fair share of attacks! 

  Our progress on staff-related roles was made possible through a series of internal measures undertaken since 2019. This included updating our policies for recruitment and remuneration to be more transparent and equitable, undertaking an in-depth Racial Justice review exercise across 2020 and 2021, which resulted in a time-bound action plan to address gender and racial equity as joint priorities; and moving to a learning-based performance appraisal system aimed at unlocking leadership at all levels. The greater challenge for us in this period was reflecting the FAIR SHARE commitment in our governance roles. The CIVICUS Board is almost entirely elected by our members. Despite a high number of women candidates applying and being short-listed in subsequent election cycles, this aspect of our commitment shifted more gradually. In at least one cycle, significant opposition to the FAIR SHARE commitment was raised by members who felt that their ability to compete for Board roles was being disadvantaged by the pledge. 

  5. We remain committed to expanding the FAIR SHARE commitment and diversifying women’s leadership  

  We continue to learn how to do better at creating workplace conditions that support women in their leadership journey. The integration of remote and flexible working practices during the pandemic has, for instance, been a key driver in attracting and retaining more women from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds. The recruitment of an Equity and Engagement Officer and creation of a refreshed mandate for an internal Diversity and Inclusion Group are other initiatives taken to ensure we focus attention on the intersections between gender, race and other forms of structural discrimination. Ultimately, the greater inclusion of under-represented groups in our workplaces is as crucial to our effectiveness as the strategies we create to address imbalances of power in the wider world. 

  (Lysa John is Secretary General of CIVICUS. She is based in South Africa and can be reached via her Twitter handle: @LysaJohnSA) 

• CSW66: ‘Advocacy for policy change takes time and a long-term commitment’

  CIVICUS speaks about women’s rights and the United Nations (UN) Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) with Helen McEachern, CEO of the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women.

  Established in 2008, the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women works with women entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries. It has already supported more than 200,000 women to start, grow and sustain successful micro, small and medium-sized businesses in over 100 countries.

  What does the Cherie Blair Foundation do, and what challenges have you faced?

  The Cherie Blair Foundation for Women works with women entrepreneurs in low and middle-income countries. We are committed to eliminating the global gender gap in entrepreneurship and creating a future where women entrepreneurs thrive.

  As a UK-based charity working in international development and women’s economic empowerment, we are very concerned about the decision the UK government made in November 2020 to cut the UK overseas aid budget from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of GDP. The impact of this decision on women and girls has been devastating. We welcome the commitment late last year to restore the women and girls’ development budget to what it was before the aid cut. The government should swiftly act on this commitment and restore the overseas aid budget, which will save lives and protect the rights of women and girls. We are also very much looking forward to the new gender development strategy due out from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office later in 2022.

  What issues did you try to bring into the CSW agenda?

  It is estimated that it will take 268 years until women have equality in economic participation and much remains to be done to address economic gender injustices in women’s entrepreneurship, and more holistically when it comes to women’s economic empowerment. In real terms, this statistic means millions of women and girls are exposed to exploitation and are not able to increase the education and health outcomes of their children or enjoy their rights and the choices that come with financial independence.

  The review theme of this year’s CSW was ‘Women’s Economic Empowerment in the Changing World of Work’. Our current advocacy efforts are focused on tackling gender stereotypes that affect women’s entrepreneurship. Gender stereotypes undermine women’s economic rights in multiple ways: they affect their aspirations, sources of support, opportunities, perceptions and access to resources such as finance and markets, and impact on the wider entrepreneurial ecosystem.

  We wanted to use the 66th session of the CSW to recognise how gender stereotypes undermine women’s rights and embed strong calls for action in the session’s Agreed Conclusions.

  Based on detailed survey responses from 221 women entrepreneurs across 42 low and middle-income countries, our recent report, ‘Gender Stereotypes and their Impact on Women Entrepreneurs’, reveals that gender stereotypes are part of the social background for women entrepreneurs, with 96 per cent of respondents saying they had directly experienced them. Overall, 70 per cent of respondents said that gender stereotypes have negatively affected their work as entrepreneurs. Nearly a quarter – 23 per cent – also experienced gender stereotypes or discriminatory remarks while trying to access finance for their business, and more than 60 per cent said they believe that gender stereotypes impact on their business growth and affect how seriously they are taken as business owners.

  We also raised concerns about the challenges women face around entrepreneurship in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. For women entrepreneurs, the pandemic has meant further reduced incomes, temporary and permanent business closures, dismissal of employees, missed business opportunities and reduced access to often already limited finance and capital. 

  Women-owned firms face additional barriers to accessing government support, and are more likely to close, with many citing difficulties with managing additional unpaid care work. Women-owned enterprises are overrepresented in sectors most vulnerable to the detrimental impacts of COVID-19 – such as retail, hospitality, tourism, services and the textile industry. That’s why we wanted to advocate to ensure that a strong focus on women’s economic empowerment and gender-transformational post-pandemic recovery was embedded in the CSW session’s final conclusions.

  We also highlighted the unpaid care work that disproportionately affects women. Before the pandemic, women already spent about three times as many hours on unpaid domestic work and care work as men. The pandemic has increased the unpaid workloads – both for women and men – but it is women who are still doing the lion’s share. This impacts on the everyday lives of women in multiple ways, including by undermining women’s economic rights and opportunities, for instance, to access and pursue education, formal employment, entrepreneurship and leadership positions.

  These themes are critical when we consider the enormous gender economic gap.

  To what degree were your expectations regarding CSW met?

  This was the first time the Foundation undertook advocacy at CSW, so it was definitely a learning experience for us – but a very positive one.

  Our objective was to ensure that women’s entrepreneurship and gender stereotypes that affect women’s entrepreneurship and economic participation were raised, and that in addition to addressing gender justice, CSW’s final elaborations included commitments on these issues.

  We decided to do this by organising a side event and by sharing our advocacy calls with permanent missions by email and through social media. I am very grateful for the collaboration and support from the excellent colleagues at the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the UN, who hosted a side event with us. The side event was co-sponsored by the permanent missions of the Philippines and Sweden. We found many missions and colleagues receptive to this topic and willing to get involved.

  As our advocacy focused largely on tackling gender stereotypes as a critical barrier for women’s rights and economic empowerment, we were delighted to see multiple references to gender stereotypes in the final agreed conclusions of CSW’s 66th session. Also, it was great to see commitments to adopt measures to reduce, redistribute and value unpaid care work.

  Did you have the opportunity to participate fully, or did you experience any access issues?

  We did not travel to New York but decided to undertake advocacy virtually given the pandemic. I think that being present in New York would have enhanced our advocacy. Yet I know the virtual format has also enabled more people to join, as advocating in person in New York is beyond reach for most civil society organisations (CSOs).

  It is important to support partners from low and middle-income countries to attend and join these platforms – and provide sustained financial support to multi-year advocacy work in general. Changes in policies and practices rarely happen in a 12-month cycle or if you attend a global platform like CSW only once – advocacy takes time and a long-term commitment. It is only possible with funding to support a longer-term agenda.

  As participation was fully virtual this year, we lacked direct engagement with UN member states as well as opportunity to connect, share and network with advocacy targets and other CSOs. Time zones can pose a challenge too, but many side events provided an option to receive the recording afterwards, which was a really great way to learn about different key themes if people weren’t able to make an event.

  There is no way that online engagement can match in-person engagement, but if everyone is online then access is equal, and it does open more cost-effective avenues for many more grassroots organisations to join.

  Do you think that international bodies, and specifically the UN, adequately integrate women in their decision-making processes?

  I think the rhetoric of commitment to women’s political leadership and integrating women in decision making is there. Yet the right of women to participate politically and lead refers to participation in all levels and there are definitely gender gaps. I learnt at the CSW that only four women have been elected as president of the UN General Assembly in its 76-year history. Also, the UN has never had a woman Secretary-General. So there is more work to do to ensure women’s equal share and representation in decision-making processes at all levels. We also must make sure that the voice and agency of the most vulnerable women and girls is shaping the decisions of these international platforms. We have seen a rollback in advances in women’s rights in many areas, and thus feminist leadership and women’s political participation in UN processes are so critical. We know women’s political leadership can have an impact across many other areas where women lack opportunities and equal access.

  One way to do better is to tackle gender stereotypes more effectively as they undermine women’s rights, opportunities and confidence. It is important to increase the understanding of how gender stereotypes shape women’s lives, including their access to decision making and leadership, and take concrete measures to prevent and eliminate gender stereotypes and their negative impacts, both in private and public spheres. Further efforts are also needed to promote women’s leadership and agency to address the underrepresentation of women and girls in policy-making platforms and processes.

  Get in touch with the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@HelenMcEachern and@CherieBlairFndn on Twitter.  

• SINGAPORE: ‘The entrenched system instils fear, making progress for civil society slow and difficult’

  CIVICUS speaks about Singapore’s recent leadership change with Kirsten Han, an independent writer, journalist and member of the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC).

  The TJC is a group that works to demystify and challenge Singapore’s criminal punishment system, including by calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

  Who is new prime minister Lawrence Wong and what are the implications of his recent appointment?

  Lawrence Wong is a long-time civil servant who served as the principal private secretary to former prime minister Lee Hsien Loong before entering politics. He’s seen as a stable and reliable leader rather than a maverick. His political approach has so far emphasised continuity and stability, and there’s been little indication that significant changes in human rights and civil liberties will occur under his leadership. This suggests the status quo will largely be maintained, which isn’t positive for civil society.

  We expect a general election to be held relatively soon, but the exact timing is uncertain and will be determined by Wong. There’s speculation the election could take place around September or, failing that, before the end of the year, but no date has been set. This will be the first election with the fourth generation of the People’s Action Party (PAP) officially at the helm.

  The PAP has been in power since 1959 and has undergone three generational changes so far. While there may not be the same level of enthusiasm or reverence for this new generation of leaders, dramatic shifts in the political landscape are unlikely. Any change is expected to be gradual, with the PAP possibly losing more of its vote share, but I don’t expect major upheavals.

  There’s currently little information on Lawrence Wong’s policy agenda. He’s not yet laid out anything very specific about his administration’s priorities across domestic and foreign policy. Every new prime minister in Singapore has promised a more open Singapore, but this hasn’t materialised, particularly not in greater respect for fundamental rights like freedom of expression or assembly. While Wong’s leadership style may differ from his predecessor’s, what really matters is the substance. And I haven’t seen much to be hopeful about for civil society on this front.

  What are people’s expectations?

  There’s considerable public concern about the cost of living and housing. Property and rental prices have risen significantly, making housing a major issue Wong will have to address.

  Among politically engaged young Singaporeans, there’s increasing discussion about Singapore’s role and relationship with Israel, an issue the government is reluctant to address publicly. The government has imposed strict controls on public organising and activism on the Israel–Palestine issue, including blanket bans on public activities and restrictions on the use of Speaker’s Corner, a traditional space for public discourse. Several activists have been put under police investigation for activities in solidarity with Palestine.

  Young Singaporeans are also concerned about racism and racial justice, and would like to see greater openness to differing political views. There’s growing pressure for change and an increasing desire for political plurality, in general and in parliament.

  The government has so far been able to manage a lot of this pressure, including by investigating activists and maintaining tight controls. The entrenched system, with its many levers of power and control, continues to instil fear among people, making progress for civil society groups gradual and challenging. Nevertheless, momentum for change is slowly building.

  What’s Wong’s position on thedeath penalty?

  As far as I know, Wong has not publicly stated his position on the death penalty. This issue remains primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, who retained his position in Wong’s cabinet reshuffle. I don’t expect the government’s stance on the death penalty to change any time soon. If Wong has a different opinion from what the minister has expressed, we’ve not seen any evidence of it. Personally, even if a difference did exist, I’m not convinced Wong’s position would prevail over the status quo.

  Progress has been extremely difficult for the abolitionist movement. It has become increasingly hard for death row prisoners to find legal representation for post-appeal applications. Many represent themselves, and even then, they are often accused of abusing the legal process. In May, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law said in parliament that they’re looking into how to tackle what they say are cases of abuses of legal process, suggesting it will become even more difficult for death row prisoners to file applications.

  This could have repercussions for activists who support them. In the same speech, the minister publicly highlighted my involvement in helping the mother of a death row prisoner file an application. He read out my email address in parliament, accusing me of helping abuse the court.

  In addition, the government is aggressively promoting its pro-death penalty narrative. It has declared an annual Drug Victims Remembrance Day and launched extensive campaigns to highlight the harm caused by drugs to argue that a war on drugs is needed. This narrative basically frames death penalty abolitionists as endangering or betraying Singapore by undermining its war on drugs. The implication is that activists are opposing the country’s efforts to protect people from the dangers of drugs.

  While this response from the government suggests our campaigning has had some impact, it also indicates a strong resistance to change. At present, there’s no sign the government is moving away from the death penalty; in fact, it’s doubling down on its position. The campaign for abolition remains an uphill battle.

  Do you expect the situation of civil society to change under Wong?

  Civil society in Singapore is under considerable pressure. Over the past decade, conditions have tightened and people continue to be investigated for exercising their right to freedom of assembly. As far as we can see, this trend is likely to continue. While there can always be hope that Wong will prove us wrong once he settles into his role, right now there’s no indication anything is going to improve.

  We continue to hear about people being called in for police investigations. Recently, a migrant worker who’d been the victim of harassment, Uddin MD Sharif, was unjustly repatriated. After police closed their investigation without finding the harasser, Sharif was forced to return to Bangladesh because he no longer had a work permit and was no longer needed for the investigation. He appealed to Wong, who Sharif said promised to convey the appeal to the immigration authorities, but nothing changed and Sharif was still sent back.

  This suggests that either Wong has little influence over discretionary policy or he did not prioritise a case that was so clearly unjust. This doesn’t inspire confidence Wong will be more progressive or active in defending human rights and workers’ rights, so I don’t expect civil society to have an easier time under his leadership.

  Civic space in Singapore is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the TJC through itswebsite,Facebook orInstagram page, and follow@kixes and@tjc_singapore on Twitter.

• WOMEN’S RIGHTS: ‘At this pace, it will take us nearly a century to reach equality’

  In the run-up to the 25th anniversary of theBeijing Platform for Action, due in September 2020, CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the progress achieved and the challenges ahead. Focused on eliminating violence against women, ensuring access to family planning and reproductive healthcare, removing barriers to women’s participation in decision-making, providing decent jobs and equal pay for equal work, the Beijing Platform for Action was adopted at the United Nations’ (UN)Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. After 25 years, significant but unequal progress has occurred, not least as the result of incessant civil society efforts, but no single country has yet achieved gender equality.

  CIVICUS speaks with Serap Altinisik, Head of Plan International’s European Union (EU) Office and EU Representative. Previously, in her role as Programme Director at the European Women’s Lobby (EWL), Serap led EWL’s 50/50 Campaign, ‘No Modern Democracy without Gender Equality’, across Europe. She also recently became a member of the CIVICUS Board.

  

  A quarter of a century later, how much of the promise contained in the Beijing Platform for Action has translated into real changes? What needs to be done now so that Goal 5 on gender equality of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is achieved by 2030?

  2020 marks the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action – the most visionary agenda for girls’ and women’s rights. 2020 also marks the countdown of a decade left to achieve the SDGs.

  Over the past decades there has been some clear, measurable progress towards gender equality. For example, 131 countries have enacted 274 legal and regulatory reforms in support of gender equality, maternal mortality has decreased by at least 45 per cent, primary school enrolment for girls and boys has almost equalised and approximately 25 per cent of seats in national legislative bodies are held by women, a number that has doubled over the past few decades.

  However, 25 years after UN member states committed to achieving gender equality and five years into the SDGs, no country has fully achieved the promise of gender equality. If governments continue at this pace, it will take us nearly a century to reach that goal.

  To achieve SDG 5, I agree with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who has called for a decade of action on meeting the SDGs, and wants to make this the century of gender equality. Retrospectively, gender inequality is one of the things that will shame us the most about the 21st century.

  Governments have to invest in consistent gender equality, which consequently means not only enacting laws and regulations but also implementing gender-responsive budgeting consistently. Research shows that where investments are consistent, girls’ and women’s rights are on the rise. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. When adopting regulations and laws, governments need to use a life-cycle approach to address the specific needs of women in each stage of a woman’s life. If we wish to measure and increase progress and learn from data, then data has to be disaggregated according to age, gender, disability and ethnicity, among other things.

  Nonetheless, the most persistent factors that are holding back girls and women to lead, decide and thrive equally as boys and men are social norms, stereotypes and sexism. Studies and experiences of girls and women showcase that household-level practices in many countries subordinate women even when they are educated, even when they are in the workforce and even when they serve in government. Given that the personal is political, as the slogan from the feminist movement of the 1960s put it, gender equality and girls’ and women’s rights have to be a priority in politics, economics, practices and social norms – and this starts at home. It cannot be an add-on if the goal is to achieve the promise of gender equality fully by 2030.

  Looking back on 2019, what would you say have been the main successes and challenges in the struggle for gender equality and women’s rights?

  The rise of authoritarian leaders and the establishment of right-wing governments are preparing a fertile ground for violence and discrimination against girls and women. Therefore, we have seen pushbacks, with attacks on hard-won gains in girls’ and women’s rights in both the global north and global south in recent years. Conflict and humanitarian crises have become more complex and protracted over the past years, and women and girls have found themselves facing the most risks. Unfortunately, discrimination, poverty and violence are still in the lives of girls and women worldwide. It seems that misogyny accompanied with racism is on the rise, while the space for civil society is being increasingly crushed.

  Yet across the world girls and women are raising their voices, collaborating and showing solidarity, and are not willing to wait for change and gender justice any longer. In this, women’s rights organisations and feminist leaders are playing a vital role!

  I am aware that by only mentioning a few successes, I might not do justice to so many other success stories. Nevertheless, for me the main successes have been diverse and inspiring, such as, for example, the first ever woman leading the European Commission since its existence; Sudan's female protesters leading the pro-democracy movement; young women leading the environmental movement; girls and women resisting across the continents. They are challenging the status quo and are at the forefront in highlighting that another world is possible.

  Their actions are changing not only laws and regulations and bringing new deals to the centre – such as the European Green Deal by the EU and the ambition to have equal representation across EU institutions – but they are also shifting social norms and are contributing to the ‘new normal’ in which girls and women can shape the world, too.

  You have been personally involved in theFair Share initiative. What would be a ‘fair share’ of women representation and female leadership, and why is it important that we achieve it?

  Fair Share of Women Leaders is a civil society organisation that seeks to test and showcase new forms of governance that reflect feminist values and principles and overcome some of the pitfalls of power imbalance, hierarchy and bureaucracy of traditional governance mechanisms. We push for proportionate representation of women in leadership roles in the social sector – a goal that we want to achieve by 2030 at the latest.

  Although women make up nearly 70 per cent of the global social impact workforce, they hold less than 30 per cent of the top leadership positions in their organisations. This lack of diverse voices in key decision-making positions undermines the impact organisations have towards achieving SDG 5. In the wake of #MeToo and a number of sexual abuse scandals in civil society, many organisations have had to rethink their strategies. Our sphere needs to start systematically promoting women’s leadership as a lever of change.

  Of course, I have to acknowledge that a lot is positively changing within civil society. Some civil society organisations have committed to developing an organisational and leadership culture that values gender equal representation, diversity and participatory decision-making, but we have still ourselves a long way to go to achieve gender equality. We have to live up to our values if we want to be legitimately asking for positive change in the world. We have to be the change if we wish to see it.

  To push for this change, Fair Share monitors the number of women in leadership to hold civil society accountable, promotes feminist leadership and mobilises men and women to create feminist organisations, and seeks to create opportunities for women from diverse economic and social backgrounds, nationalities and ethnicities who are currently less likely to be in leadership positions.

  Get in touch withPlan International and itsEuropean Office through its websites, and follow@PlanEU and@SeeRap on Twitter.