OP-ED 2 [KSSJAR001]

Violence against women, gender non-confirming and gender non-binary persons is a reality that we have been forced to live with for too many decades. According to Stats SA femicide in South Africa is 5 times higher than the global average. Femicide, is a horror not unique to the South African society. So far this year, just over 100 women were killed in France. 

Two societies and two leaders with contrasting strategies to root out the scourge. President Cyril Ramaphosa should take a few notes from the French Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe on how to approach the crisis. 

France and South Africa have different economical and social factors which contribute to the strategy to eradicate gender-based violence (GBV). However, the impact of the leader of the nation cannot be underestimated. Ramaphosa has floundered where Philippe has managed to keep his head above water. 

The rape and brutal killing of Uyinene Mrwetyana has shaken our society, sparking several actions against GBV from civil society. In 2013, the rape and killing of Anene Booysen rattled the country and in 2017, the murder of Karabo Mokoena was dubbed a wake-up call. Back-tracking even further, in 2005, Fezekile “Khwezi” Kuzwayo accused Former President Jacob Zuma of rape and he was later acquitted. Countless other women have been killed and raped at the hands of men, many remain nameless. If we have experienced at least three tragedies that resulted in mass outcry why is the lived reality not getting any better for women?

Due to Zuma’s nefarious dealings, his Presidency term is frequently referred to as the “lost years”. In his election campaign Ramaphosa promised a new dawn, fuelled by ethical leadership and plans to root out the rot. Well, the new dawn has left much to be desired for the safety of women. 

A summit addressing femicide and GBV was hosted at the end of November 2018. The results of this summit included; a draft National Strategic Plan, plans to consult various community stakeholders and a rapid response team to address emerging issues. Too many plans, not enough action. 

In France, Philippe arranged for a summit to address femicide within a week from when the 102nd women was killed. The outcomes of this summit included; the creation of 1000 shelters and emergency accommodation as well as an audit of 400 police stations to see how women’s complaints are handled. He said further that €5m would be released in the fight against femicide. Philippe went so far as to suggest that those convicted of domestic violence or under a restraining order would have to wear an electronic bracelet to protect women from further violence. Active steps, something our society is begging for. 

When a country is in crisis and civil society feels disillusioned the government needs to step up to the plate. The government’s initial response to Mrwetyana’s murder sparked outrage on social media. In a tweet it called on, “women to speak out, and not allow themselves to become victims by keeping quiet.” This tweet was later deleted and shortly after a string of tweets were posted where government called on, “on men to lead the change we want to see in our society.” Though the second attempt places some responsibility on men, it is not harsh enough as it is widely understood that the majority of the perpetrators in crimes against women, are men. 

This month, thousands, young and old, marched to Parliament, protesting against GBV. The tenacity and anger in the crowd was met by a list of limp promises from the President in his address outside Parliament. The trust between the state and citizenry is broken and therefore promises inspire little to no hope. The question is then, what should the President have done? For starters, he should not have waited until thousands took to the streets to address the public.  The wait communicated an apparent lack of care for the plight of women.

In France, there were no marches and there were no disruptions instead outrage over femicide was communicated through posters and silent demonstrations. And yet, the Prime Minister was able to muster up more than mere promises. Philippe, at a news conference, has some necessary harsh words for men on their complicity in GBV; “very often it is a process of sexist control, so ingrained in our mentalities and our habits that some men have grown used to a form of impunity.” This response was not necessitated by public disturbance and protest but (hopefully) the concern of a Prime Minister for his people. 

Genuine care and concern is the main difference between these two world leaders and their strategy for tackling femicide. We are all aware of the painful reality that the fight against GBV requires more than one solution. This is precisely why the words and actions taken by the leader during this time are so important.